How does a creation view versus an evolutionary view contrast in terms of geological predictive success?

Question

- many geological layers are very clean divisions without sign of erosion, roots or other signs of age and...
- many features of geology appear catastrophically created not gradually
- helium in zicons, a by product of Uranium decay has not diffuse very far suggestion some daughter byproducts of decay
have young appearance
- recent volcanic rocks are loaded with argon giving appearance of millions of years age with potassium argon and storntium argon techniques under evolutionary assumptions
- coal taken from the top of the geological column to the bottom have roughly the same high levels of C14 even in Cambrian diamonds

in retrospect, which view is the more sucessuful predictively

Answer 1

Creation, of course. You could also mention petrified trees protruding through several geological layers which were supposedly layed down over millions of years. And, man made artifacts found in lumps of coal...an iron axe, a gold bracelet, pottery, etc..as well as man made imprints of sandals found in geological strata next to fossils. The very pressure of oil in the ground has been determined that it would have dissipated in the millions of years from when it was supposedly buried.

Answer 2

(Geomatic7000... AMEN!!! The idea of a God guiding our development and the idea of a 4.5 billion year old earth are NOT mutually exclusive. Thanks for pointing this out.)

I do, however, want to give an honest answer to the question:

1. Why do you equate evolution with geology? Evolution is a biological theory, not geological, although geology is used to gather much of the evidence for evolution.

2. For the sake of argument, I will lump all of geology in with "evolution". This means the "evolutionary view" has had outstanding success in predicting the results of earth observations. For example, the theory predicts that humans and modern apes would have a large amount of genetic material in common since the theory proposes that they come from the same ancestors. The development of gene sequencing techniques later showed this to be the case.

The creationist view asserts that the earth, and everything on it, was created 6000 years ago by God. What predictions can that idea possibly make? What observations about the earth are predicted by this idea that I could search out and verify? In the years I have debated this with creationists, no creationist has come up with a single one. I challenge you to do so.

2. Your first bullet point is meaningless. Of course some rocks will show signs of erosion and others won't, because some rocks have been eroded and others haven't. I'm not sure what your argument is, because you haven't established any connection between the observations you're making and the age of the rocks. Can you please explain what you mean?

3. Yes, some geologic features appear catastrophically created, and others appear to have been gradually created. This is all part of modern geology. I have the sinking feeling that you are trying to imply something about the age of the earth, but again, you have not even come close to making a case.

4. Your third bullet point is incoherent, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

5. Again, I don't understand what you're saying. The amount of argon in a rock is the amount of argon in a rock. What does this amount have to do with "evolutionary assumptions"? Some rocks can be accurately dated by the K-Ar method, and some cannot. No geologist would ever debate that. If you are trying to imply that these rocks must be young, again, you seem to have made no case whatsoever.

6. You are misinformed. Most coal beds have no detectable level of C-14 because all of it has decayed already. Those that do show measurable amounts of C-14 developed it most likely because of radiation from the surrounding rock generating new isotopes.

If you think you have made some kind of convincing case for creation, I'm afraid I don't see it. I would still be happy to listen to your case if you would clarify some of the things you have said and explain how they relate to creationist and evolutionist ideas.

Answer 3

Your question is somewhat vague, although your intent is clear. My answer, without addressing your myriad of questionable or confusing points, it this: Creationism is based on the Bible, hence, there is no possibility of altering that point of view. If you wish to foster Mesopotamian Mythology, please remember that Science will disagree. Geology, as a science, has abundant evidence at its disposal, and is a dynamic (ever-changing) process as new evidence comes into it. Creationism is a belief in a static (never changing) document. And, as an aside, C14 is never used to date Cambrian "diamonds", as its range is less than 100 thousand years, not 550 million years.

Answer 4

See, its questions like this that keep contention stirred up. The reality is that both sides need to compromise. Believing in an all powerful creator God makes it possible to believe in billions of years of Earth's history. Using intellect and reason to discover these billions of years of history pays homage the the God that allowed you to develop those things.

People come here all the time with their "evidence" to sway creationists to evolution or evolutionists to creationism. It doesn't work. I will never work. People's convictions are very hard to sway. Why do people even try. Live and let live. If someone asks you what you believe, tell them, and leave it at that. Don't go into a tirade.

Creation and Evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive. In my opinion they aren't.

Answer 5

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you.... if you are going to engage in a battle of intellectual wits make sure you are armed first....