Re: Creationism is a falsified scientific theory

in article dpednRebPc-S7nfZnZ2dnUVZ_76dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Noelie S. Alito at
noelie@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 8/21/06 8:00 PM:

George Evans wrote:
in article pan.2006.08.21.18.09.38.296036@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mark Isaak at
eciton_NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 8/21/06 11:12 AM:

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:34:05 -0700, George Evans wrote:

"Mark Isaak" <eciton_NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.19.20.38.02.653418@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Biblical creationism made at least two definite predictions -- that the
earth is less than 7000 years old...

This is a common misconception. Biblical creationism only predicts that
*life* is less than 7000 years old, not the earth. The bible is silent on
how
old the earth is.

There are, of course, many different varieties of creationism. But the most
common form of YEC follows a straightforward interpretation of Genesis 1,
according to which dry land was created the same day as the first life.

...and that there was a global flood after humans came on the scene. Both
are now spectacularly falsified...

The hypothesis of a global flood is no where near falsified. In fact many
geological feature are better explained this way.

Have you ever been on a geology field trip?
Where, geologically speaking, do you live?

I live in southern California and have taken many geological trips to all
the southwestern states.

Only if by "many" you mean absolutely none. There are features which are
best explained by large local floods (ironically, creationists rarely refer
to these), but none that are better explained by a global flood.

One of the "none" is very widespread formations, covering several states, of
uniform thickness. Now what present geological process produces sheets of
sediment a thousand miles across on a continent. They used to try and feed us
the line that these were deposited in vast shallow inland seas, hoping, I
suppose, that none of us would realize that it is very difficult to corral
water on a continent, especially for millions of years. That we fell for that
so easily should be humiliating. Normally, even large geological feature are
only a fraction of the size of these vast formations.

There's nothing magic about continental crust that says it has to be dry land.
When sea level is high, the middle of what we call the North American
continent is covered by water. Not only are large parts of the Midwest
covered by distinctive sea deposits, but the fringe of this sea includes
*coral* *reef* *formations*. The Guadalupe Mountains in west Texas are reef
structures kilometers high! The summer session Geology Field Camps of the
University of Texas go there to study principles of reef formation--very
useful in the oil industry--and they save a lot of money on scuba gear. ;-)

http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/660/photo_gallery/06photos/photos_06_index.h
tm
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/staff/scholle/guadalupe.html
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/staff/scholle/graphics/permdiagr/PermPhysiog.html
http://www.scotese.com/3Dmodels.htm

Conversely, during low sea stands, much of the "continental shelf off the
Eastern Seaboard was above water, and to this day includes dry-land
("subaerial") geological formations. Oil company researches have spent a lot
of time and hundreds of millions of dollars evaluating soundings and cores of
submarine geology. (I know because I have sat through hours of presentations
by grad students going into hairy details of seafloor formations they
collected data and cores for.)

Even at the undergraduate level, we had to be able to understand and identify
geological formations associated with prograding and retrograding sea levels:

http://strata.geol.sc.edu/anim_gifs.html
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2003/saller/images/05.htm

These patterns are essentially the same along the shores of the Permian and
Cretaceous mid-continent seas as along the actively prograding shore of the
Gulf of Mexico.

You make it sound so simple. So how do you get the sea level to increase the
thousands of feet necessary to cover the western states time and again? Do
you ascribe to the flopping shelf idea?

In the Flood model these are explained by very large and fast moving influxes
of water which would leave behind large relatively even layers of debris and
sediment.

And move an intact multi-kilometer high reef to deposit in West Texas?

Yes.

Another of the "none" is the relatively rapid change from one type of
formation to an adjacent one of entirely different description often equally
widespread but with slightly offset borders. A uniformitarian model would
predict gradual changes in content which would have the effect of blurring
stratigraphic boundaries.

Who came up with *your* "uniformitarian model"? Certainly not the pioneering
geologists who studied ACTUAL FRIGGING ROCK FORMATIONS.

Like 17th Century Nicolaus Steno, who first diagrammed the
stratigraphy of Tuscany's sedimentary geology?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Giants/Steno/steno5.html

Like 18th Century James "the present is key to the past" Hutton?

http://www.educa.rcanaria.es/penelope/uk_confburek.htm#Fig.%203


} To summarise, Hutton¹s geology rests on the concept of continuous
} natural processes working over periods of time that are infinitely
} long compared with a human life span. Decay and erosion of the land
} produce the sediments and running water moves it to the sea. The
} internal heat of the earth converts them from sediments to rocks.

I'm talking about boundaries that are in perfect conformity over large
areas. Is is reasonable to expect that a process of sedimentation of some
type, suddenly changes to some other type of sediment. You just accept that
hook line and sinker without thinking about it. Have you ever questioned
that?

I'm not saying this proves there was a flood, just that, in this case, my
model works better than yours. So, live with it.

In the Flood model these are explained by sequential influxes from different
sources and directions.

Can you be more specific in how this Flood model explains strata which contain
oyster beds in situ several meters above other oyster beds in situ, smack dab
in the middle of the Cretaceous limestone formations of central Texas? And
how about the giant reef in West Texas?

When did I say my model explains everything? The easiest one though is the
giant reef. An asteroid impact in the gulf could easily do the moving at
least.

...Creationism also predicts stasis of a sort, that that animals we see
today have existed as long as there were animals. That too is
spectacularly false.

Spectacularly? You don't get out much.

I have seen enough Triassic and Jurassic fossils to know that life then does
not match what is around today. Mechanisms notwithstanding, evolution is an
obvious fact.

I will agree that change is an obvious fact, if that's what you meant.

Aye. Evolution of life on Earth is the observation (organisms being different
in times past, and our offspring will continue to accumulate differences in
their genome over the coming generations via mechanisms of DNA inheritance
observed today.)

Yes this is all true. But *observed changes* in the geological record rarely
amount to enough change to cross even a species boundary.

George Evans

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Creationism is a falsified scientific theory
    ... *life* is less than 7000 years old, not the earth. ... according to which dry land was created the same day as the first life. ... When sea level is high, the middle of what we call the North American ... The summer session Geology Field Camps of the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Earth Has Blueberries Like Mars (Forwarded)
    ... >> They results are usually called sedimentary rocks. ... > concept that water is not unique to earth. ... What boggles me is the preference of geology for an explanation ... The idea that life is something completely separate from ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Earth Has Blueberries Like Mars (Forwarded)
    ... >> They results are usually called sedimentary rocks. ... > concept that water is not unique to earth. ... What boggles me is the preference of geology for an explanation ... The idea that life is something completely separate from ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Earth Has Blueberries Like Mars (Forwarded)
    ... >> They results are usually called sedimentary rocks. ... > concept that water is not unique to earth. ... What boggles me is the preference of geology for an explanation ... The idea that life is something completely separate from ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Antarctic ice shelf collapse: imminent
    ... By Nibiru's netforce it was pulled into the south sea. ... ova, 'the life essence and life eggs of living creatures it contains, ... "The tidal wave, several hundred metres high moved northward from ... "I saw the holocaust that would engulf the Earth, ...
    (talk.origins)