|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC Geologic Column - Created with apparent age? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: What process is that and what is your evidence that it happened?
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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. Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe My big page of Creation/Evolution Links [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Quoting myself, from message 44:
quote: Quoting buzsaw, from message 52 of "For Inquisitor, et al: What is Evolution?":
quote: Quoting Edge (in reference to "the geologic column" - see that topic for more discussion), from message 65 of the now closed "Mt. Saint Helens now has it's own topic!":
quote: 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. Moose ------------------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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
There seems to be a supply of higher quality YEC's at the moment, so I thought I'd give this topic a bump.
Quoting myself from message 4:
quote: Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
A side comment made by NosyNed, at holmes' "Come and Get me" topic,
message 13. quote: The age of the earth is a most fundimental question in the debate. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Yes, have we run out of YEC'ers? If not why isn't anyone willing to defend their young earth position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Perhaps I recall wrong, but it seems that Buzsaw sometimes seems to take both a "old earth" geology position, while maintaining a "young earth" life position.
But the age of the fossil record is directly tied to the age of the enclosing rocks. Thus, old earth also means old life. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I'd be surprised if Buz was the only old something or other around here if he is one.
OK, any YECs care to comment? Do we all agree, at least, that this is one of the 2 or 3 major points of the debate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I was just reviewing my message 48 (above), and I went back to the source topic from which I had quoted Buzsaw.
I (re)discovered Zephyr's reply to that very quote:
quote:quote: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. Moose [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 11-10-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Thanks, that is a very good point I haven't seen noted before. I'll keep this nearer the top so some of our resident creation scientists can answer it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JIM Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: ... 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I'll just bump again to see what happens.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Moose, in message 1 writes: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Hi Moose!
In a YEC context, I don't believe God used any 'apaprent age' tricks. He did everything he did for a reason. So, I beleive all layering occurred as . . layering. And this occurred during creation day 3, the Flood, the break-up of Pangea and the ice-ages.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024