Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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: 1/0


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

  
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

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


Message 22 of 82 (11099)
06-06-2002 8:48 PM


The essence of what I was trying to drive at, in starting this topic, was some speculation from TB (or anyone else of the YEC gang), on what was the nature of the earth's original created continental crust.
Was it a geologically simple crust? Or was it the already rather convoluted mess that mainstream geology sees the precambrian geology being, at the end of the precambrian era? (I use that rather awkward sentence to exclude any deformation of the precambrian rocks, that may have happend later in the phanerazoic).
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
------------------
"I'm not a real geologist, but I play one on the internet."
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 06-06-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-06-2002 11:11 PM Minnemooseus has replied

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


Message 26 of 82 (11122)
06-07-2002 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Tranquility Base
06-06-2002 11:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Moose I've read far more mainstream geoglogy than flood geology and as you all know I am not a geologist.
In that context I'll speculate for all sorts of theological and scientific reasons that the earth's surface was created as unlayered bed rock underwater. As usual even that I would have as some sort of dynamical process. eg - the rock may have been liquid and came to it's own temperature and vertical compositonal equilibrium.
I'm happy to hear your comment but remember this is just off the top of my head.

Fair enough! My speculation is that the earliest crust was all oceanic like. Perhaps with a more ultramafic composition. At what point the oceans came to be is another question.
I imagine that, to even the the more knowledgable than I, the mainstream scientific thought on the nature of the original crust is highly speculative. The evidence is long lost, or at least extremely disguised.
Will try to do some further research, or perhaps Joe can chip in with some info.
Still, however, the bottom line still seems to be that a lot of time consuming evolution of the continental crust happened before the end of the preCambrian.
The "I know enough to know how ignorant I am" Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-06-2002 11:11 PM Tranquility Base 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 36 of 82 (12130)
06-25-2002 1:07 AM


Giving topic a bump.
Detailed study of the geologic record (the rocks, and the relationships between the rocks), shows that the earth's continental crust is a tremendiously complex, 3 dimensional mosaic of the results of processes that collectively required a vast amount of time.
Now, to fit into a 5k to 10k year period of formation requires:
God created a young earth with an appearance of old age
or
God vastly increased the rates of processes, to compress the events into said 5-10 k years.
If so, this is something undocumentable by the worldly evidence.
(by the way, didn't I start this topic with those sort of statements?)
If you think the earth's geology looks to be the results of a 5 to 10 k year process, then all I can say is you are either ignorant or in a monster case of denial.
If you wish to invoke a scientificly unsuportable miracle, so be it. But science is in no part of it.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-25-2002 1:34 AM Minnemooseus has replied

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


Message 38 of 82 (12134)
06-25-2002 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Tranquility Base
06-25-2002 1:34 AM


Call it anything you want - just don't call it late for dinner (or science).
Mooth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-25-2002 1:34 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-25-2002 1:59 AM Minnemooseus has replied

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


Message 40 of 82 (12136)
06-25-2002 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Tranquility Base
06-25-2002 1:59 AM


Whatsamatta U prefers that their professors have no more than an eighth grade education, but I managed to get hired on, despite the BS degree.
Da Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-25-2002 1:59 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-25-2002 2:19 AM 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 42 of 82 (19806)
10-13-2002 9:57 PM


This bump arises in relation to a question to Terry at the Talk Origins board.
There, he and I agreed that God created man in his spiritual image, rather than in his physical image. I explored this, because I was considering is God might of created many in the human physical image, in the week of creation. But Adam was the first to be created with the spirital image.
Well, that is really an aside to the theme of this topic (or is it?).
What I really wish to get into (and maybe it's already appeared earlier in this topic), is extensions of the idea that God did create Adam with apparent age. Also other details in the garden. And seemingly, at least some portion of the physical earth.
So, the question now is, what was the geological nature of the earth after the week of creation? How much "apparent age" had God created?
That said, I'll probably now go back and see what I started this topic with, and what has already transpired.
Suffering from the influence of Terry,
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-14-2002 12:47 AM 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 44 of 82 (19863)
10-14-2002 3:28 PM


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.
Now, in contrast to the above, my mainstream science image of the earth's geology, in the early preCambrian at the time of the earliest crustal rocks.
A core and mantle of unknown nature.
No continental crust at all.
A thin skin pre-plate tectonic oceanic crust, of some quite uniform ultramafic composition.
From this state, the earth evolved, in the next 4+ billion years, to the current level of complexity.
Comments from the creation and/or geologist side?
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, 10-14-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-14-2002 9:46 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 48 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-22-2003 3:00 PM Minnemooseus has replied

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


Message 47 of 82 (20033)
10-16-2002 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by edge
10-14-2002 11:06 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by edge, posted 10-14-2002 11:06 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 48 of 82 (41037)
05-22-2003 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Minnemooseus
10-14-2002 3:28 PM


Quoting myself, from message 44:
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.
Quoting buzsaw, from message 52 of "For Inquisitor, et al: What is Evolution?":
quote:
It seems that the complete column should be prevelant all over with deviations here and there the exceptions.
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:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-14-2002 3:28 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-10-2003 4:26 AM 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 49 of 82 (55345)
09-14-2003 2:39 AM


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:
THE RECORD OF THE CREATED EARTH, IS THE EARTH!
Moose

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


Message 50 of 82 (65025)
11-07-2003 7:11 PM


A bump of sorts
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.
Moose

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by NosyNed, posted 11-09-2003 10:32 PM Minnemooseus has replied

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


Message 52 of 82 (65500)
11-09-2003 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by NosyNed
11-09-2003 10:32 PM


Re: A bump of sorts
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by NosyNed, posted 11-09-2003 10:32 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2003 12:57 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024