What would be enough proof for a creationist?

--Without going into too much detail, at Yellowstone there are copious outcrops of supposed in situ fossil forests. I believe that an allochthonous model of their formation is viable, however I have a prediction for these successive fossil forests which can potentially distinguish between uniformitarian geology and young earth catastrophic geology. There are at least 9-12 successive 'fossil forests' in Yellowstone which are presumed to all be Eocene. Analysis of the associated paleosols (appearing to be incipient andisols) with rooted upright 'in situ' trees as well as data from dendrochronological studies suggest that each of these forests were only present for a few hundred to a few thousand years at most in an in situ growth scenario. Thus if there are no major unconformities and are successive, the whole section would have been deposited in far less than ~50 ky with time to spare which is not very significant amount of geologic time.On the other hand, if these forrests are allochthonous and burried in growth position in a "catastrophic" setting, each successive forest would require some time in between--I would argue at least a few days.Now then, CPT requires accelerated decay. And furthermore, the following brief geochronological analysis suggests that such a period of accelerated decay would have been relatively constant throughout geologic time.Using Loudmouth's thread here as a reference: http://EvC Forum: YEC Challenge: Hawaiian Islands -->EvC Forum: YEC Challenge: Hawaiian Islands Progressive aging of the seafloor (ie, radioisotopic decay) is concurrent with and constant relative to the rate of seafloor spreading. If radioisotopic decay decelerated to current rates, the slope would not be constant and would look more like a curve of root t(time) dependance. The same applies if the rate of seafloor spreading decelerated to current rates. And if radioisotopic decay and the rate of seafloor spreading decelerated together, there still should be more scatter in the data unless they decelerated proportionally--which is unlikely.Therefore, each day of accelerated decay would be approximately 500,000,000/365 => 1.37 my.Thus I would predict that those successive fossil forests in Yellowstone would constitute at least 9x(1.37), where x=the average amount of time between successive fossil forests. To find a minimum, lets say this value is 2 days:9(2)(1.37) = 24.66 myOr a difference of several orders of magnitude from 50 ky.If uniformitarian geology is correct, these fossil forests should represent an amount of time closer to the 50 ky value. If catastrophic geology has a chance, these fossil forests should represent a much larger amount of time (~25+ my).There are basaltic lava flows throughout the lamar ridge formation in Eocene Yellowstone. These flows could be dated and compared against my predictions.-Chris

quote:

---

I'm not sure where TC was aiming his message, but it sure doesn't seem to belong in this topic.

---

--I think it does. bob gray said the following in his opening message:

quote:

---

There was at one time a thread that dealt with the subject of what would constitute sufficient proof of evolution for a creationist. I was going to post there but I couldn't find the thread.

​

[snip - offered example argument of transitional fossils]

​

I would be curious if this is an accurate description of what the creationist members of the board are looking for. If it is not could you explain what you would consider to be sufficient proof that God created life through evolution and not by producing animals prefab?

---

--Italic emphasis mine. The treads subject was not necessarily intended to be transitional fossils, but it is to discuss "what would constitute sufficient proof of evolution for a creationist". The transitional fossils bit appears to be a mere example given by bob gray. So I posted a brief description of what I would consider sufficient, relatively conclusive, evidence of an old earth.

quote:

---

Side comment - TC, you seem to be letting your jargon get out of control. I have a geological background, and I'm having trouble following you.

---

--My post draws much from what I guess we could consider a subfield of geology or paleontology--paleopedology. At the time that I formulated this hypothesis I had read a large amount of material in paleopedology and field studies in the Eocene Yellowstone fossil forests, so I may have gotten a little out of control with my jargon.To simplify my argument:--In Eocene yellowstone sediments, there are numerous trees rooted in what appear to be paleosols in successive layers. There are at least 9-12 successive layers of these fossil forests. Geologists and paleopedologists studying the formation believe that all of these forests together span under 50,000 years of geologic time.An episode of accelerated radioisotopic decay (at an essentially constant accelerated rate) must have occurred during catastrophic plate tectonics. Thus we can deduce how much decay each day would represent in a year long event--1.37 million years of radioisotopic decay.Uniformitarian geology would predict that these fossil forests span only about 50,000 years of decay. If this is shown to be true from geochronological studies of these fossil forests, the 'global flood' scenario would require all of this to be deposited in less than an hour. This is impossible, so much more time is needed--at least 2 days per successive forest or 24.66 million years of radioisotopic decay.Thus, if the amount of geologic time represented by the yellowstone fossil forests in yellowstone are closer to 25+ million years, catastrophic geology scores a point. If it is closer to 50,000 years, catastrophic geology loses, IMO.-Chris

quote:

---

You are quite correct; the subject was not necessarily intended to be transitional fossils. However I don't think that an old earth is proof of evolution, it just means the planet has been around a while. It certainly helps with the time frame but why couldn't God have let the earth sit around for 4 billion years and then do his creation thing?

---

--The ultimate basis for the age of the earth comes from geochronology (radioisotopic dating in particular). If we were to come to accept that geochronology indicates that the earth is >4 Ga, it is only reasonable to accept that fossil life throughout the phanerozoic (the last ~550 my) is a record of evolution of those life forms. Whether God was progressively creating and eliminating various populations of life, or that the essentially deistic/atheistic evolution of life occured throughout that time is up to you.-ChrisThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-22-2005 21:33 AMThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-22-2005 21:34 AM