The Earth is young

[HARK!]

I started here, because at one point in my life I had considered being a Geologist:

#2 Bent Rock Layers

I stopped reading here:

"Somehow this whole sequence was bent and folded without fracturing. That’s impossible if the first layer, the Tapeats Sandstone, was deposited over North America 460 million years before being folded." --Dr. Andrew A. Snelling

Have you ever seen a piece of wavy glass in an old building? Chances are it wasn't wavy on the day that it was made. Glass is not a solid. In fact it is a very dense liquid. It runs, very slowly, over time. Glass is primarily composed of silicon dioxide. So too is sand. Sandstone is formed as grains of sand rest one upon another, and bond under pressure, over time.

Sorry Dr., your doctorate doesn't trump empirical evidence which can be observed within a few generations.

 

[KWCrazy]

In the face of that evidence, we are forced to conclude that either a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect or that God created the world with an appearance of age

God created a mature world; trees bearing fruits, seas teaming with fish; a mature Adam, etc. On day four the stars were clearly visible from the earth. Everything was created mature and was good.

something that would serve no purpose but to deceive.

Unless one actually read the Bible, which states very clearly that God created a mature world teeming with life in 6 days. To be deceived, one has to reject this explanation of creation.

Given that the latter does not fit into what I know of God...

Or what you've chosen to believe.
God specifically described how HE created the world in six days. He confirmed that again in Exodus 20:11. You choose to deliberately reject His word. Now, WHO is the deceiver???

 

[Danoded]

There can be no room for 'variance'. Either one truly believes that God created a marvellous world with all the animals and man just as it should be, with no such thing as evolution ever being in His plans, or one believes the lies of Satan that God is not all powerful and that what he created needed time to 'evolve'.

 

[NobleMouse]

I started here, because at one point in my life I had considered being a Geologist:



I stopped reading here:

"Somehow this whole sequence was bent and folded without fracturing. That’s impossible if the first layer, the Tapeats Sandstone, was deposited over North America 460 million years before being folded." --Dr. Andrew A. Snelling

Have you ever seen a piece of wavy glass in an old building? Chances are it wasn't wavy on the day that it was made. Glass is not a solid. In fact it is a very dense liquid. It runs, very slowly, over time. Glass is primarily composed of silicon dioxide. So too is sand. Sandstone is formed as grains of sand rest one upon another, and bond under pressure, over time.

Sorry Dr., your doctorate doesn't trump empirical evidence which can be observed within a few generations.

Hark! I don't know that you and I have chatted before so first of all - greetings brother! I don't like the idea of leaving a negative first impression, but I do want to challenge your statements about glass, bent rock, and Dr. Snelling.

I've never heard this claim before about glass running very slowly over time, so I checked around a little bit here and found that glass which appears to be wavy seems to have more to do with the technique used at the time it was made. I found sites (2nd and 3rd below) that spoke specifically around this effect and was directly aimed at debunking the rumor that glass 'flows' over time:

https://www.angieslist.com/articles/why-my-window-glass-wavy.htm
Does Glass "flow"?
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-glass-is-a-liquid-myth-has-finally-been-destroyed-496190894

Can you provide support for the assertion that all glass runs over time? As it currently stands, this claim seems a little bit questionable and I don't think it is yet sufficient to negate the education and 30+ years of field experience of Dr. Snelling as a Geologist.

Can sandstone, limestone and other sedimentary rock bend over long periods of time? I'm not a Geologist so maybe our Geologist friends here can confirm. I am of the persuasion that rock does not bend after it hardens, but would instead fracture/break. As such, when we see geological formations with bent rock layers without evidence of breaking/fracturing, one would conclude that the layer was laid down and accumulated while still soft. This, I believe, is one of the indicators where scientists (like Dr. Snelling) make the assertion that the layers were deposited in a shorter period of time (as with a flood) - not over the long ages of millions/billions of years.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Can sandstone, limestone and other sedimentary rock bend over long periods of time? I'm not a Geologist so maybe our Geologist friends here can confirm. I am of the persuasion that rock does not bend after it hardens, but would instead fracture/break. As such, when we see geological formations with bent rock layers without evidence of breaking/fracturing, one would conclude that the layer was laid down and accumulated while still soft. This, I believe, is one of the indicators where scientists (like Dr. Snelling) make the assertion that the layers were deposited in a shorter period of time (as with a flood) - not over the long ages of millions/billions of years.

I direct you towards my response to Snelling's claim in post #75:

Folding occurs at depth, where rocks are subjected to high temperatures and pressures over long periods of time. Under these conditions, it is indeed possible to bend rocks without breaking them. That's not always the case though - we also see brittle deformation in the form of faults, where rocks are bent while too cold or are bent too rapidly and break instead. Soft-sediment deformation - what Snelling claims causes all folding - has specific characteristics that are not seen in most folded rocks. It's also important to note that most folds do exhibit some degree of fracturing and brittle deformation, even if only at the microscopic level.

 

[Job 33:6]

There can be no room for 'variance'. Either one truly believes that God created a marvellous world with all the animals and man just as it should be, with no such thing as evolution ever being in His plans, or one believes the lies of Satan that God is not all powerful and that what he created needed time to 'evolve'.

The interesting this is that, an organism that can evolve, is biologically superior to an organism that cannot (an organism that evolves can survive the greatest of environmental catastrophes by evolving to overcome the change that they create). In which case, Gods creation is more marvelous through the lens of evolution than of non evolution.

It is actually more amazing, to create advanced evolving life forms, than non evolving lifeforms like robots.

 

[NobleMouse]

I direct you towards my response to Snelling's claim in post #75:

Thank you for the information! So there's a couple of different possibilities:
- layers laid down while still soft (wet) as by a flood (not seen), and
- high temperatures over long periods of time (not seen)

On your proposed alternative method of high temperatures over long periods of time, has a high temperature ever been applied to rocks in a lab for a long period of time to make sure this actually works?

An event given within the Bible supports only one of the methods above, so I'll go with that.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thank you for the information! So there's a couple of different possibilities:
- layers laid down while still soft (wet) as by a flood (not seen), and
- high temperatures over long periods of time (not seen)

On your proposed alternative method of high temperatures over long periods of time, has a high temperature ever been applied to rocks in a lab for a long period of time to make sure this actually works?

An event given within the Bible supports only one of the methods above, so I'll go with that.

We've already gone over this several times now. Many layers could not have been soft when they fractured as you get features of cataclastic metamorphism, features of compressional faulting forming at angles only possible in hard rock, as well as fracturing and faulting in different directions at different sections of rock throughout a column. Which is something that could not possibly be done by a global flood either.

And you dont need a million years to put rocks into a machine which applies pressure to them to see how they break.

Its like you arent even reading what people are saying. Rocks in my head is talking about the physics behind brittle deformation versus soft sediment deformation. Its just not the same. It doesnt happen the same way, and they dont look the same.

If you took a sandstone for example, and you put it in a pressure machine and it fractured at 30 degree angles. Then you took something soft, like wet sand, and applied the same pressure to it, it would not fracture as hard rock does. And if you have faults cross cutting different formations at different superpositional positions of a geologic succession, then you know that brittle deformation has occurred throughout that section and at different times.

See the attached image for columns of marble that have been bent without fracturing them. Rocks do in fact bend, when under confined pressure, like that which occurs in the earth.

 

[Dan Brooks]

God created a mature world; trees bearing fruits, seas teaming with fish; a mature Adam, etc. On day four the stars were clearly visible from the earth. Everything was created mature and was good.

Unless one actually read the Bible, which states very clearly that God created a mature world teeming with life in 6 days. To be deceived, one has to reject this explanation of creation.

Or what you've chosen to believe.
God specifically described how HE created the world in six days. He confirmed that again in Exodus 20:11. You choose to deliberately reject His word. Now, WHO is the deceiver???

I've been trying to tell them that, but I like the way you said it. Very to the point. It's pretty clear that it's impossible to believe both the Bible and evolution. They are mutually exclusive.

 

[HARK!]

Hark! I don't know that you and I have chatted before so first of all - greetings brother! I don't like the idea of leaving a negative first impression, but I do want to challenge your statements about glass, bent rock, and Dr. Snelling.

Greetings NobleMouse. I find nothing negative about seeking the truth. I question nearly everything; and I generally don't accept anything as fact, unless it's proven to me. Even then, I still try to remain objective.

I've never heard this claim before about glass running very slowly over time, so I checked around a little bit here and found that glass which appears to be wavy seems to have more to do with the technique used at the time it was made. I found sites (2nd and 3rd below) that spoke specifically around this effect and was directly aimed at debunking the rumor that glass 'flows' over time:

https://www.angieslist.com/articles/why-my-window-glass-wavy.htm
Does Glass "flow"?

This article appears to have credibility. OK, you've created reasonable doubt.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-glass-is-a-liquid-myth-has-finally-been-destroyed-496190894

I saw a link at the top of this page to "The Onion." I seriously question the veracity of this source.

Can you provide support for the assertion that all glass runs over time? As it currently stands, this claim seems a little bit questionable and I don't think it is yet sufficient to negate the education and 30+ years of field experience of Dr. Snelling as a Geologist.

Researcher uses Westminster Abbey windows to shine light on glass myth
EurekAlert!· 18 hours ago In the January 2018 issue of the Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Mauro reports on the...

Right on time.

Can sandstone, limestone and other sedimentary rock bend over long periods of time? I'm not a Geologist so maybe our Geologist friends here can confirm. I am of the persuasion that rock does not bend after it hardens, but would instead fracture/break. As such, when we see geological formations with bent rock layers without evidence of breaking/fracturing, one would conclude that the layer was laid down and accumulated while still soft. This, I believe, is one of the indicators where scientists (like Dr. Snelling) make the assertion that the layers were deposited in a shorter period of time (as with a flood) - not over the long ages of millions/billions of years.

The text books say that it bends, but not just sedimentary rocks, metamorphic and igneous too.

Here's a page with a basic explanation of this phenomenon:

Strained by stress ~ Hudson Valley Geologist

I like the picture of the distorted trilobite. It's worth a thousand words.

 

[Dan Brooks]

I find it both sad and frustrating that professing Christians would rather hold on to evolutionism (which the Bible calls "science falsely so-called") than to adhere to the clear word of God. There is no way whatsoever to interpret the Bible to make it teach, or even allow for, evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

Greetings NobleMouse. I find nothing negative about seeking the truth. I question nearly everything; and I generally don't accept anything as fact, unless it's proven to me. Even then, I still try to remain objective.



This article appears to have credibility. OK, you've created reasonable doubt.



I saw a link at the top of this page to "The Onion." I seriously question the veracity of this source.



Researcher uses Westminster Abbey windows to shine light on glass myth
EurekAlert!· 18 hours ago In the January 2018 issue of the Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Mauro reports on the...

Right on time.





The text books say that it bends, but not just sedimentary rocks, metamorphic and igneous too.

Here's a page with a basic explanation of this phenomenon:

Strained by stress ~ Hudson Valley Geologist

I like the picture of the distorted trilobite. It's worth a thousand words.

A simple, yet simply brilliant example. The distorted trilobite. Its so text book and rudimentary, yet overlooked, but perfect.

Thank you.

 

[NobleMouse]

We've already gone over this several times now. Many layers could not have been soft when they fractured as you get features of cataclastic metamorphism, features of compressional faulting forming at angles only possible in hard rock, as well as fracturing and faulting in different directions at different sections of rock throughout a column. Which is something that could not possibly be done by a global flood either.

And you dont need a million years to put rocks into a machine which applies pressure to them to see how they break.

Its like you arent even reading what people are saying. Rocks in my head is talking about the physics behind brittle deformation versus soft sediment deformation. Its just not the same. It doesnt happen the same way, and they dont look the same.

Hi KBIF and thank you for the response! Please know I am reading what is being written, I just like to probe from different angles, coming back to the same point: The assertions of long ages by secular science, and specifically here with geology, are based upon that which is unrepeatable, untestable, and unobserved. Secular science has told the story of millions and billions of years for so long now that it has become a glossed over foundational axiom of science, yet there is no model, no example, no point of reference upon which this can be proven (and in the eyes of secular science, cannot be disproven). Secular science can suggest that radiometric dating is what proves the earth is old; yet again, doesn't know the starting position of the parent/daughter atoms, doesn't know whether the system was closed, and doesn't know that the rate of decay has always remained constant and not affected by external influences.

If you took a sandstone for example, and you put it in a pressure machine and it fractured at 30 degree angles. Then you took something soft, like wet sand, and applied the same pressure to it, it would not fracture as hard rock does. And if you have faults cross cutting different formations at different superpositional positions of a geologic succession, then you know that brittle deformation has occurred throughout that section and at different times.

See the attached image for columns of marble that have been bent without fracturing them. Rocks do in fact bend, when under confined pressure, like that which occurs in the earth.

Thank you for this image. From what you have indicated above and is demonstrated in this picture is that millions of years are in fact not needed for rock to bend, rock can be bent under confining pressure in a short amount of time.

Whether we're talking about the age of the earth, the age of the universe or evolution, the ever so pervasive theme is always the same: Given enough time, given enough random undirected events, given enough build-up of minuscule processes a big bang can produce billions functional stars with their own individual functioning solar systems with planets and moons to boot, billions of these solar systems will organize themselves into functioning galaxies, billions of galaxies will organize themselves into the functional universe, random mutations and natural selection will make a man out of a molecule, and little rivers will carve out enormous canyons - the list goes on. The best part is that none of this has ever even once been seen when it happened. Never observed, cannot be proven, yet the belief that it is true is so firm, so ardent, that even when The Creator says it happened differently the response is: Did God actually say it happened differently? Oh, I think we need to reinterpret what God really meant when He said what He said because the empirical evidence tells us what is true.

 

[Job 33:6]

@NobleMouse

You are correct that it doesn't take millions of years to bend rock when it's in a pressure machine. But the key is understanding that rock does bend when under massive amounts of confining pressure.

Beyond that, it is of value to us, knowing that these rocks were indeed solidified prior to deformation. This is significant in our understanding of an old earth.

Now that we know rocks can bend, we can research the causes of that bending. And not only that, because we know certain rocks are indeed solidified and hard rock prior to their deformation, we can pose the question, "how long did it take this rock to solidify?" "How long did it take to deform?" "How long did it take to fracture?" After that, "how long did it take the next layer to solidify, deform and fracture?" And how about the next layer and the next? And the next hundred layers?

And once you begin asking and answering these question, you can come to see just how old it all is.

Nobody could ever understand the age of the earth if they did not know that these layers were hardened prior to deformation. The age of the earth couldn't be understood if people didn't know that solid rock could bend. And these are just two simple things of a multitude of well understood concepts, that we need to know if we are to properly judge how old the earth is.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also @NobleMouse I see you brought up multiple other topics like evolution and radioactive dating. These are concepts that are to be asked later. First, the earth needs to be understood before radioactive dating or evolution can be discussed. Nobody could ever understand something like radioactive dating if they did not first understand the earth.

 

[NobleMouse]

@NobleMouse

You are correct that it doesn't take millions of years to bend rock when it's in a pressure machine. But the key is understanding that rock does bend when under massive amounts of confining pressure.

Beyond that, it is of value to us, knowing that these rocks were indeed solidified prior to deformation. This is significant in our understanding of an old earth.

Yes it would certainly be of value knowing whether the rocks were solidified prior to deformation, but since the assertion is that such events are on a timescale of millions+ years then one cannot know this. I will agree, and it makes sense that if one infers it takes millions of years, this represents one of the pillars upon which the understanding and belief of an old earth arises.

Now that we know rocks can bend, we can research the causes of that bending. And not only that, because we know certain rocks are indeed solidified and hard rock prior to their deformation, we can pose the question, "how long did it take this rock to solidify?" "How long did it take to deform?" "How long did it take to fracture?" After that, "how long did it take the next layer to solidify, deform and fracture?" And how about the next layer and the next? And the next hundred layers?

And once you begin asking and answering these question, you can come to see just how old it all is.

Yes, this is describing uniformitarianism... extrapolating how long it takes one layer then multiplying that out to the number of layers believed to have been formed by a similar process. I think most geologists recognize that events can happen one granule at a time or be laid down very quickly. There is no way to replicate and test that which supposedly occurs over millions of years and there are only limited examples of rapid formation, so drawing conclusions of age based solely upon things like rock formations and radiometric dating are going to draw incorrect conclusions.

Nobody could ever understand the age of the earth if they did not know that these layers were hardened prior to deformation. The age of the earth couldn't be understood if people didn't know that solid rock could bend. And these are just two simple things of a multitude of well understood concepts, that we need to know if we are to properly judge how old the earth is.

I believe there are true facts in rocks, the truth is there. To find truth there needs to be a bias towards the truth. If one is looking for millions or billions of years, one will find evidence that can be interpreted to support millions and billions of years. If one assumes the Bible is true on more than just their sinful condition and need for a savior and believes that as a whole it is true then one will also find evidence that can be interpreted to support a young creation. Stepping outside of God's word here for a sentence, and strictly sticking to science and scientific evidence and the interpretations made, it is a bit presumptuous for any group of scientists to say that the interpretations of another group are incorrect on the basis of believing events happened millions of years ago, but was never (and never will be) observed and cannot be (and never will be) proven true.

For me, the Bible is true, through and through, and if I want to understand anything from my need for a savior, how to be obedient to God's word, know the names of Jesus' lineage back to Adam, or know when God made trees, I turn to the Bible. God made all of creation in 6 days, resting on the 7th - it is true, we have have His word on it. In the beginning, He made them (Adam and Eve) male and female (not as a molecule) - it is true, we have His word on it.

This may be my last post before Christmas. On that note, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and hope it is a time of joy and praise for the gift we all are eternally grateful for!

Blessings!

 

[Job 33:6]

But we can see deposition occurring, we can see tectonic plates moving and crusts subducting. How rocks move, bend and metamorphose isnt some mystery purely based on inference. It is readily observable and occurring as we speak. Igneous rocks, we see magma pooring out of volcanoes and cooling, it isnt some mystery as to how they have formed. And if you see an ancient volcano that is no longer active, and you see it surrounded by igneous rock, it isnt some mystery as to how that volcanic rock got there.

If you see footprints in the snow trailing a person, you may not have seen a person walk to make those tracks, but its quite obvious that the person made those tracks none the less.

Dinosaur tracks. You may not have seen the dinosaur walk to produce the tracks, but it is clear that time must have passed for that dinosaur to take those steps, to produce those tracks.

And if there are tracks that span a mile in distance, made by a single dinosaur, one can reasonably claim that it took the dinosaur more than 1 second to make tracks that span that mile. And it isnt unreasonable to derive this truth. Young earthers claim that the mile of tracks were made in 1 second, then claim that everyone else is making gross and unproven assumptions, that the dinosaurs couldnt make 1 mile of tracks in a single second, just because nobody actually saw the dinosaur walking.

Just because nobody saw the dinosaur walk the mile, doesnt mean that we do not know enough about the dinosaur, to understand that it took more than a second.

Its just absurd.

 

[HARK!]

For me, the Bible is true, through and through

Have you investigated textual criticism?

and if I want to understand anything from my need for a savior, how to be obedient to God's word, know the names of Jesus' lineage back to Adam, or know when God made trees, I turn to the Bible. God made all of creation in 6 days, resting on the 7th - it is true, we have have His word on it.

I believe that every word, that Yahweh says, is true. I don't believe that Yahweh intended to decieve us through his creation. Therefore, if the empirical evidence within Yahweh's creation seems to contradict the truth Yahweh's words; I first question my understanding.

What is your understanding of the word "day?"

 

[NobleMouse]

Have you investigated textual criticism?



I believe that every word, that Yahweh says, is true. I don't believe that Yahweh intended to decieve us through his creation. Therefore, if the empirical evidence within Yahweh's creation seems to contradict the truth Yahweh's words; I first question my understanding.

What is your understanding of the word "day?"

Empirical evidence is just evidence here in the present. You still need to infer what it means and in the face of geological empirical evidence you don't have writers from the OT, NT, and Jesus affirming these inferences; all you have is what is believed and propagated by scientific academia.

So what great evidence is being contradicted here? The beliefs of those who never saw millions of years of events? Is it the solidarity of the faunal succession, which BTW, is only found in reality as being the same as text books less than 1% of the time - not a very compelling case. This is the same argument always presented... Yahweh's words are not deceptive and the idea that the Bible is so easily misunderstood on account of poor comprehension on the part of the reader or confusing grammar on the part of the writer is unfounded. Check out Habakkuk 2:2 - the vision was instructed to be written on the tablets plainly (not to cause confusion, mislead, or misrepresent... God took great care that we could know Him and the truth from His word... and if we still can't understand, the truth is revealed through His Holy Spirit). Where is all of the evidence that people should question what the Bible plainly tells otherwise? All the evidence only exists in the minds of scientists that infer from evidence that the earth is billions of years old, and those they've convinced to infer the same way. I've read many, many articles around the meaning of Yom in Genesis and almost all (not absolutely all, but most all) who suggest long ages have a scientific agenda they are looking to push--it's not on a Biblical basis. The vast majority of resources, hebraists, lexicographers, and theologians understand the Yoms to be literal 24-hr days. An article consistent with my understanding, for which I've found none more comprehensive in addressing how Yom should be understood as well as the typical arguments against is as follows:

G. F. Hasel - The "Days" of Creation in Genesis 1

 

[HARK!]

I've read many, many articles around the meaning of Yom in Genesis and almost all

So you're kicking off your logical argument with an argumentum ad populum. Noted.

(not absolutely all, but most all) who suggest long ages have a scientific agenda they are looking to push--it's not on a Biblical basis. The vast majority of resources, hebraists, lexicographers, and theologians understand the Yoms to be literal 24-hr days.

So in your opinion clocks determine the length of a day? I don't believe that scripture would support that assertion. Do you have any evidence that clocks existed in the beginning?

An article consistent with my understanding, for which I've found none more comprehensive in addressing how Yom should be understood as well as the typical arguments against is as follows:

G. F. Hasel - The "Days" of Creation in Genesis 1

That's a long read. I haven't presented my argument yet. If it's typical, and it's incorrect, hopefully you are already well armed with a solid refutation.

So is that your final answer; that clocks determine the length of a day? I've personally come to view them as more as measuring instruments.