Old Earth Geology

Dale said:

It is my experience that creationists don't understand this. They expect us to believe that all oil deposits and all coal deposits were laid down in one massive event, Noah's Flood. Yet we know this isn't possible because there are too many different strata, different levels with their own characteristics, laid down at different times.

Click to expand...

Old earth creationists understand this.

I'm_Sorry said:

What if the earth is flat?

How can we date rocks if the geological theory has its foundations in cosmology?

If the earth is the centre and not the sun, all dating goes out the window.

Click to expand...

The earth is quite flat. Not 100%, but very flat.
Because all space is expanding, any point can be considered the middle.

Dale said:

Since you know far moe about geology than I do, correct me if I'm wrong.

In areas where there are oil-bearing strata, oil is often found at more than one level. It is very common for oil to be found at two widely different depths, or even three or four. The reason is simple. These oil deposits were laid down at different times in geologic history.

It is my experience that creationists don't understand this. They expect us to believe that all oil deposits and all coal deposits were laid down in one massive event, Noah's Flood. Yet we know this isn't possible because there are too many different strata, different levels with their own characteristics, laid down at different times.

Click to expand...

Floods have many characteristics, uniformity and predictability of the process, is not one of them.

KomatiiteBIF said:

I figured I would make a thread on the geology of New York, to see what Young Earth Creationists might think.

The discussion begins with the diagram below.

Genesee Group (NYDg;4)
Sonyea Group (NYDs;5)
Angola and Rhinestreet Shales (NYDwf;4)
Machias Formation (NYDcy;4)

At the base, limestone. Limestone largely consisting of microscopic carbonaceous shells. Derived from deep sea shelled organisms. These are rocks formed at great depths.

Dark carbonaceous shales (identified in the figure as black shale facies) are rich in organics. Formed in anoxic environments without oxygen for decomposition. With higher amounts of organic material, shales take on a dark black color. With less oxygen, oxygen poor environments yield precipitation of sulfide minerals.

These dark shales form in an environment also of a deep sea, but with influence from nearby deposition of sediment.

Above the black shale facies are mudstone-sandstone facies. Shales again, but with higher oxygen content. Shallow waters allow for circulation of oxygen forming minerals like hematite (FeO2) and Magnetite (FeO3). The rocks take on a lighter hue. Sandstones, formed in shallow marine and terrestrial environments (much like the sandy beaches of today).

These are the rocks of shallow marine and a terrestrial beach like environment.

Above these rocks still, the Catskill Devonian red beds. Highly oxidated. Lithologies found in fining upward sequences with turbidites, sorted by density, with conglomerates (rocks formed in tumbling depositional environments).
-----------------------------------------------------
Collectively, we have 5 groups of rock, each group having the sequence of rocks above.

Beyond that further, atop the Devonian shale is glacial till (unsorted, not deposited by water), glacial moraines, drop stones, glacial striations, lakes in a north to south direction (carved by glaciers moving in a north to south direction)

These are traits of Pleistocene ice ages.





--------------------------------------------------------------
Uniformitarianism has a simple explanation. The Acadian Orogeny.

As continental crust advances from the ocean in a western direction into what was then central america, mountain ranges are eroding, depositing sediment. Deltas form along the mountain range. Sea level rises, deeper waters give rise to anoxic carbonaceous shales. Sea level drops, the sea becomes aerated, more oxidized minerals form, rocks change color and chemistry.

Fast forward to the pleistocene epoch, ice comes down from the north, carves the great lakes and finger lakes, then deposits unsorted glacial till as it melts away.

And the fossils match. No dinosaurs in NY as the rocks are twice as old as the earliest dinosaurs. No mammals, no birds. Tetrapods are present (as predicted, tetrapods are of the devonian period). No bunny rabbits. Just devonian tetrapods and fish.
--------------------------------------------------------------
How could such a complex geology ever be explained as something to have formed within 6000 years?

Click to expand...

In the last line you stated.

How could such a complex geology ever be explained as something to have formed within 6000 years?

Click to expand...

That time duration is based on an assumption, the assumption that the Biblical genealogy is sequential with no gaps. That would be a risky assumption to accept, I cannot see how that assumption could be a valid assumption.

KomatiiteBIF said:

And what is your explanation then?

Click to expand...

Do I need to submit an explanation?

Your profession does not take into account that there was a world wide flood. So everything goes out the window.

Chisel said:

Your profession does not take into account that there was a world wide flood. So everything goes out the window.

Click to expand...

Greetings brother and welcome to CF! I see you've already been welcomed to this particular thread : ) Sorry, I think to some extent many of us here have been blessed with the "spiritual gift" of sarcasm.

As a heads up, you may save yourself a good deal of time in needless debate just reading through the threads here within the Creation and Theistic Evolution sub-forums. Admittedly, I've gone down paths already traversed and while your views are well backed up by scripture as well as empirical evidence through scientific observation, research, and theory, biblical creation does no fit the conventional geological/evolutionary paradigm and will be dismissed by some.

The argument against your position (ultimately against God's word) will follow this general framework:

1) You present scripture to support your position (ex. a global flood happened).

2) Response: The authors of the OT/NT did not have scientific "knowledge" as we do today. I suspect both you and I believe scripture is from God (not men) and so this argument falls flat (at least to us who actually believe the Bible to be true regarding creation and the flood). Generally, trying to use scripture to support things like billions of years and evolution does not hold well, so you'll find the arguments generally revolve around what science has to say and less of what scripture has to say.

3) Next, you present scientific research/evidence performed by scientists who believe in biblical creationism, which gives good indication in support of the biblical texts.

4) Response: The results of these well-credentialed creation scientists (PhD's) with extensive work experience, work is peer-reviewed by secular colleagues and recognized in both Christian and secular journals is portrayed as irrelevant and/or "dishonest" here. The argument methodology will be to apply assumptions of the conventional paradigm (billions of years and evolution) against theories within the creationist paradigm in an attempt to demonstrate that the creationist theories are ill conceived. I'm not sure we'd expect anything less: if I operate under a paradigm where the only events that have ever occurred are natural, uniform, gradual processes and someone tells me that Jesus speaks and heals a leper, then I cannot find any natural explanation to this and therefore any model or theory that involves supernatural influences is just a "fairytale". Ironically, almost all here will acknowledge that Jesus healed the leper supernaturally but seem to forget John 1:1-4 as it was though Him all things were made.

5) Other responses may eventually include attacks on your character (direct and indirect) such as your level of intelligence and your honesty (or lack thereof). Don't take to heart. In fact, don't be surprised if this post receives some flak.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bottom line: The bible tells us in the end days there will be scoffers (2 Peter 3:3-4). If you believe the universe was created as it is stated in the Bible, that life was created (did not evolve), that Noah's flood did happen... then good for you! May God bless your faithfulness! Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Regardless of our position on the age of the earth and our origins, all views require faith and it's good to see a fellow brother who's placed their faith upon the word of God.

KomatiiteBIF said:

How could such a complex geology ever be explained as something to have formed within 6000 years?

Click to expand...

Science would discover the answer to this question if they considered it as a possibility. Since they reject this possibility, they are forced to construct a much more complex scenario requiring hundreds of millions of years.

jesus316 said:

Science would discover the answer to this question if they considered it as a possibility. Since they reject this possibility, they are forced to construct a much more complex scenario requiring hundreds of millions of years.

Click to expand...

Time is not a problem for God.

Man is impatient. God is not.

Dale said:

Since you know far moe about geology than I do, correct me if I'm wrong.

In areas where there are oil-bearing strata, oil is often found at more than one level. It is very common for oil to be found at two widely different depths, or even three or four. The reason is simple. These oil deposits were laid down at different times in geologic history.

It is my experience that creationists don't understand this. They expect us to believe that all oil deposits and all coal deposits were laid down in one massive event, Noah's Flood. Yet we know this isn't possible because there are too many different strata, different levels with their own characteristics, laid down at different times.

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

I figured I would make a thread on the geology of New York, to see what Young Earth Creationists might think.

The discussion begins with the diagram below.

Genesee Group (NYDg;4)
Sonyea Group (NYDs;5)
Angola and Rhinestreet Shales (NYDwf;4)
Machias Formation (NYDcy;4)

At the base, limestone. Limestone largely consisting of microscopic carbonaceous shells. Derived from deep sea shelled organisms. These are rocks formed at great depths.

Dark carbonaceous shales (identified in the figure as black shale facies) are rich in organics. Formed in anoxic environments without oxygen for decomposition. With higher amounts of organic material, shales take on a dark black color. With less oxygen, oxygen poor environments yield precipitation of sulfide minerals.

These dark shales form in an environment also of a deep sea, but with influence from nearby deposition of sediment.

Above the black shale facies are mudstone-sandstone facies. Shales again, but with higher oxygen content. Shallow waters allow for circulation of oxygen forming minerals like hematite (FeO2) and Magnetite (FeO3). The rocks take on a lighter hue. Sandstones, formed in shallow marine and terrestrial environments (much like the sandy beaches of today).

These are the rocks of shallow marine and a terrestrial beach like environment.

Above these rocks still, the Catskill Devonian red beds. Highly oxidated. Lithologies found in fining upward sequences with turbidites, sorted by density, with conglomerates (rocks formed in tumbling depositional environments).
-----------------------------------------------------
Collectively, we have 5 groups of rock, each group having the sequence of rocks above.

Beyond that further, atop the Devonian shale is glacial till (unsorted, not deposited by water), glacial moraines, drop stones, glacial striations, lakes in a north to south direction (carved by glaciers moving in a north to south direction)

These are traits of Pleistocene ice ages.





--------------------------------------------------------------
Uniformitarianism has a simple explanation. The Acadian Orogeny.

As continental crust advances from the ocean in a western direction into what was then central america, mountain ranges are eroding, depositing sediment. Deltas form along the mountain range. Sea level rises, deeper waters give rise to anoxic carbonaceous shales. Sea level drops, the sea becomes aerated, more oxidized minerals form, rocks change color and chemistry.

Fast forward to the pleistocene epoch, ice comes down from the north, carves the great lakes and finger lakes, then deposits unsorted glacial till as it melts away.

And the fossils match. No dinosaurs in NY as the rocks are twice as old as the earliest dinosaurs. No mammals, no birds. Tetrapods are present (as predicted, tetrapods are of the devonian period). No bunny rabbits. Just devonian tetrapods and fish.
--------------------------------------------------------------
How could such a complex geology ever be explained as something to have formed within 6000 years?

Click to expand...

I should say, I'm not a young earth creationist. When the universe and the earth were created are insignificant compared to when life was created.

How could such a complex geology ever be explained as something to have formed within 6000 years?

The recession of water from a flooded earth, that's how you explain it. If you flooded the earth with water, when the water receded the topography of the earth would be considerable different than before the flood. Not to mention, the water wouldn't recede all at once, it would take a lot of time, some places the water would recede rapidly, other areas would take a long time.

It's been discovered that coal can form in very short periods of time, it doesn't take millions of years. In labs coal has been made in hours. That isn't to say that because something can be done in a lab that we should take that to mean it happened that way outside the lab.

Man made objects have been found in coal, that certainly destroys the idea that coal is as old as we're told. Coal is formed by great pressure, and the pockets can happen in a number of different places and times.

2consider said:

I should say, I'm not a young earth creationist. When the universe and the earth were created are insignificant compared to when life was created.

How could such a complex geology ever be explained as something to have formed within 6000 years?

The recession of water from a flooded earth, that's how you explain it. If you flooded the earth with water, when the water receded the topography of the earth would be considerable different than before the flood. Not to mention, the water wouldn't recede all at once, it would take a lot of time, some places the water would recede rapidly, other areas would take a long time.

Click to expand...

While this may seem to be a reasonable explanation at first glance, it presents a number of problems once you start getting into the details. Flowing water, especially rapidly flowing water, leaves distinctive features on the landscape - see the Channeled Scablands in Eastern Washington for an example. That landscape was created by a series of massive floods resulting from the collapse of ice dams as the Cordilleran Ice Sheet retreated. The last of those floods occurred between 14,000 and 18,000 years ago A global-scale flood 6,000 years ago would result in most of the world resembling that, which simply isn't the case. Even if the waters retreated at different rates in different areas, we should see many more areas like the Channeled Scablands. Furthermore, it is possible to determine the age of surfaces (i.e. how long they have been exposed to cosmic radiation), so if the planet was scoured by a flood 6,000 years ago, then all surfaces should return a date of 6,000 years or younger. Needless to say they don't.

There are many more details that are problematic for the global flood hypothesis, but I'll start with those.

It's been discovered that coal can form in very short periods of time, it doesn't take millions of years. In labs coal has been made in hours. That isn't to say that because something can be done in a lab that we should take that to mean it happened that way outside the lab.

Click to expand...

I can't find any non-creationist articles on rapid coal formation. There is plenty of evidence for relatively rapid (scales of tens to hundreds of years) peat formation, but peat is not coal as traditionally perceived. The formation of coal (e.g. anthracite) takes prolonged exposure to just the right amount of heat and pressure. In theory, you could accelerate the formation of coal in a laboratory, but to do so would require conditions not physically possible in the natural world, so those experiments are irrelevant to attempts to demonstrate a young earth.

Man made objects have been found in coal, that certainly destroys the idea that coal is as old as we're told. Coal is formed by great pressure, and the pockets can happen in a number of different places and times.

Click to expand...

All of the examples that I could find for this are personal anecdotes with pretty shaky evidence. Furthermore, the objects were not found in-situ, but instead were found after the coal had been processed and stored for an indeterminate length of time. There is a great deal of mineralization associated with fresh coal, as rainwater dissolves minerals exposed by mining that then precipitate and cement small pieces of coal and coal dust together. An object dropped by a miner or other worker could easily be incorporated into one of those cemented chunks.

2consider said:

I should say, I'm not a young earth creationist. When the universe and the earth were created are insignificant compared to when life was created.

How could such a complex geology ever be explained as something to have formed within 6000 years?

The recession of water from a flooded earth, that's how you explain it. If you flooded the earth with water, when the water receded the topography of the earth would be considerable different than before the flood. Not to mention, the water wouldn't recede all at once, it would take a lot of time, some places the water would recede rapidly, other areas would take a long time.

It's been discovered that coal can form in very short periods of time, it doesn't take millions of years. In labs coal has been made in hours. That isn't to say that because something can be done in a lab that we should take that to mean it happened that way outside the lab.

Man made objects have been found in coal, that certainly destroys the idea that coal is as old as we're told. Coal is formed by great pressure, and the pockets can happen in a number of different places and times.

Click to expand...

Good questions. I suspect that 6,000 years is not the exact number, but then again, how could a man named Lazarus be raised from the dead by simply being called out of the tomb by Jesus. I think going around always assuming only naturalistic assumptions based upon present conditions has a tendency to distort what truly happened in the beginning. I tend to go with what God's word says.