YEC Geologic Column - Created with apparent age?

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).

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.

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
In our model there still could have been a process that generated the differentiation of continental crust from oceanic crust during the 'day 3' uplift of land out of water.

---

What process is that and what is your evidence that it happened?

quote:

---

The Precambiran strata are strongly suggestive of process and hence, due to the minimum time involved, is suggestive of the scriptually hinted '1000 year day' view of Biblical creationism .

---

What particular features of Precambrian strata suggest what process? You really need to get away from these generalized statements.[This message has been edited by edge, 10-14-2002]

quote:

---

An incomplete local geologic column is typical, and this means only that no sedimentary rock was being deposited during that geologic time period.

---

... Or that it has been eroded or structurally removed. Otherwise, exactly true. I think we can pretty much rely on YECs not understanding unconformities, however.

I know of none. What actually happens is that as one becomes more familiar with the science of geology it becomes virtually impossible to adhere to YECism. Glen Morton has an interesting story to tell about this. Maybe someone has a link to it. He was once a YEC and slowly converted after working in the field where YEC dogma collided with functional mainstream science. Not bigotry. Simple facts. You cannot rationalize the mountains of evidence for an old earth with the YEC doctrine. As Rox said, the only real way is to be a committed YEC in the first place. In fact some have said that they took degrees in geology simply to disprove mainstream science. Well, see: you're not a geologist! Speaking for myself, sure. That is part of a geologist's job, to create viable past scenarios that predict earth conditions. I'm not sure I have a handle on 'excellent geological formations'. Why could they not suggest normal physical processes rather than 'redemptive events'? Are you saying that the deposition of beach sands constitutes some supernatural event and that we are somehow being rewarded with a beach? And you would call that a 'parsimonious explanation'?

Of course not. I am a catastrophist myself. Catastrophes are normal events in earth history. However, there are vast amounts of time between the catastrophes. A few, eh? Is this some argument from lack of authority or something? Please find us just one who was not committed to YEC before becoming a geologist.