The Literal Creation Account and the Actual Roots of Science. Read on

[Dale]

Responding to OP,
<< Next, the light is separated from the darkness. >>

Apparently this means that God created day and night. Outside of that Divine act, separating light from darkness would have no meaning. It is not a scientific concept.

<< Here, the literal reading of Gen. 1&2 has introduced the living elements that are included in the studies of botany and biology. >>

It includes some of the same words that you would see in a biology text, but it does not lead to the same conclusions. It does not introduce the germ theory of disease or any such thing.

By the same logic, the Bible uses some of the same words you would find in a romance novel picked up at the drugstore.

*

 

[Loudmouth]

I have never implied an argument of objection based nearly on an every single day of time or even a basis of time close to that. I have tried to find a reasonable conclusion that would support evidence for the gross assumptions of 600 million years of time never mind a few days at a time.

Also:

I do not claim or propose that the geo column was laid down any ‘consistent rate’ at all.

Then why did you say the following?

"It all addes up to the same amount of ground....880 feet of compressed sedimentation that is supposed to equal 55, 000,000 to 80,000,000 (million) years of time. Those are using the minimum time period given by evolution. The deposition numbers do not add up no matter how they are stretched. at 55 million years of time the compress rock at 500 times compress equal less than 1/10 of an inch of compressed deposition per year."

The ‘consistent uniform rate’ idea is what the theory of Lyell’s uniformatarianism proposes. That is the antithesis of what I propose.

And no one uses Lyell's theory of uniformatarianism anymore. All that geologists do is apply the forces at work in geology that are observed today and apply them to formations created in the past. Catastrophic formation and non-uniform formation are well within current geologic mechanisms.

 

[OC1]

The claims is, that the column present in ND present the physical depth of each period, or age, defined by the geologic column, Therefore the entire depth of this geologic column also presents the entire period of time represented by the geologic column. Therefore these depths represent the proposed and corresponding period of time that the evolutionists have given to each of these periods and to the entire geologic column......



....Therefore, I cannot accept this proposition as factual. Either the column in N.D. does not present the actual physical Geologic column that represents a total of 500, 000, 000 years of evolution, deposition and fossilization in the earth’s crust…or…if that column does represent the physical height of the total depositions of each of the proposed geological column and their collective ages, …then the age, the actual period of time, represented by that entire geologic column cannot remotely represent the period of time proposed , as has been demonstrated by the Cretaceous example.

----------------

Edmond-

If you look at the descriptions of the Cretaceous units, you will see that they include deep-marine deposits (shales), shallow-marine deposits (limestone and evaporites), and terrestrial/sub-aerial deposits (red beds).

This means that relative sea levels were rising and falling at this location in the Cretaceous. When sea level drops, some sediments that were deposited under water are now above water.

When the sediments are above water, they are eroded. This sequence of rocks only includes the Cretaceous sediments that were preserved, not the sediment that was deposited and then eroded later in the Cretaceous.

Your calculations mistakenly assume that deposition was CONTINUOUS. It clearly was not.

 

[OC1]

And no one uses Lyell's theory of uniformatarianism anymore. All that geologists do is apply the forces at work in geology that are observed today and apply them to formations created in the past. Catastrophic formation and non-uniform formation are well within current geologic mechanisms.[/color]

I have to stand up for ol' Chuck (Lyell) here!

I've recently been reading parts of his "Principles of Geology" (found a copy online).

He fully recognized the importance of catastrophic events- floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc.- in shaping the earth, and wrote quite a bit about them.

I don't understand how some have interpreted Lyell's uniformitarianism to mean ONLY "slow and steady".

It seems to me that Lyell's version of Uniformitarianism is pretty much exactly the same as the "modern" version: that the same geologic processes occuring today also occured in the past.

Every geologist I've ever known, and every geologic paper I've ever read, has interpreted "uniformitarianism" in this way.

To be honest, the only ones I've ever heard interpret "uniformitarianism" to mean ONLY "slow and steady" are YECs.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have to stand up for ol' Chuck (Lyell) here!

I have not read Principles of Geology, so I will accept your reasoning here. I guess I fell for the YEC strawman.

If I remember correctly, Lyell proposed dating sediments by the time it takes for deposition. Is this correct?