Is the Geologic Column a lie? / Age of the earth?

Question

The Geologic Column was invented by Charles Lyell in the early 1800's. He came up the this http://evolution-facts.org/images/ev-cr-pix/EC418.jpg
This was made around 100 years before radiometric dating was invented and is still how scientists date fossils today. It is anyone’s guess in how he knew how old the layers of the earth were. This site describes how scientists really date fossils http://www.eadshome.com/Fossils.htm
they use circular reasoning to date fossils. Why the layers cannot be millions of years apart. One obvious reason is the layers are tightly compact and if they were millions of years apart don't you think you would see erosion. (Where is the dirt coming from?) Here is another website that proves the layers are not millions of years apart http://www.wasdarwinright.com/geologicalcolumn.htm
Atheists you should start looking at some of the proof creationists have.

For proof of God go to this. http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm

Answer 1

King Arthur,

You are using a combination of facts that are completely incorrect. The vast majority of the propoganda you are getting from this creationist website is 100% wrong. Here are some things you need to know:

1. Charles Lyell did not assign absolute ages to the geologic column when he was constructing it. As another answerer pointed out, this happened AFTER radiometric dating was applied to the rocks. This was done, by the way, by CHRISTIAN scientists who went into the study of geology NOT with evolutionary assumptions, and NOT with an open mind, but with CREATIONIST ASSUMPTIONS!!! However, when radiometric dating indicated that the majority of the rocks were a matter of millions of years old, they were forced to abandon these assumptions. Look up the names of some geologists who had a hand in devising the geologic column. You will find that the vast majority were Christian.

2. The geologic column does not just consist of "10 or 11 layers". It consist of many more layers, that have been organized by both their measured absolute ages and relative positions in the column. Radiometric ages rely on NO assumptions... they are based solely on well established laws of physics. There is also a direct correlation between measured age and stratigraphic position that should not be observed if young earth creationism were true... BUT THEY ARE OBSERVED. Thus, the conclusion of an old earth is NOT based on circular reasoning, but is instead based on very sound dating methods that use nothing but laws of physics.

3. Radiometric dating is not the only way to date a material. There is also cosmogenic isotopes, optically stimulated luminescence, etc. Thus, some rocks that contain fossils CAN be dated by absolute dating methods. (I'm guessing you weren't aware of these methods when you posted this question). In the overhwhelming majority of cases, these dating methods EXACTLY AGREE with the age determined by radiometric methods, providing EVEN MORE support for an old earth.

4. I'm not sure why on earth you say that layers cannot be millions of years apart because we should see erosion. WE DO SEE EROSION. Plenty of it. Some layers are riddled with erosional surfaces that represent long periods of non-deposition. Again, you need to get some of these facts straight.

I can understand that you have faith in the idea of creation, and it is very comforting to see a website that gives you something to latch onto... something tangible to tell you that there is a basis for your belief. But you need to understand that this website is lying to you. I know that's not what you want to hear. I wouldn't blame you for being frustrated. They shouldn't be telling you that there are problems with geologists' methods when there actually aren't. But this is what the creationists who make these sites and write these books have been doing for a long time. And you don't have to take my word for it. Go to a library and look these things up on your own. You will find that everything I'm saying is true.

If you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me. I am a nice guy, and I would never ridicule anyone for their beliefs. There is nothing wrong with believing in creation if that is your faith. But the things that this website is saying about geology are nothing but lies and fabrications. I know this because I am a geologist, and have been studying this stuff for many years, as opposed to the few minutes that it probably took for the makers of that website to look up propoganda that was probably already up on some other website.

Answer 2

Mnrlboy's answer above is excellent, well-reasoned and non-dogmatic, and there is no reason I should attempt to repeat most of his answers here. You should listen very carefully to what he says and do some proper scientific reading and research (not via the websites you quote, which are fundamentalist propaganda of the worst kind) before forming your conclusions.

To re-iterate - Lyell did not invent the geological column, but he did make huge advances in the understanding of British geology, in particular in the understanding of how the various layers of rock relate to one another ("stratigraphy"). Other geologists like William Smith before him first used fossils to help put the rocks in their RELATIVE age positions, based on different fossils being found in different groups of rocks (this was done long before the theory of evolution was proposed as a mechanism for why the fossil species varied with relative age). Radiometric dating was not invented until much later, and this subsequently proved that (1) the relative order of ages of strata was correct, and (2) most layers of rocks are very old indeed, with ages measurable in millions, not thousands of years. Quite clearly then, the use of fossils puts the rocks in their correct relative ages, whilst radiometric techniques provides the absolute ages. THIS IS NOT A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT!

Incidentally, many of the great Victorian scientists and geologists were devoutly religious and were motivated in their research to prove the "great flood". But most came to realize that the geological record was telling a vastly more complex story - a realization that in no way diminished their faith...

As for your assertation that you do not see erosion in the geological record - I'm sorry to sound rude, but you clearly have no real understanding of basic geology. The geological record is punctuated throughout with erosional gaps (unconformities) of all shapes and sizes!. Geologists in the oil industry map out unconformities in order to understand where the oil and gas traps might be, and where the erosive remanents end up (as these often make good reservoirs). The technique works! We would not waste millions of dollars if it were otherwise!

Answer 3

It's pretty much relative dating - meaning we can tell what is older or younger than others, but not an exact date. Now with absolute dating, we can put a more actual number on something, but it's still on the exact date. The time line is based on geological events (ie mass extinctions, global climate changes, etc.), it wasn't divided up randomly.

All creationist have is "because God said so".

And that last page has numerous false claims - a rock cannot be formed and lithofied in 6 hours.

And yes, we do see erosion between layers. You can have a layer that has been eroded down, and a million years later, another one is placed upon it.

Answer 4

The geologic columns was NOT "invented" by Lyell. Crap...learn some history.

The original geologic column was the cumulative work over decades by many, many geoscientists in the late 1700s and early 1800s.

It was originally put together using basic stratigraphic principles (horizontalilty, superposition, and cross cutting relations). The column itself was later calibrated to ages in years using radioactive isotopes.

The geologic column today combines relative dating and absolute dating.

The link below explains radiometric dating from a Christian perspective. The author is a member of the American Scientific Affiliation, a group of scientists that happen to be evangelicals. It is a very good explanation of how radiometrics works and how it is useful for telling the age of rocks and the earth.

Answer 5

"if they were millions of years apart don't you think you would see erosion"

You don't see erosion of the seabed. Many areas have marine fossils in multiple layers. These areas were underwater until they were elevated. Sediments collected. The process is seen on land. Ancient cities are often buried by airborne sediments. Troy would not have been found if your erosion conjecture were true.

Answer 6

I am a not an atheist and I believe Earth is 4.55 billion years old.

Don't generalize. Not all scientists are atheists.

Obviously you and those websites do not understand geological process.

You cannot "prove" God. God cannot be subjected to the scientific method. You cannot prove anything. Only falsify through experimentation.

Answer 7

Well said.
About time evolutionists grappled with the actual evidence!

mrnlboy is not entirely correct - though he should get marks for dogmatism :)

Charles Lyell may not assigned absolute ages to the layers of rock, but he denied the Global Flood and was pushing the idea of long ages.

In fact mrnlboy is talking nonsense about radiometric dating. There are *no* absolute methods to determine the age of rocks - all dating methods depend on assumptions.
Radiometric methdos are flawed - giving completely falase dates for rocks of known age!
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059/

MRNLboy also misuderstand the problem of erosion.
Nevertheless, sedimentologists have researched many of the world’s rivers and calculated how fast the land is disappearing. The measurements show that some rivers are excavating their basins by more than 1,000 mm (39 inches) of height in 1,000 years, while others move only 1 mm (0.04 inches) in 1,000 years. The average height reduction for all the continents of the world is about 60 mm (2.4 inches) per 1,000 years.
On the scale of one human life-span, these rates of erosion are low. But for those who say the continents are billions of years old, the rates are staggering. A height of 150 kilometres (93 miles) of continent would have eroded in 2.5 billion years. It defies common sense. If erosion had been going on for billions of years, no continents would remain on Earth.

Evolutionists - you need to up your game and address the evidence that creationists are happy to embrace!

Answer 8

Good grief. Learn a bit of scientific method before you go spouting off, can't you?

Answer 9

I can't improve on Wayner's reply.

However, proof?

Like having faith that there is a god?

Now if you have actual evidence (proof) that there is a god, I would love to see it.

Answer 10

there is as much proof for a god as there is for a Santa

take your imagination to R&S for questions about imaginary beings