A 'Young Earth'

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

A 'Young Earth'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:22 am

https://www.icr.org/article/11295/
Don't keep your discovery to yourself. Submit it for publication in a peer-reviewed reputable scientific journal that is not biased in favour of 'young earth creationism' or 'flood geology'. Make a name for yourself.

(What's that? It's just fundamentalist apologetics aimed at Christian audiences?)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A 'Young Earth'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:07 pm

I've now had a chance to read the biased fundamentalist dogmatic piece, sorry 'research article', closely.

Nobody uses erosion rates to measure the age of a planet where rocks are constantly recycled over geological time and where there is uplift as well as erosion. As Mr Clarey well knows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orogeny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Himalaya (opening para)

''These experiments demonstrate unequivocally that carbonate muds can also accumulate in energetic settings....Observations from modern carbonate environments and from the rock record suggest that deposition of carbonate muds by currents could have been common throughout geologic history.''
That is no disproof whatsoever of Deep Time. The author suggests 'common' not 'universal'. And this paper - from which the quotes are lifted - reports on laboratory experiments that did not mimic or model a 'global flood':
http://www.indiana.edu/~sepm04/PDF/Schi ... 13_JSR.pdf

And in the third geological 'evidence' the writer now tries to ignore erosion (and unconformities)!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconformity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton's_Unconformity
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/GeositesSiccarPoint
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unc ... and_Canyon

''One of the strongest evidences to support catastrophic plate tectonics, runaway subduction, and rapid plate movement during the Flood is the seismic tomography imaging of cold subducted oceanic lithosphere deep in the mantle.'' So I googled ''seismic tomography imaging of cold subducted oceanic lithosphere deep in earth's mantle''. But this is all I really came up with:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... tomography (which does NOT mention cold subducted lithosphere in its abstract)
Which MAY explain why Clarey does not provide any link to a peer-reviewed paper in a well-known or reputable science journal here - just various pieces of biased YEC literature. Catastrophic plate tectonics remains utter impossible (and unbiblical) garbage. It has been 'validated' in Clarey's head (and Sorensen's) - only.

The Conclusion to this article - one based on these 'evidences' - being a piece of wilful ignorance.

Oh and most YECs do hate Wikipedia.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom


Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron