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]
I think TC is trying to compress preCambrian crustal evolution into the time frame of one or more "long" creation days. But even thousand year creation days are unrealistic time frames for the "processes" that we see evidences of, in the geologic record.
I still see 3 possibilities for what we see in the gologic record:
1) God created with a false appearance of age.
2) God created, and then evolved the earth at rates totally out of touch with any scientific reality, as we understand it (which is actually a variation of number 1).
3) Old earth creationism and/or (atheistic and/or theistic) evolution.
quote:I've just developed an image of what I think the earth's geology might have looked like a the end of the week of creation, had God incorporated minimal apparent age.
The earth's geology would be extremely simple. There would be four components - core, mantle, oceanic crust, and continental crust.
The oceanic crust would be homogenous. All the basalt would be the same composition, both vertically and horizontally. There would be no sediments, and no indications of plate tectonic activity. There could be variations in thickness and topography.
The continental crust would also be homogenous, with perhaps some exceptions where God saw fit. But no sedimentary layering, no volcanics, no folding or faulting. Like the oceanic crust, there could be variations in thickness and topography. Also, God would have needed to add certain resources. A soil horizon, and perhaps somehow the various products that man would come to mine from the earth.
quote:It is basically a time scale. There is no geological axiom that says rocks of all ages must be present at any given location. Having said that, there are some places where the column is remarkably complete.
Buzsaw's comment is further indication to me, that the YEC image of what the earth's geology is, is much simpler than reality.
Just wanted to get something posted, before I totally lost the train of thought.
------------------ Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. My big page of Creation/Evolution Links
A side comment made by NosyNed, at holmes' "Come and Get me" topic, message 13.
quote:E.g., if someone disagrees that evolution happened there is limited value in discussing the fossil record if they think the earth is 6,000 years old and the whole record was piled up in one year. If someone doesn't agree that evolution happened then there is not much good in disussing any theories of how it happened.
The age of the earth is a most fundimental question in the debate.
quote:It seems that the complete column should be prevelant all over with deviations here and there the exceptions.
I saw a really good answer here, which I can't locate, so I'll paraphrase. (Apologies to the author, feel free to identify yourself and/or clarify) The older the earth is, the more likely that sections of the column will be missing in some places, because of long-term erosion or other effects. A young earth with rapidly formed strata would likely have a complete column in most or all areas; therefore, the complicated geologic record with its myriad distinct catastrophes and discontinuities, verifies that our world has been around a long time and subject to many long-term variations in environment.
Zephyr also goes on to say more.
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 11-10-2003]
To me, the most egregious examples of bad science are concentrated in the ICR museum's explanations of the geologic column, radiometric dating, and the Flood. Is this the type of science that their graduate students learn?
Missing strata? No problem. Lehi Hintze's Geologic History of Utah describes about 100 local geologic columns for that state -- all differ at least slightly from each other. The beauty is that they correlate from location to location, and one can build a history of the larger area from a number of local columns. The geologic columns of Utah are rich in Mesozoic strata and dinosaur fossils, unlike the state of Wisconsin (where I reside), which has neither Mesozoic age rocks nor dinosaur fossils in most of its local columns. An incomplete local geologic column is typical, and this means only that no sedimentary rock was being deposited during that geologic time period.
No mention is made that in lower strata, no multicellular life is found at all, although fossils of eukaryotic and then prokaryotic cells are found.
The general idea of this forum, I thought, was a debate on the issues around evolutionary theory and "creation science". It seems the creationists (YEC type) don't want to actually debate the issue. I presume that means that none of them actually support creation science. But instead support faith based creationism without any reference to science.