Author Topic: geology  (Read 761 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline slacker22

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Darwins +0/-0
geology
« on: October 15, 2008, 12:43:17 AM »
Young earth creationists claim that the world is roughly 6000 years old,  and that the layers in the geologic column are the result of the flood in the bible.    This actually coincides with neptunist theories of the 18th century.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptunist.   

Often times when i hear the debates the subject of geology rarely comes up,  but when it does it seems that the creationist tends to say that "smarter creatures" would find a way to survive longer during the flood and this explains why you find say... dinosaurs in different periods then say... trilobites.   Also of course the main focus is to try to debunk radiometric carbon dating.

Im going to put my spock ears on for a second and think about this.   Im not a geologist,  or even really that smart of a guy.    But if I spend even 10 minutes studying geology it seems that it would completely debunk any young earth idea.   

Lets say I throw out radiometric carbon dating.   Is it a coincidence that trilobites are only found in a different type of rock then a dinosaur?   It seems to me with so many trilobite fossels..  and they all lived in the same time period of the dinosaur that you would surely find a dinosaur and a trilobite in the same type of rock.    Are there any examples at all of a dinosaur or human fossils in the Cambrian era?

I would really like to hear a geologist debate a young earth creationist.

Edit:  Anyone familiar with geology know of some other examples that would prove that the earth is greater then 6000 years old?  I feel like im missing tons of information about the rocks.   The rocks tell an even bigger story.   
« Last Edit: October 15, 2008, 12:46:00 AM by slacker22 »

Offline switch

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
  • Darwins +0/-0

Offline cmotdibbler

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: geology
« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2008, 07:42:10 AM »
You might be interested in Greg Morton's story. He is a geologist who *was* a young earth creationist and changed his views. I think he is still a believer but not sure about that.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm




Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: geology
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2008, 02:52:43 PM »
Quote
Young earth creationists claim that the world is roughly 6000 years old,  and that the layers in the geologic column are the result of the flood in the bible.    This actually coincides with neptunist theories of the 18th century.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptunist.   
 
correct.  I find it bizaare that anyone could have thourhg this was the "only" way that rocks formed when even then they knew of volcanism.
Quote
Often times when i hear the debates the subject of geology rarely comes up,  but when it does it seems that the creationist tends to say that "smarter creatures" would find a way to survive longer during the flood and this explains why you find say... dinosaurs in different periods then say... trilobites.   Also of course the main focus is to try to debunk radiometric carbon dating.
Yep.   There is also the problem that many fossils should be all helter-skelter in positioning.  A cataclysmic flood should make trilobites upside down, sideways, at various angles.  But they aren't found that way.  They are almost always on their bellies. Other things to aid in positioning are where you have raindrop hits, dessication cracks, burrows, etc, in the sediments, between layers.  Not the signature of a flood at all.   Even if the "smarter animals" got higher than the slower or dumber ones, they were organic and would have all floated together when dead.  This again would allow hydrological sorting and we should have velociraptors interspersed with humans (and lots of raptor bites on the humans bones!). 
Quote
Im going to put my spock ears on for a second and think about this.   Im not a geologist,  or even really that smart of a guy.    But if I spend even 10 minutes studying geology it seems that it would completely debunk any young earth idea.   

Indeed it does.  Carbon dating doesn't work well for most geological applications.  It simply doesn't have enough range. 
Quote
Lets say I throw out radiometric carbon dating.   Is it a coincidence that trilobites are only found in a different type of rock then a dinosaur?   It seems to me with so many trilobite fossels..  and they all lived in the same time period of the dinosaur that you would surely find a dinosaur and a trilobite in the same type of rock.    Are there any examples at all of a dinosaur or human fossils in the Cambrian era?
Nope.
Quote
I would really like to hear a geologist debate a young earth creationist.

Edit:  Anyone familiar with geology know of some other examples that would prove that the earth is greater then 6000 years old?  I feel like im missing tons of information about the rocks.   The rocks tell an even bigger story.   

I'm a geologist and trust me, young earthers simply don't listen.  They also rely on long superceded information and simply lie.  Switch has listed some of the best bits of evidence.  We also have such things as the lovely Nuvvuagittuq greenstone http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7639024.stm Banded iron formations are very cool. 

There's also the fact that none of the magic cataclysms claimed by creationists have left any evidence.  One would think that if there were great caverns under the earth that held all the flood water would have been found by seismic testing.  There are no places on the earth where millions of miles of earth were crushed and cracked from an outward explosion.  We also have no evidence of any flood in the ice cores we have.  Not that this is geology persay but ice makes changes in the landscape.  To have a glacier be around so long and be so thick that it makes continents rebound after its gone is a good demonstration of how the ice was here and the "Flood" wasn't. 

We also have sorting sequences in place, not some crazy mix up from some "Flood".  Dunes sort in a certain way, ripples in another, etc.  We have huge deposits of loess, airborne silt, that are in place and quite huge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loess). It could not have formed during the "flood" and again, covers huge amounts of time, much longer than 6000 years (I will say that some young earthers are constantly pushign back their clock to give themselves some wiggle room)

finally, one of the best, if not geological reasons, that the flood adn creationists are idiots, is that humans would have been hip deep in critters to account for the number of fossils.  They are saying that all the critters fossilized were alive at the same time.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline bahramthered

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3140
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: geology
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2008, 06:09:55 PM »
It's standard beleiver tatic. Ignore anything that may challeneg your beleifs or invent weird explanations.

Offline Goodkat

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1193
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A man's delusion is insanity, a nation's, religion
Re: geology
« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2008, 06:13:32 PM »
Carbon dating is accurate only to 45,000 years, all the earlier dates come from other radiometric dating methods, which are all based on the laws of physics.

Offline PingTheServer

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 952
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Devil's Advocate
Re: geology
« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2008, 07:07:56 PM »
Oh I have a whole series of posts on this:

http://debunkingcreationism.blogspot.com/2008/09/cumulative-case-for-old-earth-part-1.html


Quote
In addition, Geophysicist Joe Meert reports that if 4 billion years of radiometric decay had happened in only ten thousand years, it would have destroyed the earth!

CLASSIC!!