Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC Geologic Column - Created with apparent age?
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 1 of 82 (10821)
06-02-2002 12:53 PM


This topic is a spin-off of Message 71 of the Geology and the Great Flood topic "TEMPORARY: So how did the GC (Geological Column) get laid down from a mainstream POV?"
Message 71
The prevailing YEC position seems to be that the earth's phanerazoic (paleozoic, mesozoic, cenozoic) geology is explained by "the flood" and "after the flood".
Now, even if the YEC's pull off this condensation of geologic time, there still remains the consideration of the precambrian. What is (the conventional view) 80 plus percent of the earth's history, must be placed into either "as created" or "after created, but before the flood".
Now, obviously, God didn't plant the various land life forms onto a barren slab of rock. As such, God did create a "prepared" earth, ie one with at least some appearance of age.
So the big question is, IN THE BEGINNING, when God first created the earth, what was the nature of the earth's geology? Did it appear that a lot of time and natural processes had already happened?
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fixed link, which had gotten thrashed by the passage of time and software upgrades.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-02-2002 5:29 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-02-2002 10:53 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 59 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-15-2005 4:02 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 2 of 82 (10830)
06-02-2002 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
06-02-2002 12:53 PM


For potential reference purposes:
The "Geology and the Great Flood" topic index page can be found at:
http://207.36.64.70/cgi-bin/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number=7
The "Uniformitarianism" topic can be found at:
http://207.36.64.70/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000016.html
There seems to be two possible senerios for the origin of the modern day earth (let us take it as a given that there was a starting point, which may or may not have involved God's influence) :
1) The mainstream geology path of uniformitarianistic processes. This indicates an earth age of at least many millions of years. This is totally and absolutely independent of radiometric age dating results.
2) TheYEC 10,000 (or less) years old earth. This is in total conflict with uniformitarianistic considerations.
Now, as I see it, the creationist options are:
a) God created a young earth, already with the inital appearance of being much older.
or
b) God created a geologically primitive earth, and then speeded up processes such that they mimicked the slower processes we see in the modern world. This is really a variation on (a).
or
c) God created a geologically primitive earth, and then used special, totally different processes whose results mimicked the results of uniformitarianistic processes. These processes are no longer seen in the modern world. This is laying miracles on top of miracles, and is still really a variation on (a).
Now, all of these seem to be some sort of deception, on God's part. I think that God could have created a young earth, that was fully functional to support life, without having left evidence that there were long, time consuming processes involved.
This earth would be geologically simple, and still contain all the resources that humanity uses in modern life. My image of this geologically simple earth would include being that of limited and largly undeformed sedimentary layers. So why did God create such a complex mess, when it served no purpose (other than to make the earth appear to be very old)?
Moose
Edit: Tweeked a blotched sentence a bit. See the earlier version, as quoted in next message, if you care.
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 06-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-02-2002 12:53 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by edge, posted 06-02-2002 5:57 PM Minnemooseus has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 3 of 82 (10831)
06-02-2002 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
06-02-2002 5:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Now, as I see it, the creationist options are:
a) God created a young earth, already with the inital appearance of being much older.
or
b) God created a geologically primitive earth, and then speeded up processes such that they mimicked the slower processes we see in the modern world. This is really a variation on (a).
or
c) God created a geologically primitive earth, and then used special, totally different processes whose results mimicked the results of uniformitarianistic processes. that are no longer seen in the modern world. This is laying miracles on top of miracles, and is still really a variation on (a).
Another option promoted by some creationists is that the world does not look old at all. It becomes quite an exercise in denial, but evidently not an impossible effort (to some).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-02-2002 5:29 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-02-2002 7:35 PM edge has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 4 of 82 (10833)
06-02-2002 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by edge
06-02-2002 5:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
Another option promoted by some creationists is that the world does not look old at all. It becomes quite an exercise in denial, but evidently not an impossible effort (to some).

If one were absolutely ignorant of the earth's geology (including the opinions of trained geologists), then one would not be able to make any age judgement (other that citing your printed reference of choice
)
The fact remains, however, that the YEC camp goes through great contortions to come up with an age determination that goes againt that of mainstream science. Bending the evidence to fit the conclusion, rather that letting the conclusion follow the evidence.
The main question remains - IN THE BEGINNING, what was the geologic column? Or as better stated, what was the earth's stratigraphy?
Moose
THE RECORD OF THE CREATED EARTH, IS THE EARTH!
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by edge, posted 06-02-2002 5:57 PM edge has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 82 (10843)
06-02-2002 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
06-02-2002 12:53 PM


As explained in post #75 of the other thread for completely independent theological reasons I beleive the creation days were probably 1000 year days (2nd pet, Ps, Heb 4, Rev 22) giving more time for creation day 3 events.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=23&m=75#75
I'm more and more convinced that there was no creation with 'appearence of age'. The bedrock was created, the day 3 emergence of landfrom sea generated the Precambrian layering, the flood generated the Cambrian to Cretaceous and the glacial melting generated the Cenezoic.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-02-2002 12:53 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by edge, posted 06-03-2002 1:54 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 20 by wehappyfew, posted 06-05-2002 11:34 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 82 (10864)
06-03-2002 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
06-02-2002 10:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm more and more convinced that there was no creation with 'appearence of age'. The bedrock was created, the day 3 emergence of landfrom sea generated the Precambrian layering, the flood generated the Cambrian to Cretaceous and the glacial melting generated the Cenezoic.
Ah, but you have to fit a lot more than just Precambrian layering. First, you have to fit in several kilometers of Precambrian layering. Are you sure there was not some previous flood? Then you have to intrude an metamorphose all that Precambrian rock and fold it. Seems like an awful lot to fit into a few 'days'.
So all humans, except for 8 chosen ones, died after the Precambrian but before the end of the Cretaceous. Where are these fossil humans? Their artifacts? Even if they all ran up hill as fast as they could, it seems that they should be found in the uppermost Cretaceous beds since they all died.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-02-2002 10:53 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-03-2002 2:07 AM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 82 (10866)
06-03-2002 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by edge
06-03-2002 1:54 AM


There was a tectonic/watery like event on creation day #3 - the land appeared out of the sea. Read my posts on the subject Edge (see above). I subscribe to 1000 year days for the creation week (for theological reasons - 2nd Pet) and the science needs more than a day too.
Flood geologists presume that men etc were laid down in upper strata but these strata were washed away as the water receeded.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by edge, posted 06-03-2002 1:54 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by edge, posted 06-03-2002 2:52 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 10 by Joe Meert, posted 06-03-2002 9:15 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 8 of 82 (10885)
06-03-2002 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
06-03-2002 2:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
There was a tectonic/watery like event on creation day #3 - the land appeared out of the sea. Read my posts on the subject Edge (see above). I subscribe to 1000 year days for the creation week (for theological reasons - 2nd Pet) and the science needs more than a day too.
Yes, and it's an awful lot to pack into 3000 days as well. I understand that you are talking long days.
quote:
Flood geologists presume that men etc were laid down in upper strata but these strata were washed away as the water receeded.
So then we should see a reverse sorting of fossils as the flood receded, right? Last-deposited-first, as soon as the flood started to recede? We don't see this. Also, there has been ample uplift and erosion since the late Cretaceous that we should see modern humans in the earliest post-flood sediments. This has not been observed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-03-2002 2:07 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-03-2002 9:14 PM edge has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 82 (10918)
06-03-2002 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by edge
06-03-2002 2:52 PM


^ There are actually 365,000 days in 1000 years. As I've mentioned before I await simualtions of how the flood really occurred in detail. I will post a summary of Woodmorappe's preliminary work after I've fully absorbed it.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by edge, posted 06-03-2002 2:52 PM edge has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 10 of 82 (10919)
06-03-2002 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
06-03-2002 2:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
There was a tectonic/watery like event on creation day #3 - the land appeared out of the sea. Read my posts on the subject Edge (see above). I subscribe to 1000 year days for the creation week (for theological reasons - 2nd Pet) and the science needs more than a day too.
JM: Actually, that's a rather tenuous theological position as well. Most biblical scholars interpret that verse to mean that time is of little import to God rather than define the length of time in Genesis! When you begin to compromise the bible (as ALL young earth creationists do), then why not simply accept it for what it is? After all, the bible is not a scientific treatise and you've just given a great example why. Now I can add TB exegesis to JP exegesis to Setterfield exegesis. Interesting that none of you are consistent with the other and yet you all cling to the same young earth viewpoint by claiming your exegesis is correct. How odd.
Cheers
Joe Meert
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-03-2002 2:07 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-03-2002 9:24 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 82 (10920)
06-03-2002 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Joe Meert
06-03-2002 9:15 PM


Joe, the vast majority of creationists tend to agree on an awful lot though. I can honestly say that the only residual differnces I would have with ICR and AIG is on the issue of the 1000 year days and thermodynamics. The theological one is a truly minor point although I personally think it is (i) strongly hinted in scripture and (ii) is the only way to account for the pre-flood sediments sensibly.
On the scriptual issue Heb 4 talks about a rest day like the creation week rest day. Rev 22 talks of a 1000 year millenium. The 'day of the Lord' spoken of throughout scripture (OT and NT) describes events that occur on either side of the millenium of Rev 22. And 2nd Pet 3 talks of 'Do not be ignorant that 1000y = 1 day etc' in the context of a discussion of creation, the flood and the 2nd coming! This even was a taching in a segment of the early church. I am aware of the mainstream Christian interpretation but I disagree with it for this paragraph's reasons.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Joe Meert, posted 06-03-2002 9:15 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Joe Meert, posted 06-03-2002 9:31 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 12 of 82 (10921)
06-03-2002 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tranquility Base
06-03-2002 9:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe, the vast majority of creationists tend to agree on an awful lot though. I can honestly say that the only residual differnces I would have with ICR and AIG is on the issue of the 1000 year days and thermodynamics. The theological one is a truly minor point although I personally think it is (i) strongly hinted in scripture and (ii) is the only way to account for the pre-flood sediments sensibly.
On the scriptual issue Heb 4 talks about a rest day like the creation week rest day. Rev 22 talks of a 1000 year millenium. The 'day of the Lord' spoken of throughout scripture (OT and NT) describes events that occur on either side of the millenium of Rev 22. And 2nd Pet 3 talks of 'Do not be ignorant that 1000y = 1 day etc' in the context of a discussion of creation, the flood and the 2nd coming! This even was a taching in a segment of the early church. I am aware of the mainstream Christian interpretation but I disagree with it for this paragraph's reasons.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]

and one might just as easily argue that a day is a billion years. It is as strong a position as yours and has the advantage of agreeing with science!
cheers
joe meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-03-2002 9:24 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-03-2002 9:44 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 82 (10922)
06-03-2002 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Joe Meert
06-03-2002 9:31 PM


^ If you think they're equally compatible interpretations then I'm glad you're not in church leadership!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Joe Meert, posted 06-03-2002 9:31 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 06-04-2002 1:36 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 14 of 82 (10938)
06-04-2002 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Tranquility Base
06-03-2002 9:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ If you think they're equally compatible interpretations then I'm glad you're not in church leadership!
JM: I don't. I think your interpretation is ridiculous and I hope you are not in church leadership either!
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-03-2002 9:44 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-04-2002 9:03 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 82 (10978)
06-04-2002 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Joe Meert
06-04-2002 1:36 AM


2 Pet 3:3-9 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Heb 4:9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.
Rev 20:4 They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
The Heb 4 'Sabbath day rest' (ie 7th day) to come is clearly the 1000 year period of Rev 20. And Peter tells us 1 day = 1000y in the context of creation, flood and the 2nd coming.
I wont be overly dogmatic on it but I wont agree it's a ridiculous interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 06-04-2002 1:36 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Joe Meert, posted 06-05-2002 12:37 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024