Old Earth Geology Part 1 and Part 2

[Job 33:6]

Yes indeed I misspoke... but archeologists haven't found any such evidence either. Geologists do not find the erosion even on the top of each/any layer thereby disproving long term exposure to elements.

Either you have studied young earth viewpoints or you haven't; either way, you choose not to believe it. I think this thread is not meant for a good discussion but a snarky one, so I'm out.

temple butte erosion - Google Search

Just looked back on this, figured I'd post a picture.

But yea, anyone can simply Google "Grand canyon unconformity" and can look at images of erosional surfaces.

 

[Juvenal]

My ONLY point is: The model of a 4.6 B.Y. old earth is not true.
You may not be able to appreciate the consequence of this point. But it is critical to many other concepts.

For example, the one you should have known well: the theory of evolution. What would it be if the earth is NOT 4.6 B.Y. old? If you think it would be the same, then I will just let you happily think it that way.

If the earth wasn't 4.6 billion years old, we'd still see evolution, but less of it. If it was substantially younger, the theory would be impacted, but the evidence would not. The strata showing species emerging, existing for a while, becoming extinct, and being replaced by novel species, over and over, would still be there.

But we have rocks, or meteorites anyway, that date to that age, so the question is moot. The earth is 4.6 billion years old.

Glenn Morton ran exploration teams for oil companies while writing and ghostwriting for a number of young earth publications. The contradictions between what he was writing for the publications and speaking about at the conferences ... and the images he worked with professionally on a daily basis caused a crisis of faith. To be sure, he's still a conservative, biblical literalist, but he no longer rejects the standard dating of geology or the basic mechanisms of biological diversity.

He recommended Dalrymple's book to me, The Age of the Earth, available for about $6.50 used, in good condition. It's a straightforward presentation that looks mostly at the age of the earth, but also a number of distinct formations, and the solar system itself, using specific examples from basalts to meteorites to isotopic abundances.

The earth really is as old as they say it is, and we're very sure about that.

Merry Christmas.

 

[46AND2]

If the earth wasn't 4.6 billion years old, we'd still see evolution, but less of it. If it was substantially younger, the theory would be impacted, but the evidence would not. The strata showing species emerging, existing for a while, becoming extinct, and being replaced by novel species, over and over, would still be there.

But we have rocks, or meteorites anyway, that date to that age, so the question is moot. The earth is 4.6 billion years old.

Glenn Morton ran exploration teams for oil companies while writing and ghostwriting for a number of young earth publications. The contradictions between what he was writing for the publications and speaking about at the conferences ... and the images he worked with professionally on a daily basis caused a crisis of faith. To be sure, he's still a conservative, biblical literalist, but he no longer rejects the standard dating of geology or the basic mechanisms of biological diversity.

He recommended Dalrymple's book to me, The Age of the Earth, available for about $6.50 used, in good condition. It's a straightforward presentation that looks mostly at the age of the earth, but also a number of distinct formations, and the solar system itself, using specific examples from basalts to meteorites to isotopic abundances.

The earth really is as old as they say it is, and we're very sure about that.

Merry Christmas.

I have that book. It is very good. A bit dated now...1991, but the foundations are sound. If I remember correctly, Dalrymple was the person who came up with the K-Ar dating method.

There is a little bit of somewhat advanced math, and a familiarity with Calculus and how functions show mathematical relationships between observable phenomena, is recommended. But other than that, a very straightforward and easily understood book for the layman.

 

[Juvenal]

I have that book. It is very good. A bit dated now...

Oh no you didn't!

1991, but the foundations are sound. If I remember correctly, Dalrymple was the person who came up with the K-Ar dating method.

There is a little bit of somewhat advanced math, and a familiarity with Calculus and how functions show mathematical relationships between observable phenomena, is recommended. But other than that, a very straightforward and easily understood book for the layman.

He's written extensively on K-Ar, along with a lot of other folks, but I think it's a stretch to given anyone credit for inventing or discovering it. His claim to fame on this topic comes from being a geologist willing to give up time to answer evangelicals trying to push young earthism into classrooms through the courts.

 

[dad]

The East Kaibab Monocline and Butte Fault.
View attachment 213665

The Part 2 challenge for young earthers is simple. Explain how young earth flood geology can account for the sequence, offeset, and unconformities of the above diagram.

Flood geology does not represent young-earth beliefs any more as far as I can tell. It looks like the area in the picture was shoved around and uplifted etc. That probably happened post flood.

 

[Job 33:6]

Flood geology does not represent young-earth beliefs any more as far as I can tell. It looks like the area in the picture was shoved around and uplifted etc. That probably happened post flood.

Nothing represents young earth beliefs because young earthers cannot agree on what their beliefs even are.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Nothing represents young earth beliefs because young earthers cannot agree on what their beliefs even are.

Dude! That's a softball there. You should be more careful.

 

[Job 33:6]

Dude! That's a softball there. You should be more careful.

Haha, I'm just telling it like it is.

These guys will never clarify on their beliefs. Why? Because they can't. And when they do, they end up conflicting with the views of other young earthers because in the end, they're all just making stuff up.

 

[dad]

Nothing represents young earth beliefs because young earthers cannot agree on what their beliefs even are.

Beliving the bible represents their beliefs. The problem has been guessing how science was wrong! Like pin the tail on the donkey. Believers stumbled around trying to get close. Flood geology was an early attempt.

 

[Job 33:6]

Beliving the bible represents their beliefs. The problem has been guessing how science was wrong! Like pin the tail on the donkey. Believers stumbled around trying to get close. Flood geology was an early attempt.

Guessing how science is wrong is a negative action. You can't demonstrate beliefs by pointing how flaws in others.

For example, do you believe dinosaurs were on the ark? Creationists cannot agree on an answer and trying to find flaws in uniformitarianism has nothing to do with this divide.

 

[dad]

Guessing how science is wrong is a negative action.

No more than weighing history or anything else. If a bakery makes yeccy food, it is not negative to read a review and avoid it. If something doesn't check out with other facts, we can guess as to why, nothing negative about that at all. It would be negative to swallow lies.

You can't demonstrate beliefs by pointing how flaws in others.

I don't need to demo mine. Old earth dating needs to demo it's value here.

For example, do you believe dinosaurs were on the ark?

I don't feel strongly about it, so who really cares?
My opinion is that they were not invited because only the original kinds were invited and dinos may have been greatly evolved/adapted from the original.

Creationists cannot agree on an answer and trying to find flaws in uniformitarianism has nothing to do with this divide.

Trying to find flaws in uniformitarianism is like trying to find cracks in the mid-oceanic ridge.

 

[pitabread]

Old earth dating needs to demo it's value here.

Given that it underpins modern geology which has real world application (esp. in the oil&gas and mining industries), I'd say it's already done that.

This is where creationist attempts to discredit modern sciences always fall short; you guys have nothing to replace it with.

 

[dad]

Given that it underpins modern geology which has real world application (esp. in the oil&gas and mining industries), I'd say it's already done that.

Show us how the dates have an application? I thought the patterns of layers and isotopes basically had applications.

This is where creationist attempts to discredit modern sciences always fall short; you guys have nothing to replace it with.

? How hard is it to replace beliefs? If you believe that nature was the same in the past and that this caused all the ratios and patterns, I can believe it was different in the past and caused the ratios and patterns. Your belief set has no monopoly.

 

[Job 33:6]

"I don't feel strongly about it, so who really cares?" -Dad

Exactly my point when I said "Nothing represents young earth beliefs because young earthers cannot agree on what their beliefs even are."

You further display this by not providing any explanation for what young earth beliefs actually are.

 

[dad]

"I don't feel strongly about it, so who really cares?" -Dad

Exactly my point when I said "Nothing represents young earth beliefs because young earthers cannot agree on what their beliefs even are."

You further display this by not providing any explanation for what young earth beliefs actually are.

What would it matter if there were some dinos on the ark or not? I told you my opinion and do not need everyone to agree, as it is just educated guesses and deduction, not Scripture. Trying to pretend that is some example of believers not agreeing is ridiculous. Believers do not know. Science does not know. That leaves plenty of room for opinion! What, you thought God was some unreasonable dictator that did not allow people to use the brains He gave them?

 

[Ophiolite]

Old earth dating needs to demo it's value here

There is always value in appraising reality.

 

[Job 33:6]

What would it matter if there were some dinos on the ark or not? I told you my opinion and do not need everyone to agree, as it is just educated guesses and deduction, not Scripture. Trying to pretend that is some example of believers not agreeing is ridiculous. Believers do not know. Science does not know. That leaves plenty of room for opinion! What, you thought God was some unreasonable dictator that did not allow people to use the brains He gave them?

"What would it matter if there were some dinos on the ark or not? " -daddy

The example of the dinosaurs on the ark question is a microcosm of the overall identity of young earth creationism. The inability to answer basic questions (about what yec is) is a core component of young earth creationism (claiming truth in something while remaining obscure about what that something is).

And this matters because without clarity, for all we know, flood geology does in fact represent YECism. Until YECs can clarify, we will never know what they believe.

 

[pitabread]

Show us how the dates have an application? I thought the patterns of layers and isotopes basically had applications.

This blog post nicely explains it: Can Young-Earth Creationists Find Oil?

? How hard is it to replace beliefs?

It's not about replacing beliefs; it's about replacing applications (e.g. stuff that works).

That creationists still haven't figured this is out is partially why creationism is such a failure. Creationists still have this huge blind spot when it comes to the real world.

 

[dad]

There is always value in appraising reality.

And recognizing it.

 

[dad]

"What would it matter if there were some dinos on the ark or not? " -daddy

The example of the dinosaurs on the ark question is a microcosm of the overall identity of young earth creationism. The inability to answer basic questions (about what yec is) is a core component of young earth creationism (claiming truth in something while remaining obscure about what that something is).

And this matters because without clarity, for all we know, flood geology does in fact represent YECism. Until YECs can clarify, we will never know what they believe.

Not really. I stated my opinion and it happens to be bulletproof. Flood geology does not represent bible believers. In fact, the idea is so full of holes, I am surprised there is anyone left clinging to that sinking ship.