Jump to content


Photo

Erosion Rate Dating


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
18 replies to this topic

#1 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 03 March 2006 - 05:48 AM

I decided to start a new specific thread for the follwing subject:

I've been looking at the young earth/flood erosion argument as well as the talkorigins proposed explanations see bottom left:

http://www.talkorigi...nd/howgood.html

I think (despite talkorigins claims) that this is an area that creationists can still hold a strong easy to understand argument.

The erosion arguments involve:
1. Total continental erosion:

"North America is being denuded at a rate that could level it in a mere 10 million years, or, to put it another way, at the same rate, ten North Americas could have been eroded since middle Cretaceous time 100 m.y. ago."
Dott, R. H. and R. L. Batten. 1971. Evolution of the earth. McGraw-Hill, New York.

see also http://www.answersin...v22/i2/ages.asp http://www.grisda.or...gins/13064.htm)
http://www.detecting...ogiccolumn.html

2. Paraconfomity erosion
"At a 10-million-year paraconformity gap we would expect an average of about 300 m (1000 ft) of removal of the underlayer; but we usually see nothing to suggest that the missing layers were ever present." Roth

http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf

(see page 3.)


I hope to shortly provide reasons why the talkorigins explanations (below) do not solve the problem.

Young-earth "proof" #15: Continents are eroding at a rate which would bring them to sea level in less than 14 million years. Inasmuch as the continents are anything but flat, the earth cannot be billions of years old. (27.5 x 109 tons sediment/year are lost to the oceans by erosion; the present mass of the continents above sea level is 383 x 1015 tons.)
15. This argument, advanced by creationist Stuart E. Nevins [Pseudonym for Steve Austin -- editor] in the ICR Impact series (No.8) in 1973, simply ignores the impact of modern geology! Nevins overlooks the fact that the continents are dynamic and have grown appreciably over time, both by accretion of material at the margins and by addition of material from the mantle below (Dalrymple, 1984, p.114). Volcanic activity, the emplacement of gigantic masses of rising, molten rock, and the stupendous compressional forces of the earth's colliding plates have been building mountains off and on for billions of years. Mountain building is going on even now in many parts of the world.

I could also mention that the current rates of erosion are particularly high and that isostatic rebound would greatly increase the time for a continent to erode flat, but that's just icing on the cake. Any argument which pretends that continents are inert lumps of rock subject only to erosion is out of touch with reality. We need not consider it further.

Davis A. Young (1988, pp.128-131) treats Nevins' argument in more detail. Another point made by Nevins is that sediment is piling up on the ocean floor faster than it's being removed. Even if that's true, there is no reason to view it as being anything more than a temporary imbalance.

...it is generally regarded by geologists that the rates of erosion at present are relatively high because of the topography of the continents. The continental land masses are believed to be much more rugged and mountainous than is usually the case, and mountainous topography speeds up rates of erosion. Thus at the present time we ought fully to expect that more sediment is being added to the oceans than is being removed. Paleogeography indicates that very often in the past the opposite was the case.

(Young, 1988, p.131)

Thus, we have no problem from that quarter either.



#2 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 03 March 2006 - 05:58 AM

I hope to look at all the proposed explanations from the TalkOrigins arcticle (though not necessarily in order).

*Isostaic Rebound: TalkOrigins claim: "isostatic rebound would greatly increase the time for a continent to erode flat"

Isostaic rebound occurres due to the fact that the continents float on the mantle. Illustration:
http://lewis.up.edu/...Ch05/sld039.htm

If material is removed (such as by eroision) then the continent should float higher:
Compare the following two illustrations:
http://lewis.up.edu/...Ch05/sld040.htm
http://lewis.up.edu/...Ch05/sld041.htm

Isostatic rebound can be best illustrated by starting with the "isostaic Depression" slide above and rapidly clicking on the "next" arrow to the "Isostatic Rebound" slide and back and forth as needed noting the upward movement. (It should also be remembered that the ocean crusts float on the mantle as well).

While it is true that isostatic rebound would seem to increase the time for continental survival beyond a simple "erosion only" calculation, I still see some severe problems for this provide a reasonable explanation for the erosion time issue. I'll try to list them in my next post.

#3 Shane

Shane

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rio Grande Valley, Texas

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:38 PM

I have been studying this issue recently but coming up with more questions than answers.

#4 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 09 April 2008 - 07:19 AM

The main flaw in the erosion argument is that it assumes that land masses are only eroded down. However, they are also lifted up, due to tektonic movement. The entire surface of the Earth has been replaced several times during its existence. We tend to think of Earth as a rock ball, but it is really a liquid magma drop with a thin hard crust.

Hans

ETA: Just looked up the actual figures. The diameter of Earth is 7,926 miles. The thickness of the crust varies between 7 and 50 miles. So, if we scale the earth to the size of an apple, the crust will be thinner than the skin of an apple.

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 20 June 2008 - 02:48 AM

I have cleaned up this thread by deleting all posts pertaining to SQLserver who was a forum troll. Almost everything he posted was copy and paste from a anti-creationist website. He is no longer with us. Thread can continue.

#6 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 27 June 2008 - 05:58 PM

I decided to start a new specific thread for the follwing subject:

I've been looking at the young earth/flood erosion argument as well as the talkorigins proposed explanations see bottom left:

http://www.talkorigi...nd/howgood.html

I think (despite talkorigins claims) that this is an area that creationists can still hold a strong easy to understand argument.

The erosion arguments involve:
1. Total continental erosion:

"North America is being denuded at a rate that could level it in a mere 10 million years, or, to put it another way, at the same rate, ten North Americas could have been eroded since middle Cretaceous time 100 m.y. ago."
Dott, R. H. and R. L. Batten. 1971. Evolution of the earth. McGraw-Hill, New York.

see also http://www.answersin...v22/i2/ages.asp http://www.grisda.or...gins/13064.htm)
http://www.detecting...ogiccolumn.html

2. Paraconfomity erosion
"At a 10-million-year paraconformity gap we would expect an average of about 300 m (1000 ft) of removal of the underlayer; but we usually see nothing to suggest that the missing layers were ever present." Roth

http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf

(see page 3.)
I hope to shortly provide reasons why the talkorigins explanations (below) do not solve the problem.

View Post


hooberus

The Journal of Creation has several articles on erosion rate dating. The following is just a sampling of what they have a search on their website will provide more.

Larry Pierce “Niagara Falls and the Bible: One of the World’s Greatest Natural Attractions has Some Profound Lessons About the Age of Things” http://creationonthe...ntent/view/276/
Michael Oard “It’s Plain to See” http://creationonthe...tent/view/4958/
Tas Walker “Eroding ages” http://creationonthe...ontent/view/230
Tas Walker “Vanishing coastlines” http://creationonthe...tent/view/5612/
Andrew Snelling “Iceland’s recent ‘mega-flood’” http://www.creationo...ontent/view/312

Erosion rate dating can be used to show a younger age of the earth as well as point to the Genesis flood. The following is from the Pierce article listed above. Niagara Gorge was used by Charles Lyell in his quest to push the uniformitarian ideology. Lyell calculated that the Niagara Gorge eroded at 1 foot per year and since the gorge was 35,000 feet long that made the gorge 35,000 years old. That sounds reasonable and it was an accepted age for many years. Too bad the figures Lyell used were not accurate and he knew it. Mr. Blackwell, son of an eminent geologist, informed Lyell that residents of the area had observed an erosion rate of a little more than three feet per year; however, Lyell disregarded this data and used his one foot rate. The three feet per year would have reduced the age to a little less than 12,000 years. The story gets better (not for the uniformitarians) because measurements taken from 1842 to 1927 came in at four to five feet per year erosion rate placing the age of the gorge between 7,000 to 9,000 years. This is much lower than the age Lyell arrived at.

This of course is assuming the erosion rate is constant through time and this can not be verified for lack of observable accounts. Pierce lists seven factors that affect the erosion rate of the Niagara Gorge.

1. The different thickness of the limestone strata found in the gorge. Lyell knew this but did not include this in his calculations.
2. The water flow was greater in the past. Lyell knew this but did not include this in his calculations.
3. The gorge was narrow in the past increasing water flow over the falls. Lyell knew this but did not include it in his calculations.
4. After the flood there would have been more sediment in gorge increasing erosion rate.
5. The limestone would break off in huge pieces as observed by local residents of the area. Lyell knew this but did not include this in his calculations.
6. The shape of the falls will affect erosion. The notched crest observed from 1875 to 1886 saw faster erosion rates (18 feet per year).
7. Ice causes faster erosion during the melting of the glaciers. However, without eyewitnesses the rate can only be assumed.

Pierce incorporated these factors in his calculations and came up with an age range of 3800 to 4300 years ago.

Bob Barclay

#7 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 28 June 2008 - 04:26 PM

Allow me to reiterate my earlier post:

Erosion dating can be useful to give a rough estimate of the age of a certain feature on Earth, like the mentioned Niagara Gorge. But to use it to date the age of the planet requires the assumption that there was a single starting point and the surface has since been changed only by erosion, and that assumption is obviously naive. The Niagara Gorge is an example in itself: Much of it is limestone, and limestone is a sediment rock which requires the following steps to exist:

1) Creation of a rock formation.
2) Erosion of that rock formation.
3) Sedimentation and hardening of the erosion products.
4) Lifting of the hardened limestone to and elevation where erosion can start anew.

So, while the Niagara Gorge itself might be dated to some 5,000 years (note that this builds on a long row of assumtions), the entire formation, of which it is part, has to be many times older.

Hans

#8 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 29 June 2008 - 07:01 PM

Allow me to reiterate my earlier post:

Erosion dating can be useful to give a rough estimate of the age of a certain feature on Earth, like the mentioned Niagara Gorge. But to use it to date the age of the planet requires the assumption that there was a single starting point and the surface has since been changed only by erosion, and that assumption is obviously naive. The Niagara Gorge is an example in itself: Much of it is limestone, and limestone is a sediment rock which requires the following steps to exist:

1) Creation of a rock formation.
2) Erosion of that rock formation.
3) Sedimentation and hardening of the erosion products.
4) Lifting of the hardened limestone to and elevation where erosion can start anew.

So, while the Niagara Gorge itself might be dated to some 5,000 years (note that this builds on a long row of assumtions), the entire formation, of which it is part, has to be many times older.

Hans

View Post


Hans

Yes in some areas of the continents we do see uplifting. According to an article entitled “Some Questions about Geochronology” written by Ariel Roth the uplifting happens with the mountains and for erosion to keep up with a rate of 1000 cm per 1000 years the mountain would have to be 45 km high. This means that mountains are uplifting to fast for evolutionary geochronology. However, Roth points out:

“The challenge to standard geochronology is that if mountains have been uplifting at current rates or even much slower, the lower parts of the geologic column which are many hundreds to thousands of millions of years old should have been uplifted and eroded away long ago. Yet these older sections are very well-represented in our mountain ranges, a cursory field study or examination of geologic maps will reveal.”

Subduction is still happening at the bottom of the oceans. According to the article “Evidence of a Young World” written by Russell Humphreys scientific literature claims subduction can only account for removing less than one billion tons of sediment per year. This means that erosion should still palce about 400 meters of sediment at the bottom of the oceans over the long ages of evolutionary time.

Tas Walker’s article “Vanishing Coastlines” points out three of many erosion problems that are happening on coastlines. The one that stuck out the most was the Belle Tout lighthouse built in 1832 at a distance of 30 meters from the edge of the “White Cliffs of Dover.” In 1998 they had to move the lighthouse because the cliffs eroded to within 3 meters of the lighthouse. The cliffs are supposedly 65 million years old with one meter per 6 years 10,000 km of coastline should have eroded by then. As the article points out it would be the distance from Los Angeles to Sydney.

As far as the rock formations being billions of years old there is evidence to the contrary. An article entitled “Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay” by Russell Humphreys, Steven Austin, John Baumgardner, and Andrew Snelling came to the conclusion, as the title states, agrees with the Genesis account.

References can be found at:

http://www.grisda.or...igins/13064.htm
http://www.creationr...s/99/cm9907.htm
http://creationonthe...tent/view/5612/
http://www.creationr...41_1/Helium.htm

Bob Barclay

#9 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 30 June 2008 - 07:30 AM

Hans

Yes in some areas of the continents we do see uplifting.  According to an article entitled “Some Questions about Geochronology” written by Ariel Roth the uplifting happens with the mountains and for erosion to keep up with a rate of 1000 cm per 1000 years the mountain would have to be 45 km high. This means that mountains are uplifting to fast for evolutionary geochronology.  However, Roth points out:


Well, 45 km is a bit tall, I think the subterran foot of such a mountain would be pressed so deep onto the mantle that it would melt. Remember that moutains float on magma. However, there is no doubt that without erosion, there would be much higher mountains on Earth. Both the Moon and Mars have way higher mountains (up to 16 km).

“The challenge to standard geochronology is that if mountains have been uplifting at current rates or even much slower, the lower parts of the geologic column which are many hundreds to thousands of millions of years old should have been uplifted and eroded away long ago. Yet these older sections are very well-represented in our mountain ranges, a cursory field study or examination of geologic maps will reveal.”


The fault with this argument (as well as with the basic erosion aging argument) is the assumption that erosion happens at a uniform rate. Even a cursory observation of Earths surface will tell you this is not the case; some places are eroded donwn heavily, others are hardly eroded at all. Same with uplifting; some areas are lifted, others not.

Subduction is still happening at the bottom of the oceans. According to the article “Evidence of a Young World” written by Russell Humphreys scientific literature claims subduction can only account for removing less than one billion tons of sediment per year. This means that erosion should still palce about 400 meters of sediment at the bottom of the oceans over the long ages of evolutionary time.


I can't see how anyone can have shis information with any useful of certainty, but in fact, sediment layers are, in many places, easily 400 meters thick. So since they are, how do you account for this thickness if Earth is only a few thousand years old?

Tas Walker’s article “Vanishing Coastlines” points out three of many erosion problems that are happening on coastlines.  The one that stuck out the most was the Belle Tout lighthouse built in 1832 at a distance of 30 meters from the edge of the “White Cliffs of Dover.” In 1998 they had to move the lighthouse because the cliffs eroded to within 3 meters of the lighthouse. The cliffs are supposedly 65 million years old with one meter per 6 years 10,000 km of coastline should have eroded by then. As the article points out it would be the distance from Los Angeles to Sydney.


Again based on the completely unfounded assumtion that the erosion rate has been constant. In fact that assumtion is quite absurd in this case, because what do the mile-thick chalk cliff of Dover consist of? Right! Sediment. That sediment was created 65 million years ago, lay at the bottom of the sea long enough to harden (and form flint deposits), then it was lifted above the sea level, and only then did erosion begin, at a not necessarily even rate.

As far as the rock formations being billions of years old there is evidence to the contrary.  An article entitled “Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay” by Russell Humphreys, Steven Austin, John Baumgardner, and Andrew Snelling came to the conclusion, as the title states, agrees with the Genesis account.

References can be found at:


I once read an explanation of the helium diffusion finding, but I don't remeeber what it was. I'll look for it.

ETA: Ahh, here: http://www.talkorigi...um/zircons.html

http://www.grisda.or...igins/13064.htm
http://www.creationr...s/99/cm9907.htm   
http://creationonthe...tent/view/5612/
http://www.creationr...41_1/Helium.htm

Bob Barclay


Allow me to suggest that you seek your information not entirely from creationist sources.

Hans

#10 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 30 June 2008 - 07:23 PM

Well, 45 km is a bit tall, I think the subterran foot of such a mountain would be pressed so deep onto the mantle that it would melt. Remember that moutains float on magma. However, there is no doubt that without erosion, there would be much higher mountains on Earth. Both the Moon and Mars have way higher mountains (up to 16 km).
The fault with this argument (as well as with the basic erosion aging argument) is the assumption that erosion happens at a uniform rate. Even a cursory observation of Earths surface will tell you this is not the case; some places are eroded donwn heavily, others are hardly eroded at all. Same with uplifting; some areas are lifted, others not.
I can't see how anyone can have shis information with any useful of certainty, but in fact, sediment layers are, in many places, easily 400 meters thick. So since they are, how do you account for this thickness if Earth is only a few thousand years old?
Again based on the completely unfounded assumtion that the erosion rate has been constant. In fact that assumtion is quite absurd in this case, because what do the mile-thick chalk cliff of Dover consist of? Right! Sediment. That sediment was created 65 million years ago, lay at the bottom of the sea long enough to harden (and form flint deposits), then it was lifted above the sea level, and only then did erosion begin, at a not necessarily even rate.
I once read an explanation of the helium diffusion finding, but I don't remeeber what it was. I'll look for it.

ETA: Ahh, here: http://www.talkorigi...um/zircons.html
Allow me to suggest that you seek your information not entirely from creationist sources.

Hans

View Post


Hans

I would like to correct two things form previous posts. First, the link to Dr. Humphreys’ article is not working so here is another link that will work:

http://www.icr.org/article/1842 .

Second, I made a mistake in the amount of sediment. I typed 400 meters for end amounts that are not what Dr. Humphreys’ article states I have copied and pasted that section of the article to make sure it is correct.

“Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.”

Dr. Humphreys used data from “Geomorphic/tectonic Control of Sediment Discharge to the ocean: the Importance of Small Mountainous rivers” by Milliman and Syvitski Journal of Geology (1992) and “Mass/age Distribution and Composition of Sediments on the Ocean Floor and the Global Rate of Sediment Subduction” by W.W. Hay Journal of Geophysical Research (1988). So he was just using what evolutionists have written.

Talkorigins also agrees with Humphreys that more sediment is deposited that is removed by subduction. Talkorigins also claims sediment at times is not even removed because subduction is stopped so it just piles up on the ocean floor. I found it strange that an evolutionist site would agree so strongly with a creationist.

In an article entitled “Mountains Crumble Fast, Catastrophically” by Liese Greensfelder has revealed that James Kirchner found mountains erode 17% faster than expected. This was confirmed by Greensfelder in his article “Geology: Subtleties of Sand Reveal How Mountains Crumble” in Science (January 11, 2002). Using cosmogenic radionuclide dating method his measurements came to 17% faster erosion also. With this faster erosion mountains would not have any geologic column left with their up lifting.

Coastlines are eroding in England and Whales very fast so fast that is has become a major concern according to The Geological Society of London. This is also happening in the US. The Cape Hatteras Lighthouse had to be moved farther inland because of shore erosion. This is according to National Geographic “Cape Hatteras Lighthouse Makes Tracks” (2000).

As far as Talkorigins critique of Humphreys’ Helium theory I found it strange that Henke claims Humphreys was using the peer reviewed journal poly. Especially when it is the evolutionists that point that out about the creationists. My question is why didn’t he publish this in a peer reviewed?

References can be found at:

http://www.talkorigi...CD/CD220_1.html
http://bric.postech....ow/010622a.html
http://www.geolsoc.o... erosion aw.pdf

Bob Barclay

#11 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 03 July 2008 - 05:43 AM

“Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.”


There are a number of weaknesses in this argument. First of all, the amount of sediment in the world is much higher. Large parts of the land masses, and also parts of the ocean floor rock consist of sediment. We have whole mountain ranges that consist mostly of sediment, not to mention large sediment plains.

The speed of tectonic plate movement is such that the surface of the planet had been replaced several times. This does not mean that any individual area cannot be more than a fraction of the age of the planet, but the average age is.

If the majority of sediment was deposited during a single, geologically very recent, event, its distribution would be different. It would be concentrated in the lower parts of the ocean, and we would not find stratified sediments.

Finally, all the creationist explanations fail to cover the basic point: How we can observe mountains in different levels of eosion, ranging from hard granite mountains that have been almost roded down to flat plains, to relatively sodt limestone that still stands kilometres tall. (Not to mention the lack of explanation of how tall limestone mountains can exist in the first place)

Dr. Humphreys used data from “Geomorphic/tectonic Control of Sediment Discharge to the ocean: the Importance of Small Mountainous rivers” by Milliman and Syvitski Journal of Geology (1992) and “Mass/age Distribution and Composition of Sediments on the Ocean Floor and the Global Rate of Sediment Subduction” by W.W. Hay Journal of Geophysical Research (1988). So he was just using what evolutionists have written.


Yes, but carefully picked.

Talkorigins also agrees with Humphreys that more sediment is deposited that is removed by subduction. Talkorigins also claims sediment at times is not even removed because subduction is stopped so it just piles up on the ocean floor. I found it strange that an evolutionist site would agree so strongly with a creationist.


Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. However, the proper authority to consult in such matters is not an opinion-website. Geologists are the experts in this field, and they don't seem to find any discrepancies.

In an article entitled “Mountains Crumble Fast, Catastrophically” by Liese Greensfelder has revealed that James Kirchner found mountains erode 17% faster than expected. This was confirmed by Greensfelder in his article “Geology: Subtleties of Sand Reveal How Mountains Crumble” in Science (January 11, 2002).  Using cosmogenic radionuclide dating method his measurements came to 17% faster erosion also.  With this faster erosion mountains would not have any geologic column left with their up lifting.

This is based on the assumption that erosion is uniform over the area of land-masses. This is, obviously, naive.

Coastlines are eroding in England and Whales very fast so fast that is has become a major concern according to The Geological Society of London. This is also happening in the US. The Cape Hatteras Lighthouse had to be moved farther inland because of shore erosion. This is according to National Geographic “Cape Hatteras Lighthouse Makes Tracks” (2000).


Again assuming uniform erosion. In reality, some coasts are whittled away, others expand.

As far as Talkorigins critique of Humphreys’ Helium theory I found it strange that Henke claims Humphreys was using the peer reviewed journal poly. Especially when it is the evolutionists that point that out about the creationists. My question is why didn’t he publish this in a peer reviewed?


He provided an explanation for this.

Hans

#12 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 03 July 2008 - 06:17 AM

There are a number of weaknesses in this argument. First of all, the amount of sediment in the world is much higher. Large parts of the land masses, and also parts of the ocean floor rock consist of sediment. We have whole mountain ranges that consist mostly of sediment, not to mention large sediment plains.

The speed of tectonic plate movement is such that the surface of the planet had been replaced several times. This does not mean that any individual area cannot be more than a fraction of the age of the planet, but the average age is.

If the majority of sediment was deposited during a single, geologically very recent, event, its distribution would be different. It would be concentrated in the lower parts of the ocean, and we would not find stratified sediments.

Finally, all the creationist explanations fail to cover the basic point: How we can observe mountains in different levels of eosion, ranging from hard granite mountains that have  been almost roded down to flat plains, to relatively sodt limestone that still stands kilometres tall. (Not to mention the lack of explanation of how tall limestone mountains can exist in the first place)
Yes, but carefully picked.
Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. However, the proper authority to consult in such matters is not an opinion-website. Geologists are the experts in this field, and they don't seem to find any discrepancies.
This is based on the assumption that erosion is uniform over the area of land-masses. This is, obviously, naive.
Again assuming uniform erosion. In reality, some coasts are whittled away, others expand.
He provided an explanation for this.

Hans

View Post


Hans

It would be nice if you could include some references. The only one you have used Talkorigins.

You have asked me to use references that are not creationist yet all you used was one reference from an site that is notoriously known for it's anti-creationist stand.

I complied with your request and used non-creationist references. I even used your Talkorigins for a reference. I have not seen you use any so before I go any farther please give me references for the your statements.

Bob Barclay

#13 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 03 July 2008 - 11:41 PM

Hans

It would be nice if you could include some references. The only one you have used Talkorigins.

You have asked me to use references that are not creationist yet all you used was one reference from an site that is notoriously known for it's anti-creationist stand.

I complied with your request and used non-creationist references. I even used your Talkorigins for a reference. I have not seen you use any so before I go any farther please give me references for the your statements.

Bob Barclay

View Post

Fair enough, I'll dig up references, stay tuned.

About creationist references: You are free (just like I am) to use whatever references that you think support your claims. My recommendation was for you to study some non-creationist sources, since I think that would broaden your horizon a great deal.

Hans

#14 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 04 July 2008 - 12:47 AM

OK, I will repeat my main statements from above, but this time with references:

There are a number of weaknesses in this argument. First of all, the amount of sediment in the world is much higher. Large parts of the land masses, and also parts of the ocean floor rock consist of sediment. We have whole mountain ranges that consist mostly of sediment, not to mention large sediment plains.

Creationist acknowledgement of the prevalence of sedimentary formation: http://www.allaboutc...t-flood-faq.htm
Classification of sedimentary rocks: http://www.seafriend...htm#sedimentary
Geological world map; this is a commercial site, but the preview is quite useful: http://ccgm.free.fr/...s_monde_gb.html
And for a detailed study, all you need to know about geology: http://geology.about.com/

The speed of tectonic plate movement is such that the surface of the planet had been replaced several times. This does not mean that any individual area cannot be more than a fraction of the age of the planet, but the average age is.

Again, there is a wealth of information here: http://geology.about.com/
But, more here: http://en.wikipedia....Plate_tectonics
http://www.ucmp.berk.../tectonics.html

If the majority of sediment was deposited during a single, geologically very recent, event, its distribution would be different. It would be concentrated in the lower parts of the ocean, and we would not find stratified sediments.

I think this is plain logic, but I could add that we would observe all sediments to be of uniform age, instead of the greatly differing ages we actually observe (refer to the links above).

Finally, all the creationist explanations fail to cover the basic point: How we can observe mountains in different levels of erosion, ranging from hard granite mountains that have been almost roded down to flat plains, to relatively soft limestone that still stands kilometres tall. (Not to mention the lack of explanation of how tall limestone mountains can exist in the first place)

If you can't actually watch this where you live, you should be able to find plenty of info in the links already provided, but here are acouple of actual examples:

Tall limestone mountains: http://www.west-cret...tains-crete.htm
The central European plain is a good example of an eroded granite formation. Today it is, of course, mostly covered by soil, but occasional outcrops exist, like Harzen.


Hans

#15 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 07 July 2008 - 04:11 PM

OK, I will repeat my main statements from above, but this time with references:

There are a number of weaknesses in this argument. First of all, the amount of sediment in the world is much higher. Large parts of the land masses, and also parts of the ocean floor rock consist of sediment. We have whole mountain ranges that consist mostly of sediment, not to mention large sediment plains.

Creationist acknowledgement of the prevalence of sedimentary formation: http://www.allaboutc...t-flood-faq.htm
Classification of sedimentary rocks: http://www.seafriend...htm#sedimentary
Geological world map; this is a commercial site, but the preview is quite useful: http://ccgm.free.fr/...s_monde_gb.html
And for a detailed study, all you need to know about geology: http://geology.about.com/

The speed of tectonic plate movement is such that the surface of the planet had been replaced several times. This does not mean that any individual area cannot be more than a fraction of the age of the planet, but the average age is.

Again, there is a wealth of information here: http://geology.about.com/
But, more here: http://en.wikipedia....Plate_tectonics
http://www.ucmp.berk.../tectonics.html

If the majority of sediment was deposited during a single, geologically very recent, event, its distribution would be different. It would be concentrated in the lower parts of the ocean, and we would not find stratified sediments.

I think this is plain logic, but I could add that we would observe all sediments to be of uniform age, instead of the greatly differing ages we actually observe (refer to the links above).

Finally, all the creationist explanations fail to cover the basic point: How we can observe mountains in different levels of erosion, ranging from hard granite mountains that have  been almost roded down to flat plains, to relatively soft limestone that still stands kilometres tall. (Not to mention the lack of explanation of how tall limestone mountains can exist in the first place)

If you can't actually watch this where you live, you should be able to find plenty of info in the links already provided, but here are acouple of actual examples:

Tall limestone mountains: http://www.west-cret...tains-crete.htm
The central European plain is a good example of an eroded granite formation. Today it is, of course, mostly covered by soil, but occasional outcrops exist, like Harzen.
Hans

View Post


Hans

To begin with your statement that erosion figures used by creationists are assumed. No one is denying this, creationists openly admit it. They are just using the old axiom of the evolutionists “the present is the key to the past.” Your saying that there is too high of amount of sedimentary strata left on the earth is exactly what creationists are saying. For the earth to be as old as evolutionists say there is far too much sedimentary strata that have not been eroded according to present day erosion rates.

As for tectonic replacement removing the sediment several times you are missing the point. If this were the case we would not see the strata we see now. So your fraction of the age statement can not be determined as an average since we would not know the age of the earth from the replaced or newer strata.

Your use of the mountains eroding at different levels and the limestone you are talking about are good indications that the earth is not as old as evolutionists claim because they are standing. Thank you for pointing this evidence of a younger age out. I appreciate it.

As for the age of the earth a majority of the dating comes from the use of index fossils found in the strata being dated. It is a circular reasoning that is all based on the dogma of the evolutionary religion. There were two peer reviewed papers written about the dating problems. One is in the Journal Nature by Tom Clarke (October 9, 2003) entitled “Geologists seek to put an end to blind dates” and the other is in the Journal Science by Richard Kerr (October 2003) entitled “A Call for Telling Better Time Over the Eons” both talk about the earth science meeting held in Washington DC that year. The titles of these papers alone are very revealing.

Clarke says that radiometric dating is more work intensive than earth scientists can handle and very cost restrictive. Because of this he states:

“So researchers often simply estimate rock ages by comparing the fossil found in one stripe of rock to another of known age.”

So the index fossil procedure is still being used and preached as fact. Now Clarke and the others want a standard procedure set so every one will be able to use dates that agree with each other. Guess who will be the ones setting the standard for the date setting? Evolutionists of course so they can have everything agree with their religions god of time.

The inaccurate and conflicting dating from the radiometric process is what Kerr admits in his paper when he states:

“The general sparseness of reliable ages was the primary complaint at the workshop.”

Their main thought was:

“We have to make sure we’re all getting the same answer on the same rocks.”

What an admission. They can not get the same answers from the same rocks but they want us to believe that radiometric dating is highly accurate. Then they make assumptions about the data that can not be verified.

It would be like coming into a house and seeing a candle burning and there is only one inch of wax is left how can I tell how long the candle has been burning? I can not tell since I do not know the length of the candle was when it was lit. If I did know the length it was when it started how do I know it was continually burning? Maybe it was extinguished and started a couple of times before I got there. These are the same problems evolutionists have with the isotopes they are measuring in the rocks. They have no idea how much was there to begin with nor do they know if the decay was a constant. It is all based on assumptions. Kerr acknowledges the problems of radiometric dating when he states:

“Long-recognized problems with standards, interlab calibrations, and sample processing have limited both the precision and the accuracy of uranium-lead and argon-argon radiometric dating.”

So the question is if radiometric dating so accurate why do they claim they are obtaining unreliable dates? Because of these problems researchers have resorted to index fossils and picking and choosing radiometric dates that agree with their presupposed dates and throwing out dates that do not agree.

Bob Barclay

#16 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 08 July 2008 - 12:51 AM

Hans

To begin with your statement that erosion figures used by creationists are assumed. No one is denying this, creationists openly admit it. They are just using the old axiom of the evolutionists “the present is the key to the past.” Your saying that there is too high of amount of sedimentary strata left on the earth is exactly what creationists are saying.  For the earth to be as old as evolutionists say there is far too much sedimentary strata that have not been eroded according to present day erosion rates.


Please don't misrepresent my statements. I dod not sayt there is "too much" sediment. I say there is far more sediment than the claim made of only 400 meters.

All in all you are loosing focus seriously, here. The original argument was that there was too little sediment washed into the sea to account for eons of erosion. Now you say there is too much sediment on the planet. Please make up your mind which line of argument you want to support; you can't have both.

As for tectonic replacement removing the sediment several times you are missing the point. If this were the case we would not see the strata we see now. So your fraction of the age statement can not be determined as an average since we would not know the age of the earth from the replaced or newer strata.


Which was exactly what I said: On the average, the surface of eartht has been replaced several times over (impacting the total amount of observable sediment), however, parts of the surface have escaped change for longer periods, and thus we find some ancient sediment.

Your use of the mountains eroding at different levels and the limestone you are talking about are good indications that the earth is not as old as evolutionists claim because they are standing. Thank you for pointing this evidence of a younger age out. I appreciate it.


:) Twisting my words a bit, ehhh? However, even that does not support your case. It seems creationists often see it as a victory if they can add some uncertainty to the conventional timeline, but remember that you are a Young Earth Creationist. Your doctrine requires Earth to be only some 6.000 years old. That the conventional timeline might vary a billion years or even two bears no support for your ase at all. What YOU nees to explain is the presense of millions of square miles of mile-thick sediment deposits, compressed and hardened into solid rock, lifted miles over the level of the sea that created it, and then in places eroded down to the granite bedrock. A process that, no matter how you twist it, implies the passage of millions and millions of years.

*snip*
Clarke says that radiometric dating is more work intensive than earth scientists can handle and very cost restrictive. Because of this he states:

“So researchers often simply estimate rock ages by comparing the fossil found in one stripe of rock to another of known age.”.


So in general, researchers build on the work of others. So what? If you see an old chair in the antique market, will you make some expensive and probably partly destructive laboratory test to find its age? No, you will look at the style and general condition and assume it is the same age as other chairs that look the same.

Is it circular reasoning? Well, if that was the only thing researchers did, it would indeed be circular, but that is not the case. Some fossil-bearing strata have been properly dated by radiometric methods, and are used as reference.

The inaccurate and conflicting dating from the radiometric process is what Kerr admits in his paper when he states:

“The general sparseness of reliable ages was the primary complaint at the workshop.”
 
Their main thought was:

“We have to make sure we’re all getting the same answer on the same rocks.”


Again trying to capitalize on minor conflicts and inaccuracies. However, whether a certain find is 100million years or 150million years old is indeed interesting from a scientific POW, but it does nothing to support YEC doctrine.

What an admission.  They can not get the same answers from the same rocks but they want us to believe that radiometric dating is highly accurate.  Then they make assumptions about the data that can not be verified. 


Interesting and pertinent questions when scientists want to find the exact sequence of finds, but of no interest whatsoever in the argument of whether the planet is thousands or billions of years old. You don't need precision measurements to find that out; you need to find out whether the dating methods are valid at all.

They have no idea how much was there to begin with nor do they know if the decay was a constant. It is all based on assumptions.  Kerr acknowledges the problems of radiometric dating when he states:

“Long-recognized problems with standards, interlab calibrations, and sample processing have limited both the precision and the accuracy of uranium-lead and argon-argon radiometric dating.”


My friend, we are talking percentages here: Is it +-1% 0r +-5%?

So the question is if radiometric dating so accurate why do they claim they are obtaining unreliable dates? Because of these problems researchers have resorted to index fossils and picking and choosing radiometric dates that agree with their presupposed dates and throwing out dates that do not agree.


Misinterpretation again. They are prioritizing datings, based on their certainy.

Let me use your analogy of the burning candle, and expand it a bit:

You enter a house and you observe two things: A candle burned almost down, and a kettle on the stove that is only just beginning to boil. Your task is to find out when some other person left. Now the candle, as you note, might have burned for any time period between a minute and several hours. However, the kettle must have been put on the stove within a much more narrow time limit. If you refill it with cold water, put it on the stove, and time it, you can get a time that is precise within a minute.

So to the point: You have a timing method that is fairly precise, and one that isn't. Will you discard the precise one because you have another that isn't precise? .. Of course not; you will discard the candle method, and rely on the kettle.

Hans

#17 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 14 July 2008 - 10:05 AM

Please don't misrepresent my statements. I dod not sayt there is "too much" sediment. I say there is far more sediment than the claim made of only 400 meters.

All in all you are loosing focus seriously, here. The original argument was that there was too little sediment washed into the sea to account for eons of erosion. Now you say there is too much sediment on the planet. Please make up your mind which line of argument you want to support; you can't have both.
Which was exactly what I said: On the average, the surface of eartht has been replaced several times over (impacting the total amount of observable sediment), however, parts of the surface have escaped change for longer periods, and thus we find some ancient sediment.
B) Twisting my words a bit, ehhh? However, even that does not support your case. It seems creationists often see it as a victory if they can add some uncertainty to the conventional timeline, but remember that you are a Young Earth Creationist. Your doctrine requires Earth to be only some 6.000 years old. That the conventional timeline might vary a billion years or even two bears no support for your ase at all. What YOU nees to explain is the presense of millions of square miles of mile-thick sediment deposits, compressed and hardened into solid rock, lifted miles over the level of the sea that created it, and then in places eroded down to the granite bedrock. A process that, no matter how you twist it, implies the passage of millions and millions of years.
So in general, researchers build on the work of others. So what? If you see an old chair in the antique market, will you make some expensive and probably partly destructive laboratory test to find its age? No, you will look at the style and general condition and assume it is the same age as other chairs that look the same.

Is it circular reasoning? Well, if that was the only thing researchers did, it would indeed be circular, but that is not the case. Some fossil-bearing strata have been properly dated by radiometric methods, and are used as reference.
Again trying to capitalize on minor conflicts and inaccuracies. However, whether a certain find is 100million years or 150million years old is indeed interesting from a scientific POW, but it does nothing to support YEC doctrine.
Interesting and pertinent questions when scientists want to find the exact sequence of finds, but of no interest whatsoever in the argument of whether the planet is thousands or billions of years old. You don't need precision measurements to find that out; you need to find out whether the dating methods are valid at all.
My friend, we are talking percentages here: Is it +-1% 0r +-5%?
Misinterpretation again. They are prioritizing datings, based on their certainy.

Let me use your analogy of the burning candle, and expand it a bit:

You enter a house and you observe two things: A candle burned almost down, and a kettle on the stove that is only just beginning to boil. Your task is to find out when some other person left. Now the candle, as you note, might have burned for any time period between a minute and several hours. However, the kettle must have been put on the stove within a much more narrow time limit. If you refill it with cold water, put it on the stove, and time it, you can get a time that is precise within a minute.

So to the point: You have a timing method that is fairly precise, and one that isn't. Will you discard the precise one because you have another that isn't precise? .. Of course not; you will discard the candle method, and rely on the kettle.

Hans

View Post


Apparently you are misunderstanding what was written. I made the correction about the 400 meters of sediment. Creationist’s calculations indicate that erosion rates “imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep.” That is Kilometers not meters. I am not losing focus I said that there are far too much sedimentary strata on the earth meaning dry land. I was not referring to ocean sediment that has far too little sediment for the billions of years evolutionists claim.

Your plate tectonics argument is not making sense. If the surface of the earth has been replace a number of times as you suggest then any dates that radiometric dating comes up with is wrong because the strata samples are taken from are actually younger than stated. So they would be older than the dates geologists indicate.

If saying that the Limestone Mountains still standing indicate a young earth because they have not been eroded away at present erosion rates is twisting your words I apologize. However, if the earth was as old as the evolutionists are saying then the Limestone Mountains should not be there. They should have been eroded a way or replaced by your plate tectonics argument.

Yes I am a YECer and believe the earth is under 10,000 years old according to the Biblical record. Just as evolutionists believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old according to the doctrine of their religion.

As far as the sedimentary strata compressed into solid rock can be explained better by the Genesis flood than by the uniformitarian belief. Fossilizing of a fish still eating a fish is a very good example of rapid sedimentation. This has been demonstrated by Dr. Steven Austin in his Mt. St. Helens studies. In less than one day 400 feet of strata was formed by Mt. St. Helens that included a layer of mudstone. This is in agreement with the two studies published in Science “Geology: On the Accumulation of Mud” by Macquaker and Bohacs (Dec. 14, 2007) and “Accretion of Mudstone Beds from Migrating Floccule Ripples” by Schieber, Southsrd, and Thaisen (Dec. 14, 2007). The current paradigm is that mudstone was formed by slowly settling in calm water will have to be changed. The two studies found that laminated mud can be deposited in currents without disturbing previously layered mud.

Science Daily reports that geologists have dated the Grand Canyon at 700,000 years or less. The USGS scientists that reported that they found evidence of huge flood that carved out the Grand Canyon in a matter of hours or a few days. They also claim this happened about 4,000 years ago.

As far as the mountains being below water then lifted miles above sea level being a problem for creationists it is nothing of the sort. Dr. John Baumgardner claims the mountains went under rapid uplift using the Isostatic equilibrium principle to back his theory. He also talks about the problems uniformitarians have with their theory by stating:

“Yet an equally bewildering difficulty for an uniformitarian is the widespread presence of what are known as planation surfaces that pre-date this global pulse of mountain building. Oliver and Pain document dozens of examples where regions that were later uplifted to form mountain ranges were first beveled to nearly flat surfaces by intense erosion just prior to uplift.”

There were two studies published by the Journal Science one entitled “Rise of the Andes” by Carmala Garzione (June 6, 2008) and one by Richard Kerr (June 6, 2008) entitled “The Andes Popped Up by Losing Their Deep-Seated Rocky Load.” Both studies claim that the Andes popped up rapidly. They used the time frame of one million years (they just could not break the evolutionary dogma). Even at the use of one million years the evidence is working toward a shorter time period for geologic events to happen.

As for your error factor in radiometric dating being a small percentile. The Discovery Channel website had an article that talked about how evolutionists took a long standing belief that the rise of the Ethiopian Plateau supposedly taking place 30 million years ago as stated in the article. Apparently this was too far in the past to help with the evolution of walking upright. They come right out and claim that: “Rather than dating the plateau's uplift directly, they studied the effects of the one thing in the region that responds instantly to any change in elevation — the Blue Nile River.” Why? Because they could not get the radiometric date they wanted from the plateau. So they fudge the data and low and behold they reduced the time frame to 3 million years ago just in time for the upright walking. That is a 90% error in date reduction. The problem they have run into now they have to change the long standing 30 millions years it took to form the Nile Gorge. Wait a minute that problem can be taken cared of by just claiming a small catastrophe caused the gorge to form quicker than thought - problem solved.

The isochrones that geologists have pointed to as the element of accuracy in radiometric dating has now been shown to be invalid as reported in the Journal Geology by Jon Davidson, Bruce Charlier, John Hora, and Rebecca Perlroth (January 1, 2005) in their study entitled “Mineral Isochrons and Isotopic Fingerprinting: Pitfalls and Promises.” Here is there opening sentence of the study:

“The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at eh tome of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages.”

They go on to state that for rocks to be dated using isochrons they must know the speed of the rocks diffusion and the how fast it cooled down. The cooling process is based on what temperature the magma started at and the amount of magma involved. They also claim that the assumption of a constant ratio used by geologists when they use isochron analysis may not be valid. This is due to the four points of variation in the initial ratios; the number of forming stages of the rock, contamination by the earth’s crust, fragmentary absorption of parent isotopes, the recharging of the magma. Even if the variations can be accounted for and the isochrons generated are very good they claim “the ages are geologically meaningless.”
It appears that radiometric dating has problems that make it unreliable.

Also let’s not expand the candle analogy just use the candle to tell me when it was lit.

Online references can be found at:

http://www.icr.org/articles/261/
http://www.scienceda...20722074554.htm
http://www.icr.org/pdf/imp/imp-381.pdf
http://dsc.discovery...=20070918110030

Bob Barclay

#18 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 21 July 2008 - 01:51 AM

Sorry, it seems the answer I made in this thread was lost in cyberspace. Let's try again:

Apparently you are misunderstanding what was written. I made the correction about the 400 meters of sediment. Creationist’s calculations indicate that erosion rates “imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep.” That is Kilometers not meters.


Well, first of all, IF kilometers of sediment was placed in all of the oceans, the water level would obviously rise accordingly.

The point is however, that due to plate tectonics (as described in the links I gave earlier in this thread), the sea-floor is mostly quite young. New crust is created along the mid-ocean ridges that run through all the large oceans and is pushed outwards. Of course, this means that crust must disappear elsewhere. Some is subducted into the mantle, where it is melted, and effectively recycled. Other parts are pushed upwards, forming the mountain chains of the planet. The latter can contain quite old crust, and is often built by old sediment.

Your plate tectonics argument is not making sense. If the surface of the earth has been replace a number of times as you suggest then any dates that radiometric dating comes up with is wrong because the strata samples are taken from are actually younger than stated. So they would be older than the dates geologists indicate.


I don't quite understand youg argumentation here, but the main point is that the crust of the Earth is of greatly varying age, from very young (just solidified), to ancient.

However, if the earth was as old as the evolutionists are saying then the Limestone Mountains should not be there. They should have been eroded a way or replaced by your plate tectonics argument.


Obviously, that depends on when they were created. Limestone erodes relatively fast, but a given limestone formation may have spent most of its time below sea-level.

Yes I am a YECer and believe the earth is under 10,000 years old according to the Biblical record. Just as evolutionists believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old according to the doctrine of their religion.


I'm sorry, but evolutionism is not a religion. It is a theory build on observation. There is nothing wrong with a religion, but we must distinguish between the two.

As far as the sedimentary strata compressed into solid rock can be explained better by the Genesis flood than by the uniformitarian belief. Fossilizing of a fish still eating a fish is a very good example of rapid sedimentation.


You are generalizing again. Obviously, an animal (wheher it is eating something or not) must be encrusted during some short-term event to become a fossil, but stratifief formations are not the result of a rapid sedimentation. Each single stratum may be sedimented quickly, but the stratified formation is created by numerous consequtive events.

This has been demonstrated by Dr. Steven Austin in his Mt. St. Helens studies. In less than one day 400 feet of strata was formed by Mt. St. Helens that included a layer of mudstone.


Well, volcanic eruption are known to create some extraordinarily thick sediment layers. They are also very characteristic and can rarely be confused with ordinart sediments.

Science Daily reports that geologists have dated the Grand Canyon at 700,000 years or less. The USGS scientists that reported that they found evidence of huge flood that carved out the Grand Canyon in a matter of hours or a few days. They also claim this happened about 4,000 years ago.


They are talking against the evidence, and I'm afraid, against better knowledge. The Grand Canyon is a typical V-shaped formation, which results from the slow carving of a stream in an erodable plain. A single event would have created a U shaped valley. Such events have happend elswhere, especially in connection with ice-ages.

And, of course, we cannot restrict the creation of the Grand Canyon to the carving of the river valley. Before that could happen, there first had to be the building of a several miles thick and very large plain of sediments. Since this plain is quite level, it must have been created under water. Later, after the rock hardened, the entire plain must have been lifted to its present elevation, and only then could the carving of the river valley begin.


As far as the mountains being below water then lifted miles above sea level being a problem for creationists it is nothing of the sort. Dr. John Baumgardner claims the mountains went under rapid uplift using the Isostatic equilibrium principle to back his theory.


Speculation that is not supported by the observational evidence.


He also talks about the problems uniformitarians have with their theory by stating:

There were two studies published by the Journal Science one entitled “Rise of the Andes” by Carmala Garzione (June 6, 2008) and one by Richard Kerr (June 6, 2008) entitled “The Andes Popped Up by Losing Their Deep-Seated Rocky Load.” Both studies claim that the Andes popped up rapidly. They used the time frame of one million years (they just could not break the evolutionary dogma). Even at the use of one million years the evidence is working toward a shorter time period for geologic events to happen.


Certainly some geological datings may be open for debate, but all this does not help YEC. We are still orders of magnitude from the mere moment, in geological terms, that YEC needs to have all this to happen in.

It appears that radiometric dating has problems that make it unreliable.


I could lecture you on measurement uncertainty (part of my expertise), but suffuce to say, then depending on the circumstance of the individual case, radiometric measurements range from quite precise, to near useless.

All of this does not, however, change the fact that if we assume we can trust the laws of physics to judge what we observe, then Earth is many thousand times older than Biblical timeline.

Also let’s not expand the candle analogy just use the candle to tell me when it was lit.


Since you have carefully constructed a scenario where there can be little certainty, the reply will obviously be: At most 15 hours ago (assuming that the observable candle stub is from an ordinary candle, which at most burns for about 15 hours).

Hans

#19 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 25 July 2008 - 03:07 PM

Sorry, it seems the answer I made in this thread was lost in cyberspace. Let's try again:
Well, first of all, IF kilometers of sediment was placed in all of the oceans, the water level would obviously rise accordingly.

The point is however, that due to plate tectonics (as described in the links I gave earlier in this thread), the sea-floor is mostly quite young. New crust is created along the mid-ocean ridges that run through all the large oceans and is pushed outwards.  Of course, this means that crust must disappear elsewhere. Some is subducted into the mantle, where it is melted, and effectively recycled. Other parts are pushed upwards, forming the mountain chains of the planet. The latter can contain quite old crust, and is often built by old sediment.
I don't quite understand youg argumentation here, but the main point is that the crust of the Earth is of greatly varying age, from very young (just solidified), to ancient.
Obviously, that depends on when they were created. Limestone erodes relatively fast, but a given limestone formation may have spent most of its time below sea-level.
I'm sorry, but evolutionism is not a religion. It is a theory build on observation. There is nothing wrong with a religion, but we must distinguish between the two.
You are generalizing again. Obviously, an animal (wheher it is eating something or not) must be encrusted during some short-term event to become a fossil, but stratifief formations are not the result of a rapid sedimentation. Each single stratum may be sedimented quickly, but the stratified formation is created by numerous consequtive events.
Well, volcanic eruption are known to create some extraordinarily thick sediment layers. They are also very characteristic and can rarely be confused with ordinart sediments.
They are talking against the evidence, and I'm afraid, against better knowledge. The Grand Canyon is a typical V-shaped formation, which results from the slow carving of a stream in an erodable plain. A single event would have created a U shaped valley. Such events have happend elswhere, especially in connection with ice-ages.

And, of course, we cannot restrict the creation of the Grand Canyon to the carving of the river valley. Before that could happen, there first had to be the building of a several miles thick and very large plain of sediments. Since this plain is quite level, it must have been created under water. Later, after the rock hardened, the entire plain must have been lifted to its present elevation, and only then could the carving of the river valley begin.
Speculation that is not supported by the observational evidence.
He also talks about the problems uniformitarians have with their theory by stating:
Certainly some geological datings may be open for debate, but all this does not help YEC. We are still orders of magnitude from the mere moment, in geological terms, that YEC needs to have all this to happen in.
I could lecture you on measurement uncertainty (part of my expertise), but suffuce to say, then depending on the circumstance of the individual case, radiometric measurements range from quite precise, to near useless.

All of this does not, however, change the fact that if we assume we can trust the laws of physics to judge what we observe, then Earth is many thousand times older than Biblical timeline.
Since you have carefully constructed a scenario where there can be little certainty, the reply will obviously be: At most 15 hours ago (assuming that the observable candle stub is from an ordinary candle, which at most burns for about 15 hours).

Hans

View Post


Hans,

This post is to clarify what I have been saying about erosion, radiometric dating, and evolution is a religion.

According to Dr. John Milliman et al in their paper “Geomorphic/tetonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers” published in Geology (1992) water and wind erosion is responsible for 20 billion tons of sediment deposits in the ocean per year. There it accumulates on hard basaltic rock on the ocean floor. According to W. Hay et al in their paper “Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction” published in Geophysical Research (1988) the average depth of the deposited sediment is 400 meters. They also claim that the only way that this sediment is removed is by subduction at the rate of 1 billion tons per year. This means that at the rate they suggest the math will tell you the process is less than 12 million years worth of erosion. I might add that if you calculate the faster erosion rate due to human activity this cuts the 12 million down even more. So even uniformitarians are agreeing that this is a problem as seen the Dr. S. Judson paper “Erosion of the land – or what’s happening to our continents?” published in American Scientists 1968.

Also according to Dr. B. Sparks (1986) in his book Geomorphology 3rd edition the Yellow River would flatten Mount Everest within 10 million years. However, Science Daily (2008) reports that a recent discovery of fossils found high on the Himalayan-Tibetan Plateau, the highest land mass on earth, sows that the age of the Plateau is younger than previously claimed. The fossils were plants, fish, and animals that should not be there because they are found at lower and warmer levels. A paleo-magnetic study has placed the samples at 2 to 3 million years old. Looks like the old uniformitarian belief is not standing up to what is being observed.

In reference to radiometric dating Dr. Frederic Jueneman writing in Industrial Research and Development 1982:

“The age of our globe is presently thought to be 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such “confirmation” may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences.”

Dr. William Corliss (1989) confirmed this in his book Anomalies in Geology: Physical, Chemical, Biological. Corliss talked about the fact that beryl, pyroxenes, basalts, micas, and pegmatites contain too much argon. His conclusion was “The implications, however, are serious, because these excess gasses seriously impact radiometric dating.” Of course he also talks about the anomalies of other elements (lead, strontium, carbon, uranium, etc.) of the radiometric dating method as well as other geological anomalies.

There is one instance that Corliss talks about that I found particularly interesting. Dr. Richard Leakey had skull 1470 K-Ar dated hoping to come up with a date of 2.6 million years. The results claimed the skull was 221 million years so they kept sending it back for more dating. They finally had to fudge the numbers to come up with 2.6 million exactly the date Leakey wanted – Corliss’ comment on the story was - “How convenient!”

It is now known that the assumptions about isochrons are wrong according to Davidson et al in the paper “Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises” published in Geology. Isochrons were supposedly the fail-safe for the uniformitarian dating methods. However, Davidson et al write:

“The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at eh time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances, Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages.”

They go on to say that even if you can generate isochrons that fit very good the ages that are generated are geologically meaningless. It does not look good for radiometric dating.

In regards to evolution being a religion I am not talking about microevolution or adaptive variations such as different dog breeds, Darwin’s finches, etc. I am talking about the origin of the universe, origin of earth, origin of life, macroevolution, etc. To say this is a fact is purely metaphysical, a philosophic religion, that one believes to be true but they have no way to test or observe.

Reference:
http://www.scienceda...80611144021.htm

Bob Barclay




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users