Old Earth Geology

Job 33:6 · Aug 2, 2017

The reason I ask is that there are reasons the Devonian shales are considered 400 million years old. If we are to propose shortening this time, we should have some sort of a...way of understanding or determining what that shortening is or how much shortening to apply to the setting.

Job 33:6 · Aug 2, 2017

I just wanted to share something.

In this topic, earlier on there was the thought of where human artifacts are found with relation to older fossils.

I mentioned that archaeologists usually have shovels and dig through soil for human artifacts. As opposed to using rock hammers like you might find paleontologists using. One typically works through bedrock, the other top soil.

And I mentioned that if someone says that human artifacts are found in rock, typically I am just a skeptic and I ask for a source (ive never seen such a thing, and if such a thing existed, I wouldn't anticipate it being common or a usual thing).

So in another topic
Is God a liar?

There is a person who mentioned that, and I quote "lighter, tree, mans footrpint and other new meterial near dinosaur bones" [had been discovered].

Which to me sounds like someone is implying that a lighter was found in rock with dinosaur bone. If the lighter were just sitting in the dirt next to bone that were in rock, it would defeat the position of the persons statement.

So, I simply asked, who found what lighter, and where can I read about it?

The person says it was printed in some sort of a main stream article by archaeologists.

So I simply asked, who and where?

The response?

"I had seen the article last year and now I cant seem to find it anywhere."

So back to the original point, if someone mentions human artifacts found with dinosaur bones, if you just examine the source, you find that they come up short.

juvenissun · Aug 2, 2017

KomatiiteBIF said:
Do you have an idea of how long? Maybe 5 million?

Geologically, it should be clear. I am not sure, but something like a 10+ million years to build up facies in a inland basin.

Theologically, 6000 "years" may not be a far fetch time either. "It depends". As a person who knows geology, you should be able to appreciate the power these two words represent.

juvenissun · Aug 2, 2017

KomatiiteBIF said:
The reason I ask is that there are reasons the Devonian shales are considered 400 million years old. If we are to propose shortening this time, we should have some sort of a...way of understanding or determining what that shortening is or how much shortening to apply to the setting.

The rock age is dated by the fossils, that in turn, is ultimately dated by radiometric dating methods. No doubt that radiometric dates give a timing mark to rocks. But I challenge it to be the true age of rock formation.

So the Devonian shale is simply Devonian shale. We do not really know when was it made. The 400 m.y. is only a convenient timing mark used to compare with ages of other rocks. Furthermore, the length of time needed to make the depositional sequence has nothing to do with the age of the rocks.

Job 33:6 · Aug 2, 2017

juvenissun said:
The rock age is dated by the fossils, that in turn, is ultimately dated by radiometric dating methods. No doubt that radiometric dates give a timing mark to rocks. But I challenge it to be the true age of rock formation.

So the Devonian shale is simply Devonian shale. We do not really know when was it made. The 400 m.y. is only a convenient timing mark used to compare with ages of other rocks. Furthermore, the length of time needed to make the depositional sequence has nothing to do with the age of the rocks.

When people propose that radioactive dating is not accurate, I typically just refer to dating of the K-T boundary. Varying decay rates have correlated in its age, affirming their precision. And, if people want to doubt fundamentals in physics and chemistry, i suppose they can.

Regardless, I like your proposal of 10+ million. As a matter of fact, I did some math earlier myself.

Ill re do it real quick just for fun...

Job 33:6 · Aug 2, 2017

Well, before moving forward, just figured I would share

Palisades sill: A Jurassic intrusion? Evidence from 40Ar/39Ar incremental release ages | Geology | GeoScienceWorld

Its tricky trying to copy and paste but

"Available K-Ar dates from the Palisades sill (142 to 202 m.y.) are generally younger than the ages of post-Triassic intrusive rocks in other areas. 40Ar/39Ar release spectra of chill-zone samples record ages of 192 and 186 m.y. and furnish no evidence of postcrystallization argon loss. These ages are similar to published K-Ar biotite ages (186 to 196 m.y.) and probably refer to the time of crystallization of the sill. As recent paly-nologic studies in the Hartford basin have shown that rocks stratigraphically equivalent to those intruded by the Palisades are, in part, of Early Jurassic age, the 40Ar/39Ar ages are not inconsistent with absolute age brackets on the Triassic Period."

Heres another example of correlating methods.

While the specific shale beds being referred to arent dated, layers above and below are, with correlating results from independent labs using varying methods.

DISCUSSION
A ~ 190-m.y. Jurassic age for the
Palisades sill is consistent with recent
concepts of the tectonic evolution of
the continental margin of eastern North
America. The intrusive and volcanic
rocks of the Triassic grabens are gen-
erally considered to be an expression of
the onset of rifting in the North Atlantic
basin (see summary in Noltimier, 1974).
As extrapolation of sea-floor spreading
rates in the North Atlantic suggests that
the eastern North American continental
margin is between 190 and 200 m.y. old
(Peterson and others, 1970; Emery and
others, 1970; Phillips and Forsyth, 1972),
a ~ 190-m.y. crystallization age for the
Palisades sill is in harmony with this
model as its intrusion should have im-
mediately preceded the beginning of
active lateral spreading in the early
North Atlantic basin (between 190 and
200 m.y. ago)

Basically what they are saying is that, not only do their dating methods and results correlate with the results of alternate dating methods and results of other independent labs, but their results also correlate, or make sense in light of uniformitarian tectonic motion. Theyre correlating the age of the New York Palisades with the splitting of Pangea. Which is further in line with visual observation of the rates by which continents move, as observed today.

Job 33:6 · Aug 2, 2017

To follow up on that,

Plate Tectonics

Averages change depending on where you are on the planet, but often you get tectonic plate movement between maybe 2-5 cm per year.

If we measure from the center of the atlantic to the east coast US, you get near 300,000,000 cm. Divided by 2 cm per year and you get 150 million years, which just so happens to be pretty close to the age at which east coast mesozoic rocks are dated (see my palisades comment above). And this is just a rough estimate that involved me pulling up the measuring tool on google earth.

So, ya know, people can try to criticize radioactive dating all they want, but the evidence is compelling. So yes, devonian is devonian, but that 400 million years comes with specific support. It isnt just a random arbitrary number. It is relatively dated, in ways which correlates with absolute dating, fossil succession dating and further relative dating.

And this is how the geologic timescale has come to exist. Its a combination between superposition, the law of inclusions, and lateral continuity, along with chemistry and physics used to absolute date it. Uniformitarian geology is a summation of correlating dating among various independent fields of research.

Job 33:6 · Aug 2, 2017

Back to the devonian shales though, I did the same google earth extrapolation of distance vs time over the state of new york. I found myself measuring NY through mass. at about 70 million cm, which would give the acadian orogeny an age of onset, of perhaps 35 million years.

So, not including rocks found lower than devonian rocks via superposition and lateral continuity, and not including rocks above the devonian via the same laws, we are looking at an earth that is at minumum 40+ million years old. And this is just looking at these specific rocks, nothing above and nothing below.

Some might propose faster or accelerated plate movement. But this isnt supported by radioactive dating, nor does it make sense with respect to physics and chemistry, as rocks under certain amounts of pressure metamorphose and melt. Expediting continent movement around the planet at any significant rate and you would end up with mind boggling numbers that do not add up with what is visually apparent.

-----------------------------------------------------
To conclude, what we see with our eyes in the world today, mathematically makes sense when proposed as an explanation for things in the past.

Suggesting the world in the past was not as it is today, is not in line with various independent fields of research. And actually contradicts chemistry and physics.

I digress.

But i do have my bias though, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Thanks for sharing your ideas though @juvenissun. I enjoy reading them.

juvenissun · Aug 2, 2017

KomatiiteBIF said:
When people propose that radioactive dating is not accurate, I typically just refer to dating of the K-T boundary. Varying decay rates have correlated in its age, affirming their precision. And, if people want to doubt fundamentals in physics and chemistry, i suppose they can.

Regardless, I like your proposal of 10+ million. As a matter of fact, I did some math earlier myself.

Ill re do it real quick just for fun...

I did not say the dates obtained from the labs are not accurate. They mostly ARE. But they are not likely to be the true age. For geological purposes, it does not make a bit of difference. God creates the process, it is beautiful.

I am not sure what are you doing. Are you trying to figure out the time needed to pile up all the sediments? It is a big challenge, and so far, I do not know how to do it. For example, how long would it take to deposit the Devonian black shale? You probably can get the max. time, but not the exact time, which could be much shorter (or, faster).

Job 33:6 · Aug 2, 2017

Is it the age of earth? Should

juvenissun said:
I did not say the dates obtained from the labs are not accurate. They mostly ARE. But they are not likely to be the true age. For geological purposes, it does not make a bit of difference. God creates the process, it is beautiful.

I am not sure what are you doing. Are you trying to figure out the time needed to pile up all the sediments? It is a big challenge, and so far, I do not know how to do it. For example, how long would it take to deposit the Devonian black shale? You probably can get the max. time, but not the exact time, which could be much shorter (or, faster).

Yea I agree.

True age is interesting. I suppose only God would know. Even we are born and we have a day of birth. But its not as if we did not form from molecules of our parents that may have even came from their parents, like DNA. We give ourselves ages, like 20 40 or 60 years old, but molecules in us, or our DNA and molecules that construct it go back...God knows how many years to Adam, and perhaps beyond.

I suppose the earth is the same way. We assign dates to the formation of structures, but even then, they originate from sources far older.

I saw um, theres another discussion going on where a guy actually was quoting Psalms and Deuteronomy, of scripture that described mountains as ancient and everlasting. And I just wonder, what the original author felt when he was describing creation. A lot of old testament literature, Psalms in particular seems to touch on the power of God and gives sort of awe struck commentary in an attempt to describe Gods infinite power. Its nice to read.

juvenissun · Aug 2, 2017

KomatiiteBIF said:
Back to the devonian shales though, I did the same google earth extrapolation of distance vs time over the state of new york. I found myself measuring NY through mass. at about 70 million cm, which would give the acadian orogeny an age of onset, of perhaps 35 million years.

So, not including rocks found lower than devonian rocks via superposition and lateral continuity, and not including rocks above the devonian via the same laws, we are looking at an earth that is at minumum 40+ million years old. And this is just looking at these specific rocks, nothing above and nothing below.

You confused me.
How would the east-west size of NY State have anything to do with the time needed to deposit the Devonian shale in NY? NY, includes the Acadian Mountain, was not an oceanic rift center.

juvenissun · Aug 2, 2017

KomatiiteBIF said:
I saw um, theres another discussion going on where a guy actually was quoting Psalms and Deuteronomy, of scripture that described mountains as ancient and everlasting. And I just wonder, what the original author felt when he was describing creation. A lot of old testament literature, Psalms in particular seems to touch on the power of God and gives sort of awe struck commentary in an attempt to describe Gods infinite power. Its nice to read.

In the Bible, I am very much surprised, truly surprised, by many descriptions about the moving and the waste of mountain ranges. These descriptions should not be the experience of any human being. Before the modern geology, who could even imagine that a mountain could be worn down?

Job 33:6 · Aug 2, 2017

juvenissun said:
You confused me.
How would the east-west size of NY State have anything to do with the time needed to deposit the Devonian shale in NY? NY, includes the Acadian Mountain, was not an oceanic rift center.

Well, the land masses that collide are atop moving plates. So, while the devonian shales themselves were not directly atop a rift basin, they were pulled by subducting slabs that move at similar rates to seafloor spreading (a few cm per year). Not that sea floor spreading is necessarily identical to rates of subduction, but they are close, otherwise we would have...well, what would that look like? The mantle of the earth would be exposed, or we would have mountains reaching into space.

See figure 3.11
http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/courses/geog383.19/geology_nys.pdf

so, if we guess that this motion of the historic acadian mountains was at a couple cm per year, and we look at the geology of NY...well, theres one more piece here...

In the cross section in the OP, we have our carbonaceous shales tongueing out with sea level rise. But we see those tongues get shorter and shorter as you move upward through the succession and through time, and theyre doing this because the mountain range is crushing inward into proto north america, and theres less water for the deep basins necessary for the formation of those carbonaceous anoxic shales.

So, and youre free to criticize this, but assuming the acadian mountains moved inland at rates that mountains move today, based on the distance that the shale tongues reach out eastward, we get a better idea of just how long it took to deposit those lithostratigraphic units (genesee, west falls group etc).
-----------------------------------------------------------
So, hope im explaining my ideas well but, so lets say hypothetically your carbonaceous shale stretches 10 million cm eastward, further than the tongue above it. At a rate of 2 cm per year, youre looking at a lithostratigraphic unit age of 5 million years in age before the next is deposited over top, given that the acadian mountains are coming in at 2cm per year, and assuming that other factors were not greater in determining the depth of the sea, moreso than the positions of each landmass. This also assumes that the cause of fluctuating sea level remained consistent.

Im not about to write a thesis on this, but I bet you could make a case for what I am proposing. And none of this may hold the accuracy of radioactive dating, but its fun to think about I suppose.

Job 33:6 · Aug 2, 2017

These ideas ^ they also exclude use of the fossil succession as a means of dating, and exclude use of things like radioactive dating of dykes, sills and superposition as well.

I can dream though.

Job 33:6 · Aug 2, 2017

juvenissun said:
In the Bible, I am very much surprised, truly surprised, by many descriptions about the moving and the waste of mountain ranges. These descriptions should not be the experience of any human being. Before the modern geology, who could even imagine that a mountain could be worn down?

What verses did you have in mind?

I actually picked up a geology book, and this is just from the 1700s, so nowhere near as old as the OT. Its the most interesting thing reading the perspectives of people in the past. Their experiences and questions and ideas. Hutton in the 1700s was aware of electromagnetism, but had no idea how people would come to harness and use it. And he said this in his publications, just pondering how people might one day use electricity, without an understanding of what it even was. Then you go back further to the Roman Empire or beyond that to early church fathers, or further to the apostles and you just have to wonder what it all meant to them. And the OT goes back even further than them. The world must have been such a different place. Only God stays the same through the ages.

juvenissun · Aug 3, 2017

KomatiiteBIF said:
These ideas ^ they also exclude use of the fossil succession as a means of dating, and exclude use of things like radioactive dating of dykes, sills and superposition as well.

I can dream though.

Nice idea. I appreciate it.
However, here you are correlating the length of the regression facies to the rate of mountain rising. However, I am not sure how to correlate the rate of mountain rising to the rate of ocean spreading (in other words, you are trying to model this particular collision). I assume somehow you can relay these two rates together. But I am not familiar with any work which was done based on this idea.

Papias · Aug 3, 2017

FYI - Juvi and I went back and forth a lot on geology years ago (I can get into more details if needed). He rejects dating and most evidence, claiming that Noah had a literal ark and global flood that was surrounded by trilobites. I showed him the statement from the geologists that practically all geologists find that the evidence refutes a global flood and a young earth, and he still insists on rejecting the actual age of the earth, evolution, and modern geology.

That's why I'm not sure it's worth your expert time. I appreciate all of your posts, especially since they greatly help lurkers and everyone learn how well we know so much about God's creation over the billions of years.

Juvi, has any of that changed?

Papias

Job 33:6 · Aug 3, 2017

Papias said:
FYI - Juvi and I went back and forth a lot on geology years ago (I can get into more details if needed). He rejects dating and most evidence, claiming that Noah had a literal ark and global flood that was surrounded by trilobites. I showed him the statement from the geologists that practically all geologists find that the evidence refutes a global flood and a young earth, and he still insists on rejecting the actual age of the earth, evolution, and modern geology.

That's why I'm not sure it's worth your expert time. I appreciate all of your posts, especially since they greatly help lurkers and everyone learn how well we know so much about God's creation over the billions of years.

Juvi, has any of that changed?

Papias

He seems open to ideas.

I think its good to be a skeptic to some extent as well. Keeps everyone on their toes, keeps people honest.

I hadnt seen any resistance to post #26 and #27 (argon-argon and potassium argon dating (by different labs) of a sill dating back to pangea is about as old earthy as it gets, especially if those ages are being synchronized with modern plate tectonic theory). Nor theoretical uniformitarianism, nor general concepts of the OP for the most part. Everyone thus far appears to be somewhat receptive.

I think its just significant to note that, these discussions really could never even be possible from a young earth perspective. Taking on an old earth perspective opens many doors in our understanding of the world, and allows us to progress in knowledge of creation. The moment we attempt to understand the world through a young earth perspective, we are left scratching our heads in confusion.

Once I get myself some free time, ill probably look into the dating of those individual stratigraphic units. I'm willing to bet there is already plenty of research on it. Once there is a general understanding that the world is old, then its just a matter of fine tuning the discussion to, ok how old?

Job 33:6 · Aug 3, 2017

Also, sometimes these things take time to pull together. No one ever just woke up in the morning and was like..."ya know what, einsteins relativity actually makes sense.". You gather bits of information over years from so many different sources. It only comes together down the line when you have enough information to actually make sense of it all.

I remember learning about fossils before i even knew anything about the fossil succession and I just came to understand that fossils existed in a succession, almost organically. No one ever told me about biological evolution, rather the geology led me to the fossils, which led further to the fossil succession, which then led me to ask myself why there was this particular order or designed nature to rocks and fossils. And it wasnt until years later that i took multiple courses in chemistry, physics, biology and geology, collectively, that it actually began to make sense. And even then it still has been years since then and i learn more every day.

But you cant begin learning or understanding until you first understand the ancient nature of the earth.

miamited · Aug 4, 2017

KomatiiteBIF said:
Sure.
New York State Geologic Map - New York State • mappery
http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/courses/geog383.19/geology_nys.pdf

The underlying rocks are undifferentiated grenville basement rocks of the proterozoic. Which basically just means theyre really old.

These rocks may vary by type depending on the depth and location, but overall, these are ancient, highly metamorphosed (High temperature, high pressure from subduction), rocks. They arent of Hadean or Archean age, so while old, they are not exceedingly old or the oldest. The earth recycles its rocks over time, and to find the absolute oldest, sometimes you have to look in other locations.

An example of this rock is the fordham gneiss. Gneiss being metamorphosed granite, which is of volcanic origins (Felsic magma). Other sections include marble (metamorphosed limestone) and Gneiss (highly metamorphosed Granite/Metamorphosed Gneiss).

Bedrock Geology of New York City: More than 600 m.y. of geologic history
GSA Geologic Time Scale

Right, I get what the strata of the earth looks like today. I'm asking what it looked like on the day that the earth came to exist? Whether that be 6,000 years ago or 4 billion years ago.

KomatiiteBIF said:
The oldest rocks of today are made of cooled magma. That's just what they are. And magma prior to cooling is hot.

So, there were volcanoes supported by...what exactly? Did they just rest on some solid single rock base or did they sit upon an earth surface that is basically what it is today? Or was the earth just a ball of oozing magma from top to bottom. No discernible reason for it to be covered with magma. Just that it was.

The basic issue is one's worldview of the creation or existence of the earth. Did God speak and the earth appeared in a vast and empty expanse of unlimited space that had nothing in it at the time that God spoke it into existence? Then after He spoke the earth to exist He scattered the myriad of stars all throughout that vast and empty expanse of unlimited space.? Or, did the earth coalesce from some other material that had existed before the day that the earth came to exist? Some big bang of matter or some spit out of an exploding star or colliding planets? How did day one of the earth's existence come about?

You see, it's a lot like the chicken and the egg. Such a question befuddles those who believe in the scientific and natural processes as being the answer to existence. The egg couldn't have come about without a chicken to lay it. But the chicken couldn't have come about without an egg that hatched. However, God gives us the answer to such a problematic question. He created all the animals as to their kind and gave them the ability to reproduce as to their kind. So, per God's explanation the chicken came first because God created the first chicken as a fully formed and mature creature. All chickens since then have been born through the natural process of an egg. Similarly, man was first formed as a thinking and fully grown adult. All people since then have come about through the natural process of the sexual union, excepting of course, Jesus.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Old Earth Geology

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Listening to TW4

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ted

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency