Jump to content


Photo

Gsa's Position Statement


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
No replies to this topic

#1 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 04 November 2011 - 09:13 AM

The GSA has stated that "Creationism is not science because it invokes supernatural phenomena that cannot be tested."

http://www.geosociet...s/position1.htm

In this thread I wish to show that creation geology is based on empirical experiments, measurements, and dating methods and that the GSA is basing their own hypothesis on circular reasoning.

The rock record provides a treasure trove of fossils, and by the early 1800s, geologists had used physical relationships among rocks to establish the basis for the geologic time scale. They understood that the fossil record shows major changes in life forms over time. In 1859, Darwin’s On the Origin of Species showed that these changes can be explained by natural selection operating on random variations in organisms — the process we now know as biological evolution.


Darwin's pangenesis hypothesis was falsified by Mendel's law of heredity and by Darwin's own admission:

"... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."


Creations prediction of a complete fossil record is verified by empirical studies.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=73135


Since then, we have continued to uncover details of life’s history, and biologists have elucidated the genetic and molecular basis for evolution.


They have been continually proven wrong and left scrambling for a new hypothesis. Science has added nothing to their original or current ideas.

Evolution is not a static idea but a growing concept added to by scientific observation, testing, and debate. Scientific discoveries in these fields and related disciplines have progressively sharpened our understanding of evolution, which is now well established as a well-tested fact.


This is the same rhetorical equivocation Darwin made in the first nine chapters of his book. Evolution has never been tested; It is inferred by small changes that have no quantifiable measure to common ancestry.

Evolution is accepted by the scientific community because all available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary science: that life on Earth has evolved and species share common ancestors and genomes.


This is a circular statement. "We see small changes in phenotypes and we see differences in genomes; Therefore, it must be evolution."

The discovery of radioactivity in the twentieth century and its use for measuring ages of rocks has made it possible to quantify the age of Earth and to estimate rates of many geologic processes. Many rocks of over a billion years in age can now be dated with great precision. The ages of many rocks have been confirmed by repeated tests in multiple laboratories, often using different isotopic decay schemes. The results are consistent with the processes that uplift the land and cause the erosion and deposition of sediments.


Radioactive decay was measured in lab. conditions and extrapolated to be constant in all conditions outside the lab. Several experiments have proven that factors such as extreme heat and pressure can accelerate decay rates. This accelerated nuclear decay was actually predicted by creationists and is one reason why many varying parent/daughter ratios can be found in the same sample and different isotopes will yield a different age.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=71971

Creationists have empirically established the age of these basement rocks by helium diffusivity.

http://www.evolution...findpost&p=2446


Geologists can now identify rocks that record hundreds of millions of years of sedimentation by the slow layer-by-layer accumulation of mud, the rhythmic rise and fall of tides on ancient continental margins, or the slow back-and-forth meandering of rivers in ancient valleys


Here they are out of our solar system. Geologists have known for decades that all of the continents would be completely eroded away and redeposited within 15 million years making any trace back to hundreds of millions impossible.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=73418


Organisms that grow only a few millimeters each year have formed reefs hundreds of meters thick. Additionally, techniques that date more recent deposits have been repeatedly and accurately compared to known historical events.


The empirical rate of reef building is ~1 ft/yr. The deepest reef is only traceable back to less than 5,000 years.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=73421


They are also using circular reasoning. Carbon dating works because it's calibrated by tree ring data and they both work because it matches a volcanic eruption of known historical age. What they don't add is that many scientists disagree on which volcanic eruption it actually was and that tree ring data can be matched up in multiple places, which makes it convenient when you need to find what you want to be true.

Took a 290 ring Douglas-fir log of known age by historical methods and cross-matched it to 113 places in the Pacific Northwest Douglas-fir master growth ring sequence with greater than 99.9% accuracy (according to T-"wiggle match" values). Yamaguchi DK 1986-Interpretation of cross section correlation between tree-ring series. Tree-Ring Bulletin 46,47-54

Six of these matches were non-overlapping, which means that this particular piece of wood could be dated to be any one of these six vastly different different ages to within a 99.9% degree of confidence.

In almost all branches of science,other than tree-ring studies,there is a check on the validity of published research. Other researchers can,and often will,independently seek to replicate the research... Tree-ring studies do not have this check... The result is a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and yet are accountable to no one." Douglas Keenan-Why Radiocarbon Dates Downwind From the Mediterranean Are Too Early, Radiocarbon Vol.44,NR1,2002,P.225-237



The GSA has done no true scientific experimentation to justify their interpretation of geology. Creation on the other hand, has conducted numerous experiments, which have even falsified the law of superposition in some circumstances.




Posted Image


http://www.answersin...s/tj/v8/n1/sand



The fact that in all instances, the geologic column is made up of heterogeneous layers makes for a counter intuitive hypothesis for the GSA.

Posted Image

All of the rubble at the bottom is eroding away and forming a homogeneous mixture through slow gradual erosion in localized places. In experiments, the only mechanism for global heterogeneity of stratum is a constant flow rate that sorts particles according to density.

Posted Image

In the above picture of the Colorado river, you can clearly see a mixture of sandstone, limestone, and shale rubble eroding into a homogeneous mixture, which isn't present throughout the geologic column which they claim to have evidence of long periods of time.


Enjoy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users