Is it possible that science has made wrong assumptions in rock strata being formed over millions of years?

Question

Could these layers just be many layers of sediment laid down over a brief time by a large flood?

Answer 1

Of course science could be wrong, the whole idea in science is perpetual revision, testing and questioning, that's what science is all about. Even the so called "laws" are tested when new data comes up. Anyway, the problem with the hypothesis of the earth being not older than say 20,000 years is, the "evidence" has been widely rejected, even by creationists (older earth creationists). I'm not sure what you mean by "brief time", but I'm using the "young earth" asseveration by some creationists. The age of the earth might not be exact, but the data is solid enough to state it's millions of years old. The large scale flood has its problem as well, if we understand it as a global flood covering all earth.

In conclusion, yes, science can be wrong. The good thing about science is, questioning its own asseverations is not only allowed, but required and it's part of the method. Science can be proved wrong through science, faith do not disprove science.

Answer 2

Well, it's possible in a general sense that strata are laid down very quickly, but given the amount of research that has shown with dating, drying speeds, compression, composition, etc... that they could not have occurred in 6,000 years, I'd have to say no for our real strata on earth.

Especially since many of these layers are now vertical or nearly so and, in fact, even flipped upside down. That kind of radical movement would not have been possible in such a short period.

Plus some layers are near the surface in one country, but the same layer is much, much deeper in another country. hard to explain by one flood 6,000 years ago.

Here's some info:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html#princ

why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?

why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?
the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?

As for circular dating:
Most commonly, this is characterised by oversimplified statements like:
"The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils."
Even some geologists have stated this misconception (in slightly different words) in seemingly authoritative works (e.g., Rastall, 1956), so it is persistent, even if it is categorically wrong (refer to Harper (1980), p.246-247 for a thorough debunking, although it is a rather technical explanation).

When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others. There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences.

Answer 3

that is exactly what scientists are starting to believe that some catakismic force rather than time caused the rock strata to be difficult or impossible to prove exactly. Perhaps an astroid caused a tremembous flood that would have came down with tremendous force. We see pock marks in the earth of Astroids
That could have caused that. Some on the ocean flood that would have caused the sea shells we see high in the mountains.
No one will ever know but it is not an exact science. [rock strata]

Answer 4

First, they are not assumptions. They are conclusions based on studies. The sedimentary layers have been shown to be many millions of years old by various dating techniques that are cross-checked by many scientists who do other studies. In short, there is no way that all those layers could have been laid down in just a few thousand years.

Answer 5

You are getting some where! That is very true. Nothing has formed over milliions of yrs. There is only evidence for a young earth! The rock strata did happen from the flood.

Answer 6

Keep in mind it's not one or two scientists doing research over a month or two, it's literally thousands of them over decades. Then they write a paper which is severely scrutinized by other experts before something is even accepted in the field of science. Facts and evidence are checked over and over again. Anytime new technology becomes available it is used to recheck it again.

Science is the pursuit of truth, the pursuit of how things work. No matter what those in religion may say science does not exist to prove religion wrong or right.

Science exists to obtain answers.

Answer 7

Absolutely not... and take note that the earth is not just millions of years old... it is BILLIONS of years old. About 4.5 billion. The universe is about 14.7 billion years old, or thereabouts.

It is absolutely clear from the geological record that there was no flood of global magnitude.

Nonsense that you read on LFJ (Liars For Jesus) web sites such as answersingenesis.com is just that... nonsense. Christianity is, above all, a business... and part of the business plan is for the shepherds to keep the flock (sheeple) from thinking for themselves. Since science has overturned many of the things that christianity maintains to be 'true', their only recourse is to keep the sheeple from looking into the information on their own, evaluating it, and coming to their own rational conclusions. Christianity could not survive that... and they know it. So, they create false information, intentionally misinterpret actual information, misquote scientists or twist scientists meaning by taking what they say out-of-context, in order to portray science itself as a 'false religion' (science has nothing at all to do with religion, and in fact has nothing to say about religion at all), and try to create the impression that scientists are doing the work of (or being misled by) Satan.

Note that the Old Testament praises wisdom, and urges God's people to seek for it. Note that the NT praises 'foolishness', and denigrates wisdom and secular knowledge. Does that make sense to you?

Answer 8

For that matter ever heard of circular dating? The rock dates the fossil and the fossil dates the rock. They say "we know that this rock is this old because it has these types of fossils in it and then they say this fossil is this old because we found it in this strata of rock." doesn't sound scientifically sound since how do they "know" were they there?

Answer 9

of course the science could be wrong, lets go attack it on scientific grounds, i sure as sh*t aint going to stand before the entire scientific community and take my pants down and say science is wrong cause of genesis chapter one and two,

you think the scientific explanations are wrong, use science to prove it wrong, ill even move out of my appartment move in with you and spend a year trying to prove em wrong - scientifically

Answer 10

I believe that they could have been put down in much less time than they say