Geologic Proof of an old earth creation.

[Maria Billingsley]

They also start from Adam and Eve, or sometimes from Noah or Shem, Ham or Japheth, though they are in their own native languages, with native cultures and often with native nicknames. Those before the flood might have full names you do not recognize, but have been transliterated multiple times between the flood (complicated by Babel) and Moses.

I dont think so. Just a casual reading of the many creation myths , they are vastly different from Genesis.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The term "Geologic Proof" suggests this is a discussion about science. But the fact that this is in a forum for Christians suggests this discussion should also be about philosophy. Fortunately there is a field that addresses both: The Philosophy of Science. It is a subset of general philosophy and separate from the study of science itself. In this field, we need to understand what scientists mean when they say they have a "proof".

Before I get into what a scientific proof is, it is worthwhile noting that in principle it is entirely possible for an all-powerful God to have created the world 6000 years ago (or ten minutes ago, for that matter) and at the time of creation to have placed in the world all the evidence that would be consistent with a four billion year old world. If that were the case, there would be no scientific means to detect that the world was only 6000 years old (or ten minutes old). Now, the Christian concept of God would not be compatible with a God that created the world ten minutes ago and implanted false memories in people consistent with there being a much longer history because such a God would be a trickster and that is not the kind of God that Christians believe in. I don't seriously propose that God created the world ten minutes ago, and I'm not even claiming that He created the world 6000 years ago. I am just presenting these far out examples to clarify the boundaries between science and absolute truth.

Now let's return to the field of science. A scientist should never use the word "proof." Such a word implies an absolute validation of a theory. A more proper term for a scientist to use is "supporting evidence." Such a term is more provisional, subject to subsequent challenges and revisions. Prior to Einstein, scientists had "supporting evidence" for the Newtonian Laws of Motion. But then experiments relating to relativity found certain cracks in the theory which resulted in a rewriting of the physics textbooks. Newtonian mechanics was still mostly correct, and useful for solving most practical problems to which they had been applied up to that point. So the physicists before Einstein were not wrong to consider Newtonian mechanics to be the best practical understanding of the physical world at the time.

Now we see in the OP some data gathered from the Grand Canyon that according to all the evidence gathered before this, is consistent with a very old Earth. Does it matter? Yes, it does. For if we interpret that evidence to indicate a true history of the development of the Earth, then the geological data gathered from around the world can help to build understanding of how the Earth might develop in the near future. Projections about climate change and other future phenomena rely greatly on such interpretations of old Earth history.

From a Philosophy of Science point of view we can see that it is useful to consider the evidence to point to a very old Earth, even if we don't call it a "proof."

 

[Aussie Pete]

One thing that the sand in a box with water experiment doesn't account for are striations, slickenlines and brecciated fault gouge between bedding planes of unconformities.

The above features demonstrate not rapid deposition of lose unconsolidated sediment, but rather dense structural uplift and motion of consolidated rock, then proceeded by further deposition.

For example, if sediment was deposited rapidly by water, then how or why would fault gouge or striations or slickenlines exist between layers of unconformities?

Like if someone takes a brick, and grinds that brick against the sidewalk, it would leave a linear scrape or gouge or striations in the sidewalk. This same thing happens when massive layers of rock scrape past one another during the formation of things like angular unconformities. Which is how we know that they werent deposited as soft sediment. Rather they formed by the motion of dense solid rock layers moving over one another.

And then, much like in the OP here, you have these features as an angular unconformity then further overlain by flat non-deformed layers, suggesting that the unconformity formed before the layers above were ever deposited (else the layers above would be tilted too).

Ie, the OP interpretation of deep time more accurately represents the evidence.

I won't argue as I don't care that much. I've watched an hour long video explaining Walt Brown's theory, but it was a while ago and I don't remember it all. It seemed very convincing.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Get a clear container, part fill it with dirt, preferably a sandy soil that mixes readily with water. Stir well and leave to settle. It will form layers remarkably like the Grand Canyon. I've read research that suggests this happened during Noah's flood. The argument includes a statement that there is no significant vegetation between layers.

This technique was popular for a while with ornaments. They were usually flat glass with the sandy layers between two pieces. They looked interesting enough but it seems to be a fad that has passed.

We do not know what was under what is now the Grand Canyon. Perhaps the sedimentary layers are on top of existing rock. If you want a complete explanation, look up Dr Walt Brown. He has been researching this for decades. I've been to the Grand Canyon, but my geological skills are about zero. It's truly amazing, so I just enjoyed the wonder of it all.

Having said all that, I believe in the old earth, pre Adamic creation theory myself. No one can prove it one way or the other. It just makes much more sense to me than YE.

Yes... I remember doing the jar with dirt thing when I was a kid.
I have been told that the river has reached a layer of metamorphic rock that is igneous rock that has "morphed" due to pressure into what they call vishnu. There is also granitic intrusion at the bottom which is magma that has solidified. This is super hard rock and is probably why the canyon has slowed eroding at the level it is at.

 

[SuperCow]

Gerald Schroeder has an interesting book that uses relativity and quantum physics to explain how YEC and OEC can both be correct. Essentially quantifying a day in God’s relative timeframe to man’s timeframe.

 

[bekkilyn]

Personally, I'm going with the ancient aliens account.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Before I get into what a scientific proof is, it is worthwhile noting that in principle it is entirely possible for an all-powerful God to have created the world 6000 years ago (or ten minutes ago, for that matter) and at the time of creation to have placed in the world all the evidence that would be consistent with a four billion year old world.

I have heard this theory before and heard it soundly refuted before. Essentially if God lied to us to trick us into thinking the universe is billions of years old, then He most certainly would be successful, and we would fall for it. Reminds me of Picard and the "there are four lights" episode. The Cardassian commander captures Captain Picard and proceeds to brainwash, torture, and drug him. He sets up a series of 4 lights and begins to demand Picard state that there are 5 lights. Hours and hours of torment and beating. Picard refuses to lie and state there are 5 lights.
So, what I am hearing with the above-mentioned theory is God has set up a universe that would trick us into thinking it is billions of years old when it is really only 6000 years old. If we fall for the ruse and believe the almighty lie, then somehow that indicates God is like the Cardassian commander and we are evil. If we do not fall for the ruse, then that is a good thing. But at the same time that leaves us with huge doubts about anything He says and does. Which is the lie? The 6000-year earth dressed up to look like it is 13 billion years old or the account that seems to imply the earth is actually 6000 years old? He is a very successful trickster and I suppose if He wanted to trick us, He could. But in the end, that would say more about Him than us. "Good job God, you got us!" Was the resurrection a lie too? Has God successfully tricked us into believing that Jesus rose from the dead when He did not? How would we know? The entire plan falls apart if God lies. We cannot have faith in a God that uses lies. He has to be faithful, truthful, and unchanging for us to have faith.
I of course refuse all the above. He does not lie.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Gerald Schroeder has an interesting book that uses relativity and quantum physics to explain how YEC and OEC can both be correct. Essentially quantifying a day in God’s relative timeframe to man’s timeframe.

View attachment 310163

Thanks. I will look into it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I have heard this theory before and heard it soundly refuted before. Essentially if God lied to us to trick us into thinking the universe is billions of years old, then He most certainly would be successful, and we would fall for it. Reminds me of Picard and the "there are four lights" episode. The Cardassian commander captures Captain Picard and proceeds to brainwash, torture, and drug him.

As Trekkie I have seen that episode. There are some important differences. We as the audience know that commander Madred is lying. Furthermore, Picard and Madred are relative equals. But the relationship between God and Man is not one of equals. And we do not get to see things that God sees.

So, what I am hearing with the above-mentioned theory is God has set up a universe that would trick us into thinking it is billions of years old when it is really only 6000 years old.

Absolutely not. I was using the hypothetical to illustrate a principle in the Philosophy of Science. As a Christian I do not believe that God has ever or will ever lie or trick us. That is why I do not believe that God created the world 6000 years ago in such a way as to make it look like it was billions of years old. Your subsequent analysis of the "trickster God" hypothesis shows that on this issue you believe exactly as I do. God is not a trickster.

 

[coffee4u]

As a Christian I do not believe that God has ever or will ever lie or trick us. That is why I do not believe that God created the world 6000 years ago in such a way as to make it look like it was billions of years old. Your subsequent analysis of the "trickster God" hypothesis shows that on this issue you believe exactly as I do. God is not a trickster.

The fallacy here is the assumption that it 'looks billions of years old' We don't know what billions of years old actually looks like. We all have a lifespan of about 80 years and mankind as a whole has also not been here for billions of years. So to say 'this looks like billions of years old' is an assumption that mankind has come up with as though he has any real experience in what something billions of years old would even look like. He has no idea what it would look like.

If someone is set upon 'evidence based faith' then you can also find evidence that shows a much younger earth.

Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor.
Every year water and wind erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock debris from the continents and deposit them on the seafloor. Yet the average thickness of all these sediments globally over the whole seafloor is not even 1,300 feet (400 m)

Basing ones faith upon evidence claimed by man is a very bad idea, be it younger or older or something else because that is saying that mankind's knowledge, based on nothing more than assumptions is reliable and something one can put ones trust in. Mankind knows jack all about how God created, how the world was and how much it's changed. He just thinks he knows with his fancy geological layer charts and assumptions.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

If someone is set upon 'evidence based faith' then you can also find evidence that shows a much younger earth.


Basing ones faith upon evidence claimed by man is a very bad idea,

I think this is a straw man argument. Nobody I know is basing their faith on evidence. Mainly because "faith is the evidence of things not seen." There is a clear contradiction in the premise.
But I will say what faith is not. Faith is not the denial of things that are. Nowhere does God ask us to look at something that is self-evident and deny that it is there.
I am a believer in God and the Gospel. Nothing I see in the world contradicts that belief.
Sometimes people say that proof of alien life is being hidden because the religions of the world would be in chaos and the faith of millions would be destroyed. Not so. I don't care if E.T. landed on the White House lawn and set up an Embassies on every streel corner. My faith in God and the gospel would not be shaken one bit. I suspect no true believer would bat an eye. That is because faith is not based on what you see. You do not need faith to know the Rocky Mountains are there. Just look.
I guess what I am saying is that there is no need of being afraid of things we see. There is no need to deny them or explain them away. My faith in God and the gospel is fine.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The fallacy here is the assumption that it 'looks billions of years old'

That is a misunderstanding of how science concludes that the earth is billions of years old. To understand the scientific reasoning involved we need to cover another philosophical principle. That principle is that the laws of physics are constant everywhere and for all time. This principle can only be accepted as a postulate. It cannot be proven. However I will point out that if this principle is NOT true, that would say something about God and His creation. For example, we know how gravity works here on earth. But we have no direct way to verify that gravity works the same way in a star system millions of light years away. But if we assume that the laws of physics are the same throughout creation we can make calculations about the mass of distant objects based only on the movement of objects in orbit around them. Similarly, we know how gravity works today, but if suddenly gravity were to being working very differently starting in 2022, that would be very distressing to those who are currently on the International Space Station, and indeed for everyone who travels by air, and possibly for everyone in the world if that makes the moon fall to earth. So we accept without proof that whatever the laws of physics are, they are constant over time and over space.

The age of the earth is determined by taking physical processes that we can observe and projecting those processes backwards, making many checks to confirm the accuracy of the projection. If those projections are way off, such that they would lead us to think the 6000 year old world is actually a milion times older, that would again suggest a trickster God who has set things up so the laws of physics are not consistent. Really, it is a great blessing that God has given mankind to have created the universe with such simple laws that our limited human minds can actually figure out those laws just from observing the world in which we live. There was a short story written by Isaac Asimov called "Nightfall". (It was his very first hit.) In that story, a world is described in which their planet orbits three separate suns. In this world, the scientists had a much harder time deducing the laws of gravitation because the system of three suns and a planet is so complex that in inverse square law for gravitation is far from obvious. A similar confusion would result if the laws of gravitation were a discontinuous function of distance and mass. God could very easily have created a world in which none of the laws of physics were obvious. But He didn't do that. He created a world in which the laws of physics are accessible to human minds (mostly) and so life is much easier than living in a world where nothing made sense.

So that's how science determines the age of the earth - by projecting known processes backward through time.

If someone is set upon 'evidence based faith' then you can also find evidence that shows a much younger earth.

I don't know what you mean by "evidence based faith". It seems like an oxymoron. But the evidence you cite displays a further misunderstanding of science. Saying that there is not enough sediment on the seafloor to support a very old earth is just saying "I know what a billions of years old seafloor looks like." Not only don't you know, you don't even know what would be scientifically consistent with a billions of years old seafloor.

Mankind knows jack all about how God created...

This goes back to the misunderstanding of what science says. Science does not say that it knows in any absolute sense how and when God created the world. What science does say is that certain hypotheses of how and when are more consistent with what we have observed so far than other hypotheses. Currently the hypotheses that are the most consistent with observations are that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Science say no more than that. Science allows for the possibility of a trickster God that would make such a world that it was actually 6000 years old while being more consistent with 4.5 billion years, but as a Christian, I reject the idea of a trickster God.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Well said.
It is being suggested that the laws of physics could and are changing. If so, then we cannot depend on the dirt under our feet to remain there. Can we trust that oxygen is not going to suddenly become poisonous? Can we trust that our eyes are suddenly going to see things upside down, or actually upside right? What other laws, physical or spiritual, are going to suddenly change on us? Is God going to cancel His word? Are the lost going to suddenly be declared saved and the saved lost, all on a whim? Of course, these things will not happen.
We have to have foundations that we can rely on. If they can suddenly disappear or even reverse, then what hope does anyone have??

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"
Psalms 11:3

That is a misunderstanding of how science concludes that the earth is billions of years old. To understand the scientific reasoning involved we need to cover another philosophical principle. That principle is that the laws of physics are constant everywhere and for all time. This principle can only be accepted as a postulate. It cannot be proven. However I will point out that if this principle is NOT true, that would say something about God and His creation. For example, we know how gravity works here on earth. But we have no direct way to verify that gravity works the same way in a star system millions of light years away. But if we assume that the laws of physics are the same throughout creation we can make calculations about the mass of distant objects based only on the movement of objects in orbit around them. Similarly, we know how gravity works today, but if suddenly gravity were to being working very differently starting in 2022, that would be very distressing to those who are currently on the International Space Station, and indeed for everyone who travels by air, and possibly for everyone in the world if that makes the moon fall to earth. So we accept without proof that whatever the laws of physics are, they are constant over time and over space.

The age of the earth is determined by taking physical processes that we can observe and projecting those processes backwards, making many checks to confirm the accuracy of the projection. If those projections are way off, such that they would lead us to think the 6000 year old world is actually a milion times older, that would again suggest a trickster God who has set things up so the laws of physics are not consistent. Really, it is a great blessing that God has given mankind to have created the universe with such simple laws that our limited human minds can actually figure out those laws just from observing the world in which we live. There was a short story written by Isaac Asimov called "Nightfall". (It was his very first hit.) In that story, a world is described in which their planet orbits three separate suns. In this world, the scientists had a much harder time deducing the laws of gravitation because the system of three suns and a planet is so complex that in inverse square law for gravitation is far from obvious. A similar confusion would result if the laws of gravitation were a discontinuous function of distance and mass. God could very easily have created a world in which none of the laws of physics were obvious. But He didn't do that. He created a world in which the laws of physics are accessible to human minds (mostly) and so life is much easier than living in a world where nothing made sense.

So that's how science determines the age of the earth - by projecting known processes backward through time.


I don't know what you mean by "evidence based faith". It seems like an oxymoron. But the evidence you cite displays a further misunderstanding of science. Saying that there is not enough sediment on the seafloor to support a very old earth is just saying "I know what a billions of years old seafloor looks like." Not only don't you know, you don't even know what would be scientifically consistent with a billions of years old seafloor.


This goes back to the misunderstanding of what science says. Science does not say that it knows in any absolute sense how and when God created the world. What science does say is that certain hypotheses of how and when are more consistent with what we have observed so far than other hypotheses. Currently the hypotheses that are the most consistent with observations are that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Science say no more than that. Science allows for the possibility of a trickster God that would make such a world that it was actually 6000 years old while being more consistent with 4.5 billion years, but as a Christian, I reject the idea of a trickster God.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

.

 

[coffee4u]

I think this is a straw man argument. Nobody I know is basing their faith on evidence.

You have based your belief in an old earth upon geology. Geology is your evidence.

If your faith in old earth is not based upon geology then I challenge you to make a post showing old earth from scripture. No geology.

 

[coffee4u]

The age of the earth is determined by taking physical processes that we can observe and projecting those processes backwards, making many checks to confirm the accuracy of the projection.

The physical properties that we observe are the physical properties of the world as it is now. They were not the properties of the created world. What we have now is the groaning corupt world and saying what you see now is how it has always been is in direct conflict with scripture. It is a gross assumption based upon things unseen and unrecorded.

The present is not the key to the past, the present only shows the present.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The physical properties that we observe are the physical properties of the world as it is now. They were not the properties of the created world.

That contradicts the principle of the constancy of physical laws, and leads us again to having God be a trickster. I reject the idea of a trickster God and therefore the idea that the laws of physics change through time.

What we have now is the groaning corupt world and saying what you see now is how it has always been is in direct conflict with scripture.

That scripture refers to a spiritual groaning for the salvation of our God. It is not say anything about how fast rocks erode or anything of the sort.

It is a gross assumption based upon things unseen and unrecorded.

It seems to me to be a reasonable conclusion based on things that are seen now.

The present is not the key to the past, the present only shows the present.

That is clearly not true. If it were, detectives investigating a crime could never use evidence of a bloody knife to deduce that a murder happened last week. The present is the key to the past.

 

[SuperCow]

You have based your belief in an old earth upon geology. Geology is your evidence.

If your faith in old earth is not based upon geology then I challenge you to make a post showing old earth from scripture. No geology.

Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 come to mind.

 

[coffee4u]

That contradicts the principle of the constancy of physical laws, and leads us again to having God be a trickster. I reject the idea of a trickster God and therefore the idea that the laws of physics change through time.

God tells us quite plainly in scripture that the world changed twice, he also told us that he created over 6 days, so how is that 'trickery'?
Do you think God owes us a long explanation, detailing all the changes? And hes a trickster because he didn't elaborate as much as you want?
Did he explain contagions to the ancient Israelite's when he gave them hygiene and quarantine laws? No, he didn't explain himself at all. He wanted them to take his word on it and obey in trust.

That is clearly not true. If it were, detectives investigating a crime could never use evidence of a bloody knife to deduce that a murder happened last week. The present is the key to the past.

Last week we have experience in. People may have been around to witness the crime or saw something that they can remember that will help track down the killer. Finger prints and DNA are verifiable. They can be matched to living people who exist in the present.

That has nothing in common with something that no longer exists, created in a way nobody knows anything about. You assume the present is the key to the past yet scripture says the world changed twice, that alone should be a big red sign that today's world is highly unlikely to help us figure out the past. That past is gone and wiped away.

 

[SuperCow]

God tells us quite plainly in scripture that the world changed twice, he also told us that he created over 6 days, so how is that 'trickery'?

Say I want to take a trip from New York to Los Angeles. (About 2500 miles for argument sake.) I tell you I made the trip in 5 days driving for 10 hours a day. A quick calculation tells you I averaged about 50 miles/hour to make that time.

You want to make the same trip and want to borrow my car, but you find out that my car’s top speed is 10 miles/hour, so I couldn’t possibly get there in less than 25 days. I don’t tell you that I had a different engine in my car when I made the trip, which made it possible. I didn’t lie to you, but you still have a legitimate reason to not believe me.

It is the same way with the earth. If God’s power is unlimited, then maybe he could create the earth in 6 days, but if he created it in such a way to make it look like it was 4 billion years old, then he still gives me a reason not to believe him. This is what LeafByNiggle means. Why give humans a reason to not believe.

And when the alternative explanation is right there in front of us and much more likely, why wouldn’t it be more likely that God would use a metaphorical description since most of humanity doesn’t really comprehend the length of time for creation, even if we understand the numbers.