Young Earth Strongest Evidence ?

[Bread_of_Life]

Ah, at last, some posts on this board that require the dispensation of truth!

The dust on the moon is no more than just a thin layer. How come there isn't 2-3 feet like they thought when Armstrong set his feet on the moon.

But they didn't think it'd be a few feet thick, this is a myth. Nor should it be, the rate of accumulation of stellar dust over 3 billion years should make this layer only about 10 cm thick.

How do you account for fossil pollen in pre-cambrian rock. That's rock that was before any life supposedly.

I don't account for it, since the first pollen from land plants to appear in the fossil record appears in the Lower Silurian. Also, the pre-cambrian era did contain abundant life, just for the record.

How do you account for petrified trees spanning "200 million years of sedimentary rock" upside down no less.

Again, I don't, because there has never been a case of this occuring.

Petrified trees are found, of course, usually as part of petrified forests buried by an ancient inundantion in some valley or other. But I have never heard of any case in which they have protruded through many layers of sedimentary rock. The quotation marks around "200 million years of sedimentary rock" are certainly not quoting a scientific paper, if anything.

I could go on and on.

Made up evidences usually can.

Ted!

Dude, how are you?

How about the Tigris or the Nile? These Rivers seem to be pretty old. Any Grand Canyons carved by them?

I don't know about the Tigris, but the Nile has regular inundations of sediment. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the geological history of the Grand Canyon to give a definitive answer though - I would encourage you to ask a geologist. Some of your other questions I can answer:

Could this mean that there are times when the Earth's plates shift enough so that what may look relatively old may actually be fairly recent?

No. The internal chemical nature of rocks make them look old - and continental shift (moving rocks around) cannot systematically alter this so as to make a rock look older than it is.

A good example of this is that parts of the Scottish Highlands and Greenland used to be one rock, but were broken apart and drifted away from one another. They both date at the same age though - they are both still chemically similar.

s it safe to say, then, that some canyons are formed as a counter effect to this? I mean, if one part of a land mass goes up, won't there be a void causing the reverse effect close by?

Canyons such as the Grand Canyon, probably not. The shape and course of the Grand Canyon means that it was almost certainly formed by water. Also, mountains tend to form valleys, not canyons, even mountain ranges do so.

Seashells?

Now how would they get on the flat land to later be pushed up into the mountains in the first place?

Because the elevation of land changes. Britain for example, the whole country, was once underwater. The White Cliffs of Dover are the fossilised remains of billions of tiny sea creatures, now turned into chalk.

There are various tectonic forces that cause the uplift and downdrop of land, as well as erosional forces. The grand canyon itself is a great example - the layers of sediment forming the walls of the canyon vary from those formed above water, to underwater, to on a seashore, meaning that the area has been above water, beachy, and below the water many times.

The Grand Canyon also bears the hallmarks of mountain building and erosion, the great unconformity (a period of time in which about 500 million years is "missing" from the strata) was caused by a period of mountainous uplift and subsequent (sediment destroying) erosion. There are several smaller unconformities above this, where the record has been eroded away.

[ted]

Ted!

Dude, how are you?

Hey Nik,

Good to hear from you. I trust all is well?

How was your "first" Christmas?

Thanks for the input.

There are various tectonic forces that cause the uplift and downdrop of land, as well as erosional forces. The grand canyon itself is a great example - the layers of sediment forming the walls of the canyon vary from those formed above water, to underwater, to on a seashore, meaning that the area has been above water, beachy, and below the water many times.

The Grand Canyon also bears the hallmarks of mountain building and erosion, the great unconformity (a period of time in which about 500 million years is "missing" from the strata) was caused by a period of mountainous uplift and subsequent (sediment destroying) erosion. There are several smaller unconformities above this, where the record has been eroded away.

Do me a favor and break it down one step simpler. Would all of this confirm that the Grand Canyon was simply caused by the Colorado River flowing through it, or was it more of a combination of things?

I'm not so ignorant that I don't understand the basics of simple erosion, but I can't seem to agree that the river was the only factor in carving the canyon. If so, why would there not be more of such canyons worldwide? I mean, I know that there are a few others of a smaller scale, but it seems hard to believe that if the river was the cause, that there wouldn't be others of this size with rivers that are older.

Thanks,

t.

[Bread_of_Life]

Do me a favor and break it down one step simpler. Would all of this confirm that the Grand Canyon was simply caused by the Colorado River flowing through it, or was it more of a combination of things?

Well, I was talking there about the formation of the rock itself, not the canyon. The rock was formed over the last 1.8 billion years. The canyon itself has been carved out over the last 35 million years by quite a complex series of forces:

http://www.kaibab.org/geology/canform.htm

[vja4Him]

Has anyone read Dr. DeYoung's newest book, "Thousands, Not Billions?"

[Bread_of_Life]

lol - i wish God had said so to me

[CellShade]

First of.

I believe the Earth is Young, God said He created it, in The time line God created creation.

Evolution is like a PointLess theory, it looks all over the world to make it's theory, they show the theory, then we can just easily disproof their theories.

By the way to the guy telling about shells in tops of mountains, this are from when Noah's time, remember the big storm?in which all the earth was flooded.?

All or most of the evolutions theory of stuff needing to be formed in millions of years have being disprooved with their stuff they though needed millions of years was done in a few years.

[Bread_of_Life]

Ironic actually, one of the seminal papers on mountainous uplift that showed that Mountains were not static was written by Charles Darwin, over 180 years ago. Amazing really, that even the mountains themselves are transitory, caused by the collision between tectonic plates, and slowly eroded and downdropped over the eons, forming unconformities in the fossil record locally, such as the great unconformity at the Grand Canyon National Park.

Truly incredible, the forces of nature.

[apothanein kerdos]

We cannot read the Bible in a prima facie way. We have to look to the poetic nature of the first two creation narratives, the language, how it was originally interpreted, etc. Believing that the Bible is billions of years old can actually aid in the creation narrative because it supports the idea that nothing could have mutated simply by chance or without some sort of intelligent force behind it. You can believe in an old earth and still come up believing that God was very active in this Creation process.

[ecco]

[Bread_of_Life]

They also don't seem to care that real empirical science cannot determine the age of the earth; this is only done via historical evidence. The earth's age is in the realm of philosophy, not science, as the evolutionists themselves have said.

I'm an evolutionist, I haven't admitted that? In fact, I don't know of a single decent scientist who has. Hmmmm.