GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[Jazer]

Then, by all means, educate us.

That is what I have been doing, but you pretty much just ignore whatever I say about it. If it does not fit into your preconceived notion of things then you disregard it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is what I have been doing, but you pretty much just ignore whatever I say about it. If it does not fit into your preconceived notion of things then you disregard it.

You haven't once provided a coherent definition of 'Creationism'. Until you do, all we have to go on is the standard definition: "God poofed the universe/Earth/life into existence", generally with the caveat "and it all happened 6000 years ago".

 

[Jazer]

You haven't once provided a coherent definition of 'Creationism'. Until you do, all we have to go on is the standard definition: "God poofed the universe/Earth/life into existence", generally with the caveat "and it all happened 6000 years ago".

You just proved that the Bible is true again. Jesus said: “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” If you are not born again then no matter what I do or say you just will not understand. John 3:12 "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" So if you choose not to be born again, then access is denied and there will be things you can not receive or understand.

"“A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven." John 3:27

So once again you have proven the Bible to be the truth.

 

[createdtoworship]

To be honest, I'm not interested in arguing with someone else's website. I want to talk to you, someone I can actually have a conversation with. If you think there are problems with radiometric dating, fine. What problems do you think there are?


Of course it doesn't exist as a single object. That's not what the geological column is. There's no uninterrupted sequence of layers - but the layers exist. No tree is 10,000 years old, but dendochronology can stack these trees up and align them according to very particular patterns of rings, thus creating a sequence that stretches back very far indeed. Similarly, though no one area has all the layers of the column, the layers can be superimposed to remove the effects of weathering and subduction and so forth. There are also phenomena that can strip strata away (glaciers, erosion, etc), and phenomena that lay strata down in some places but not others (e.g., lakes and oceans lay strata down that won't appear in contemporary deserts). These strata are 'missing', but not in any way that geologists aren't very much aware of.


Kent Hovind? The man who demonstrably lies to the people he preaches to (he's been corrected on many issues, acknowledges these corrections, and then goes right on back to making the same mistakes), and who steals money from those preaches to pay for his taxes?

Yeah, I'm disinclined to believe a tax-evading snake-oil salesman, and I'm surprised you would too.


Basically, TalkOrigins has an extensive list of refutations for these various Creationists arguments ("layers of strata are missing", "dates and index fossils were plucked out of a hat 150 years ago", etc), and I won't bother repeating them. The article is here, and it serves as a specific refutation of Hovind's arguments (particularly apt, since you cited Hovind himself), and a general refutation for these sorts of arguments.

So, my point is, your objection to radiometric dating and the geologic column doesn't seem to be based on anything solid, just the persistent lies of a tax-evader.

well for one, the dating of the geologic column suggests that the fossils are dated from the strata they are in and the strata are dated from the fossils they contain. So it's circular reasoning.

 

[Jazer]

well for one, the dating of the geologic column suggests that the fossils are dated from the strata they are in and the strata are dated from the fossils they contain. So it's circular reasoning.

What difference does it make how old they are or what date they assign?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You just proved that the Bible is true again.

Again? Where else did I do that?

Jesus said: “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” If you are not born again then no matter what I do or say you just will not understand. John 3:12 "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" So if you choose not to be born again, then access is denied and there will be things you can not receive or understand.

"“A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven." John 3:27[/quote]
Isn't that convenient. Do it anyway. Explain to me what Creationism is, such that someone who is 'born again' would understand.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

well for one, the dating of the geologic column suggests that the fossils are dated from the strata they are in and the strata are dated from the fossils they contain. So it's circular reasoning.

But they're not. Strata are dated relatively, using the simple principle that higher strata are younger than lower strata, and absolutely, using radiometric dating to give us absolute ages. Some fossils are used as index fossils, because they only occur at a particular stratum, or between particular strata, and so their presence can be used to identify a particular layer - but they are not used to give absolute dates, since it's possible the new fossil proves the species lived in other layers too. They act as guidelines and signposts, not absolute markers. Moreover, they don't give us any dates. For that, we need radiometrics.

If we're right, everything should come together nicely. Index fossils should exist only in layers after which, according to evolution, they evolved. Radiometric dates of two strata should place the younger above the former (ad infinitum, giving a series of absolute dates that run linearly). Relative dates should tie everything else together.

Lo and behold, it all works.

Combined, we should get a coherent view of what we find., so the whole thing will either tie together or fall apart - and, lo and behold, it ties together.

TalkOrigins has more detailed refutations of this common Creationist argument here and here.

 

[Jazer]

Explain to me what Creationism is, such that someone who is 'born again' would understand.

You can only understand the things of God IF your born again. If you are not born again then the Bible says that there are going to be things that your not able to understand.

There are three different "theorys" of Creationism. OEC stand for old earth creationism. Some people call this the day age theory. A day in Genesis can be millions or billions of years. Then there is GAP. Some people call this the ruin restoration theory. This covers just the last 12,982 years. A day in Genesis is 1000 years. For the most part this is a very literal understanding of the Bible. Then there is YEC. Young Earth Creationism. This basicly covers the last 6,000 years. They believe that a day in Genesis is one day. So you have three different theorys that cover three different periods of time. I am GAP and that is what I study the most.

 

[Freodin]

Give it up, Wiccan. It is like fighting a hydra. Every time you debate one creationist, another one comes up and declares "I believe something completely different, and you haven't debated that!"

And when you try to argue this new point, the debate gets swamped and after a few dozen unrelated posts, a different creationist comes up with "Well... but MY position now is something new and different and undefeated."

 

[createdtoworship]

But they're not. Strata are dated relatively, using the simple principle that higher strata are younger than lower strata, and absolutely, using radiometric dating to give us absolute ages. Some fossils are used as index fossils, because they only occur at a particular stratum, or between particular strata, and so their presence can be used to identify a particular layer - but they are not used to give absolute dates, since it's possible the new fossil proves the species lived in other layers too. They act as guidelines and signposts, not absolute markers. Moreover, they don't give us any dates. For that, we need radiometrics.

If we're right, everything should come together nicely. Index fossils should exist only in layers after which, according to evolution, they evolved. Radiometric dates of two strata should place the younger above the former (ad infinitum, giving a series of absolute dates that run linearly). Relative dates should tie everything else together.

Lo and behold, it all works.

Combined, we should get a coherent view of what we find., so the whole thing will either tie together or fall apart - and, lo and behold, it ties together.

TalkOrigins has more detailed refutations of this common Creationist argument here and here.

from what I understand they do not use radiometric dating on the geologic column they date the column by the fossils, and then they date the fossils by the column. Thats just the way it's done. According to these texts book in
1994 Glenco Biology page 306,307
American Journal of Science, J.E. O'Rouke, page 276:51

"I can think of no cases of radio active decay being used to date fossils"
Fossil Frustrations, New Scientist volume 100, Ager Derek v, p425

"radiometric dating would not even be feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first"
Ibid. Journal of Science, pg 54

For example, in an interview with *Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland, asked him: "How do you date fossils?" His reply: "By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found." Sunderland then asked him if this were not circular reasoning, and *Fisher replied, "Of course, how else are you going to do it?" (Bible Science Newsletter, December, p. 6.)

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of science

The paleontology director of the Field Museum in Chicago admits the problem exists.

"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."—*David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, p. 21.

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, p. 48.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You can only understand the things of God IF your born again. If you are not born again then the Bible says that there are going to be things that your not able to understand.

Yes, I get that. But explain it to me anyway. I'm baffled that there can be an explanation of events that only makes sense to True Christians™ - does God endow them with comprehensive abilities that overrides normal logical objections to such events?

There are three different "theorys" of Creationism.

Is this factoid bestowed upon you when you become Born Again? When you emerge from the waters of baptism (or however you became Born Again), did you ascend with full knowledge of all this, not having been told or taught by anyone else?

OEC stand for old earth creationism. Some people call this the day age theory. A day in Genesis can be millions or billions of years. Then there is GAP. Some people call this the ruin restoration theory. This covers just the last 12,982 years. A day in Genesis is 1000 years. For the most part this is a very literal understanding of the Bible. Then there is YEC. Young Earth Creationism. This basicly covers the last 6,000 years. They believe that a day in Genesis is one day. So you have three different theorys that cover three different periods of time. I am GAP and that is what I study the most.

See, I understand all that. It makes perfect sense. I'm by no means a Born Again Christian, so by your logic I shouldn't be able to comprehend any of it - but I do. If I were Born Again, what would change?

I do have objections, however. These objections don't affect your explanation (succinct and informative as it is), but rather, I find it odd that though you define YEC as being only concerned with the last 6000 years of history - that's not how self-professed Young Earth Creationists define it. YECism is typified by people who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, and no older. Gallup polls show that this is not only the majority position of self-professed Creationists, but the majority position in the USA.

Your series of definitions make sense, and they're not hard to understand at all. But they contradict the 'Creationism' of the majority of self-professed Creationists.

So, first of all, where exactly is the complication? What part of the definition of 'Creationism' is utterly incomprehensible to those who aren't Born Again? I fully understand your words, and have bookmarked it for further discussion with you (this is hardly going to be our last, is it ), so I'm not entirely sure why you think you need to be Born Again™ to understand it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Give it up, Wiccan. It is like fighting a hydra. Every time you debate one creationist, another one comes up and declares "I believe something completely different, and you haven't debated that!"

And when you try to argue this new point, the debate gets swamped and after a few dozen unrelated posts, a different creationist comes up with "Well... but MY position now is something new and different and undefeated."

Yup -- like trying to debate how we got our moon(s), isn't it?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

from what I understand they do not use radiometric dating on the geologic column they date the column by the fossils, and then they date the fossils by the column. Thats just the way it's done.

But doesn't it strike you as so obviously circular that someone would have realised? As I cited before, TalkOrigins have two exhaustive refutations of these kinds of arguments - whatever you may have heard, scientists really don't date things like that.

According to these texts book in
1994 Glenco Biology page 306,307
American Journal of Science, J.E. O'Rouke, page 276:51

"I can think of no cases of radio active decay being used to date fossils"
Fossil Frustrations, New Scientist volume 100, Ager Derek v, p425

This is a rather common quotation, but sadly it's taken out of context from Ager's essay on his fustration of physicists taking most of the credit for palaeontological discoveries. His full quote is as follows:

"No palaeontologist worthy of the name would ever date his fossils by the strata in which they are found. It is almost the first thing I teach my first-year students. Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. Oil companies spend millions of pounds employing palaeontologists to date the sediments found in their boreholes. Palaeontology is many things, but its most practical application is in providing a dating service second to none.

As for having all the credit passed to physicists and the measurement of isotopic decay, the blood boils! Certainly such studies give dates in terms of millions of years, with huge margins of error, but this is an exceedingly crude instrument with which to measure our strata and I can think of no occasion when it has been put to immediate practical use. Apart from very "modern" examples, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils. In fact, fossils such as small marine invertebrate and plant spores and pollen are constantly used as precision tools in dating the rocks. We are measuring in millimetres while the physicists are measuring kilometres. ..."
​

So not only is the quote out-of-context, and not only is the full quotation actually a rather unscientific rant against physicists, but the full quotation actually argues against your claim, stating that palaeontologists don't date fossil by the strata they're found in. Ager's whole spiel is his indignation at physicists dating fossils using radiometric dating rather than his idealised strata.

"radiometric dating would not even be feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first"
Ibid. Journal of Science, pg 54

I fear you've succumb to another Creationist quote-mine. Here is the full quotation:

"Even after the analyses are calculated as dates, they have no geologic significance until placed in the context of previous work on maps. Otherwise each analysis represents only its particular sample. Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.

"The technique having passed its pragmatic test, some enthusiasts are already talking about its replacing stratigraphy entirely. They even say that radiometric dates calibrate stratigraphy" - Vita-Finzi, 1973 p. xi, p. 1-3.

So, when we look at the quote in context, we see that they're not actually making some secret claim about circular logic. Rather, they're pointing out the historical importance of pre-radiometric stratigraphy in basically creating the whole field of dating strata. It's nothing more than a nod to the efforts of those scientists who went before.

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, p. 48.

A philosophical discourse, rather than a scientific publication. It is not so much a refutation of the veracity of stratigraphy, but rather a jumbled and confused diatribe. Nonetheless, O'Rourke is careful to write (however sloppily):

"The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. it can be ignored, as not the proper concern of the public. It can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. Fossil dates rocks, not vice-versa, and that's that. It can be admitted, as a common practice. The time scales of physics and astronomy are obtained by comparing one process with another. They can be compared with the geologic processes of sedimentation, organic evolution, and radioactivity. Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning.

The first step is to explain what is done in the field in simple terms that can be tested directly. The field man records his sense perceptions on isomorphic maps and sections, abstracts the more diagnostic rock features, and arranges them according to their vertical order. He compares this local sequence to the global column obtained from a great many man-years of work against his predecessors. As long as this cognitive process is acknowledged as the pragmatic basis of stratigraphy, both local and global sections can be treated as chronologies without reproach."
​

As should be clear, your quotation was both out-of-context and wholly misrepresentative of what he was actually trying to say.

For example, in an interview with *Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland, asked him: "How do you date fossils?" His reply: "By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found." Sunderland then asked him if this were not circular reasoning, and *Fisher replied, "Of course, how else are you going to do it?" (Bible Science Newsletter, December, p. 6.)

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of science

The paleontology director of the Field Museum in Chicago admits the problem exists.

"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."—*David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, p. 21.

I'm now disinclined to give exhaustive refutations of further quotes, since, with all due respect, it's quite likely you haven't actually read any of these quotes beyond what Creationist sites have parroted. I can only recommend that you actually research the quotes you cite before you cite them (without sourcing the original Creationist site, which is tantamount to plagiarism).

 

[Astridhere]

You can only understand the things of God IF your born again. If you are not born again then the Bible says that there are going to be things that your not able to understand.

There are three different "theorys" of Creationism. OEC stand for old earth creationism. Some people call this the day age theory. A day in Genesis can be millions or billions of years. Then there is GAP. Some people call this the ruin restoration theory. This covers just the last 12,982 years. A day in Genesis is 1000 years. For the most part this is a very literal understanding of the Bible. Then there is YEC. Young Earth Creationism. This basicly covers the last 6,000 years. They believe that a day in Genesis is one day. So you have three different theorys that cover three different periods of time. I am GAP and that is what I study the most.

Hi there

I align with humans being in line with biblical chronology, but I have no problem as to the age of the earth and other life forms.

For me which creationist version is correct rests on how much faith we want to put in any of the dating offered under inaccurate assumptions and data inserted into their algorithms. However, all algorithms are based on an assumption.

Young Age Evidence - Answers in Genesis

Obviously there are evolutionist refutes to all creationist work but I do not concern myself about this as evolutionary researchers debate and discredit each other all the time anyway and they still adhere to TOE, despite it.

This thread is about the most valid creationist model. It is interesting that non creationists feel the need to throw in their 5 cents worth, when nothing they have to say is going to inform the discussion nor progress it.

The YECs have some good stuff going, so do the IDers as far as dating goes. The most important thing is that we can clearly see the evidence found by researchers supports biblical creationist paradigms. For me, it is just a matter of which dating method is accurate, if any of them are at all.

 

[createdtoworship]

But doesn't it strike you as so obviously circular that someone would have realised? As I cited before, TalkOrigins have two exhaustive refutations of these kinds of arguments - whatever you may have heard, scientists really don't date things like that.


This is a rather common quotation, but sadly it's taken out of context from Ager's essay on his fustration of physicists taking most of the credit for palaeontological discoveries. His full quote is as follows:

"No palaeontologist worthy of the name would ever date his fossils by the strata in which they are found. It is almost the first thing I teach my first-year students. Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. Oil companies spend millions of pounds employing palaeontologists to date the sediments found in their boreholes. Palaeontology is many things, but its most practical application is in providing a dating service second to none.

As for having all the credit passed to physicists and the measurement of isotopic decay, the blood boils! Certainly such studies give dates in terms of millions of years, with huge margins of error, but this is an exceedingly crude instrument with which to measure our strata and I can think of no occasion when it has been put to immediate practical use. Apart from very "modern" examples, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils. In fact, fossils such as small marine invertebrate and plant spores and pollen are constantly used as precision tools in dating the rocks. We are measuring in millimetres while the physicists are measuring kilometres. ..."
​

So not only is the quote out-of-context, and not only is the full quotation actually a rather unscientific rant against physicists, but the full quotation actually argues against your claim, stating that palaeontologists don't date fossil by the strata they're found in. Ager's whole spiel is his indignation at physicists dating fossils using radiometric dating rather than his idealised strata.


I fear you've succumb to another Creationist quote-mine. Here is the full quotation:

"Even after the analyses are calculated as dates, they have no geologic significance until placed in the context of previous work on maps. Otherwise each analysis represents only its particular sample. Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.

"The technique having passed its pragmatic test, some enthusiasts are already talking about its replacing stratigraphy entirely. They even say that radiometric dates calibrate stratigraphy" - Vita-Finzi, 1973 p. xi, p. 1-3.

So, when we look at the quote in context, we see that they're not actually making some secret claim about circular logic. Rather, they're pointing out the historical importance of pre-radiometric stratigraphy in basically creating the whole field of dating strata. It's nothing more than a nod to the efforts of those scientists who went before.




A philosophical discourse, rather than a scientific publication. It is not so much a refutation of the veracity of stratigraphy, but rather a jumbled and confused diatribe. Nonetheless, O'Rourke is careful to write (however sloppily):

"The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. it can be ignored, as not the proper concern of the public. It can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. Fossil dates rocks, not vice-versa, and that's that. It can be admitted, as a common practice. The time scales of physics and astronomy are obtained by comparing one process with another. They can be compared with the geologic processes of sedimentation, organic evolution, and radioactivity. Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning.

The first step is to explain what is done in the field in simple terms that can be tested directly. The field man records his sense perceptions on isomorphic maps and sections, abstracts the more diagnostic rock features, and arranges them according to their vertical order. He compares this local sequence to the global column obtained from a great many man-years of work against his predecessors. As long as this cognitive process is acknowledged as the pragmatic basis of stratigraphy, both local and global sections can be treated as chronologies without reproach."
​

As should be clear, your quotation was both out-of-context and wholly misrepresentative of what he was actually trying to say.


I'm now disinclined to give exhaustive refutations of further quotes, since, with all due respect, it's quite likely you haven't actually read any of these quotes beyond what Creationist sites have parroted. I can only recommend that you actually research the quotes you cite before you cite them (without sourcing the original Creationist site, which is tantamount to plagiarism).

So your website doesn't refute the other quotes huh? Well, it doesn't matter anyway because, there is no reason for the geologic column if it is not for the dates it sets. So why not just go with radio metric dating and take the column out of the picture since it's not doing what it was meant to.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So your website doesn't refute the other quotes huh?

What website? I gave extensive and rather time-consuming refutations for various quotes you gave, and then I realised that you hadn't actually researched the quotes yourself. You had plagiarised them from various Creationists websites. And if you hadn't taken the time to check them yourself, it's pretty cheeky to dump all the manual labour onto me. This is meant to be a converstation, an exchange of ideas - but instead you cite decades-old out-of-context quotes.

Well, it doesn't matter anyway because, there is no reason for the geologic column if it is not for the dates it sets. So why not just go with radio metric dating and take the column out of the picture since it's not doing what it was meant to.

The geologic column isn't meant to do anything. It's a real, physical phenomenon. Strata exist, and they exist in sequence. The reason it's so often cited is because it constitutes very strong evidence indeed for evolution. Radiometric dating is a whole other set of evidence whose veracity is wholly independant of stratigraphy. But even though both are based on completely different physical laws, they both give exactly the same results. If they're both completely wrong (as the Creationist must believe), isn't it a rather big coincidence that these two* very independent tests give exactly the same results time and time again?

*'Two' is something of an understatement. There are a great many radiometrics, and each of those is completely unrelated to any of the others, yet they all magically give the same results. So when Creationists say radiometric dating is 'wrong', it just beggars beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

The geologic column isn't meant to do anything. It's a real, physical phenomenon. Strata exist, and they exist in sequence. The reason it's so often cited is because it constitutes very strong evidence indeed for evolution.

Either that, or it's evidence that Someone omnipotent, Who does things 'decently and in order', cleaned up a worldwide catastrophe.

 

[createdtoworship]

What website? I gave extensive and rather time-consuming refutations for various quotes you gave, and then I realised that you hadn't actually researched the quotes yourself. You had plagiarised them from various Creationists websites. And if you hadn't taken the time to check them yourself, it's pretty cheeky to dump all the manual labour onto me. This is meant to be a converstation, an exchange of ideas - but instead you cite decades-old out-of-context quotes.


The geologic column isn't meant to do anything. It's a real, physical phenomenon. Strata exist, and they exist in sequence. The reason it's so often cited is because it constitutes very strong evidence indeed for evolution. Radiometric dating is a whole other set of evidence whose veracity is wholly independant of stratigraphy. But even though both are based on completely different physical laws, they both give exactly the same results. If they're both completely wrong (as the Creationist must believe), isn't it a rather big coincidence that these two* very independent tests give exactly the same results time and time again?

*'Two' is something of an understatement. There are a great many radiometrics, and each of those is completely unrelated to any of the others, yet they all magically give the same results. So when Creationists say radiometric dating is 'wrong', it just beggars beliefs.

where does the column exist, if it existed it would be 100 miles thick. Besides there are only a few dozen places where the fossils lined up by chance the way the column suggests they should. Thats hardly evidence of anything other than wishful thinking. Hundreds of locations are known where the order of the systems identified by geologists does not match the order of the geologic column.

Dating:

"When asked to document the most reliable radiometric age dates, geologists usually point to isochron and concordia plots which employ multiple isotopic analyses, which they claim will remove the effects of original "contaminants," and display the "age" of a rock in graphical form. However, we find geologists often reporting isochron plots which are discordant with the accepted "ages" of strata systems."

R.V. Gentry, et al., "Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to the time of uranium introduction and coalification," Science, Vol. 194, pp. 315-318.

Missing Layers:

"Perhaps the most blatant environmental picture" has been assigned to lower Precambrian strata, formed when the earth supposedly had a reducing atmosphere and an "organic soup" in which life evolved. Yet, geologists have yet to find sedimentary evidence for the reducing atmosphere and the soup."

S.A. Austin, "Did the early earth have a reducing atmosphere?" ICR Impact 109, July 1982, 4 pp.

 

[USincognito]

where does the column exist, if it existed it would be 100 miles thick. Besides there are only a few dozen places where the fossils lined up by chance the way the column suggests they should. Thats hardly evidence of anything other than wishful thinking.

You really should familiarize yourself with Glenn Morton's website. He was a YEC who went into the oil business and discovered his YECism didn't match with what he was seeing in the geology - much like the earliest geologists who set out to prove the Flood happened. Here's his evidence for the geologic column existing in one place, plus citations of it in about 30 other locations.
The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota

 

[createdtoworship]

You really should familiarize yourself with Glenn Morton's website. He was a YEC who went into the oil business and discovered his YECism didn't match with what he was seeing in the geology - much like the earliest geologists who set out to prove the Flood happened. Here's his evidence for the geologic column existing in one place, plus citations of it in about 30 other locations.
The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota

I don't like playing tag with sites, please discuss your arguments with me.

here is more evidence against it...

A well-known "living fossil" is a fish called coelacanth." It was found fossilized early on and the estimate, or guess, of its age was 300 million years. Later estimates (guesses) reduced the age of this fossil to 150 million years, and still later it was reduced to 75 million years. (Those are enormous differences, of course, and should cause caution on the part of researchers.)

This writer does not believe in such enormously high dates. However, let's grant that they are acceptable and look at the reasoning behind such vast ages. If the coelacanth. is used as an index fossil it must have died out entirely 300 million years ago (or 150 or 75 million, whichever is felt to be the most likely). Thus it should be impossible to find any living on the earth at the present time.

But, LIVING COELACANTH. HAVE BEEN FOUND IN MADAGASCAR and they are EXACTLY THE SAME as the fossils! They never evolved, but have continued the same ever since they were created. They cannot be "index fossils" anymore because they would have existed (in the evolutionary time frame) 300 million years ago. They would also have been found 75 million years ago, and they were still around 10 million years ago, and even 1 million, or 100,000 years ago, and so on, down to this very hour! They cannot be used to date any stratum in the column -- none at all -- for they are still being found alive and unchanged.

However, the coelacanth. is not alone. There are large numbers of "living fossils," all of which are evidence against the Geological Column, causing its collapse -- except in the minds of those who don't want evidence, but believe it by faith!


living fossils that haven't evolved since the geological column suggests

Ancient Days :: Evidence Invalidates Geological Column by Dr. David Livingston