15 Jul 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerTake Geology 101. It is really fairly simple.
I think we would all like to know how the position of gold deposits has anything to do with the age of the earth?
Read Evolution: the Fossils Say No or any of its spawn for a young earth creationist account of geology.
Look at a basic map of the Yukon that shows the geography of the Klondike mining region, and the locations of the greatest gold deposits, and compare the old earth and the young earth explanations of the salient geological processes. Which accounts better for the patterns of the gold deposits in the Klondike?
It is a simple question, but it requires that you do a little bit of study to answer. You won't find an answer on any of the creationist websites.
If you (creationists) can put together a reasoned explanation, you can rest comfortably in the knowledge that your opponents will not find any quick refutations at http://www.talkorigins.org/ or similar site. They, too, are on their own on this one.
I'm tired of rehashing the same information against the same nonsense in these forums. But I enjoy the real debate. So, drawing on my historical interests, I attempted to pose a problem of geology that will put all of us on our own resouces. If that is more than you can handle, then please desist from trolling.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWulebgr seems to imply that location of the gold somehow contradicts Young Earth view - but no relationship has been given between the location of gold and the young earth view - so how can there be a contradiction? And if it does not contradict the young earth view, then what's the point?
I believe the point here is that geology helps us to find large deposits of gold. Young Earth creationism does not. How does geology manage to do this if it's utterly and completely wrong?
Not all, or even most, young earth creationist deny geology or geological processes. The conflict between old earth and Young earth is a question of time, rates processes occur, changes to the rates of processes, and initial states. As far as I know, there is no inherent conflict regarding how gold got where we find it, only how long it took.
15 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiBut Creationists fail to do the basic research that is usually the bread and butter for scientists. They focus all or nearly all of their research towards imagining holes in evolutionary theory. If their own hypotheses, such that they are, had any merit whatsoever, they would be breaking new ground while applying their predictive faculties to demonstrate how their views work in practice. Because they do not do that, I must conclude the absence of such research demonstrates the absence of predictive power, hence the absence of scientific merit.
Wulebgr seems to imply that location of the gold somehow contradicts Young Earth view - but no relationship has been given between the location of gold and the young earth view - so how can there be a contradiction? And if it does not cont ...[text shortened]... ct regarding how gold got where we find it, only how long it took.
Having said this, I am a fair man. Inasmuch as there are so many would be scientists from the creationist camp lurking and posting in these forums, I offer you the opportunity to test your theories. Examine the geography and geology of the Klondike mining region, and demonstrate how your theories account for the location of the richest gold deposits, as well as their general character (suitable for placer mining or for hard rock, for example).
I believe orthodox geologists postulate something along the lines of five million years for the tablelands to erode to the point that existed during the mining boom, and that an uplift, or series of uplifts had occurred some time prior to that in order to create the tablelands in the first place. There's a good historical synopsis of this geology in the opening pages of Pierre Berton, The Klondike Fever: The Life and Death of the Last Great Gold Rush (1958), and a revised version of the same book--different title--published in 1972.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by WulebgrI believe orthodox geologists postulate something along the lines of five million years for the tablelands to erode to the point that existed during the mining boom, and that an uplift, or series of uplifts had occurred some time prior to that in order to create the tablelands in the first place. There's a good historical synopsis of this geology in the opening pages of Pierre Berton, The Klondike Fever: The Life and Death of the Last Great Gold Rush (1958), and a revised version of the same book--different title--published in 1972.
But Creationists fail to do the basic research that is usually the bread and butter for scientists. They focus all or nearly all of their research towards imagining holes in evolutionary theory. If their own hypotheses, such that they are, had any merit whatsoever, they would be breaking new ground while applying their predictive faculties to demonstrate how ...[text shortened]... old Rush[/i] (1958), and a revised version of the same book--different title--published in 1972.
Except for the 5 million years - I don't really have any problem with this explanation. And even the time-frame does not cause me much trouble. I don't really know how old the earth is, any anyone who believes they do is taking a leap of faith somewhere - maybe in a specific detail, or in science itself. But a completely rational mind would not hold that such large time-frames are proven facts, especially by empirical standards.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by ColettiThen, perhaps, you are not a young earth creationist. I was not directing the question at all those who take a faith-based approach to matters of science, just a particular sub-group. I am well aware, for example, that all or most of those associated with the Design Institute in Seattle (the proponents and authors of what they call Intelligent Design Theory--itself a terribly distorting misnomer, as it is nowhere near earning status as theory) disavow themselves of young-earth Creationism.
Except for the 5 million years - I don't really have any problem with this explanation. And even the time-frame does not cause me much trouble. I don't really know how old the earth is, any anyone who believes they do is taking a leap of faith somewhere - maybe in a specific detail, or in science itself. But a completely rational mind would not hold that such large time-frames are proven facts, especially by empirical standards.
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJaylook up Peter Higgs ,, the Higgs Field ,, C.E.R.N. ,,,Atlas detector.
Yep, and you also do not have an answer for too!
Unless you can tell me where matter came from, I'd like to see your
rational answer for that knowledge!
Kelly
Group Theory ,,Quantum Theory,, GUFT,,,UFT...Higgs Particle...
come back and show me where that math is wrong.
there are other views of how the universe came into existence that are consistent with science and Christ's words , however the Genesis account is far too full of Error to be useful.
16 Jul 05
In addition to the gold example...
I was reading an article about the five great die-outs in the history of life on earth. At least two of them are thought to have happened due to asteroids striking our planet. Do Young Earth creationists deny the die-outs, or do they accept them, but compress them all into the last 10,000 years?
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungGeology is not 'utterly and completely wrong'.
I believe the point here is that geology helps us to find large deposits of gold. Young Earth creationism does not. How does geology manage to do this if it's utterly and completely wrong?
When I was a geology student I took many classes like mineralogy, paleontology, stratigraphy, morphology, etc. etc. and one class called historical geology. This class was the one of the many subjects that veered away from the purely scientific study of applied geology toward the rather speculative business of earth origins. The part of geology that deals with this area which is actually irrelevant to industry, can be very wrong, and not make any real scientific difference at all, except in the most important, personal way.
As far as preparing for the real working world, the class was useless. Oil companies and mineral exploration companies don't care at all how long the treasure they seek has been buried in the ground. All they want their new geologists to understand is the correlation between surface findings and precious deposits.
Whether the geologist is a creationist or not does not matter in the field or in the business world,
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompYou look them up, I asked you.
look up Peter Higgs ,, the Higgs Field ,, C.E.R.N. ,,,Atlas detector.
Group Theory ,,Quantum Theory,, GUFT,,,UFT...Higgs Particle...
come back and show me where that math is wrong.
there are other views of how the universe came into existence that are consistent with science and Christ's words , however the Genesis account is far too full of Error to be useful.
Kelly
19 Jul 05
Originally posted by chinking58Hmm.
Geology is not 'utterly and completely wrong'.
When I was a geology student I took many classes like mineralogy, paleontology, stratigraphy, morphology, etc. etc. and one class called historical geology. This class was the one of the many subjects that veered away from the purely scientific study of applied geology toward the rather speculative busi ...[text shortened]... her the geologist is a creationist or not does not matter in the field or in the business world,
Wulebgr, do you think that young Earth creationism is incompatible with that part of geological theory that successful prospecters usually work from? You seem to imply this. If so, why do you think so? Why do you think this is a good topic for creationists and those of us who believe the Earth is billions of years old to discuss?
19 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm not certain that young earth creationism is necessarily incompatible with the theory most nineteenth century prospectors worked from. But, I suspect the effort to explain the geology of the Klondike mining region upon the basis of young earth creationist principles will become ensnared in a web of contradictions and absurd assumptions.
Hmm.
Wulebgr, do you think that young Earth creationism is incompatible with that part of geological theory that successful prospecters usually work from? You seem to imply this. If so, why do you think so? Why do you think this ...[text shortened]... e of us who believe the Earth is billions of years old to discuss?
I believe it is a good topic, as I stated before, because the answer(s) on all sides have not been posted already to the web. No one will find their answers through google, but must demonstrate sufficient geological knowledge to apply their theories to an obscure location.
20 Jul 05
Originally posted by WulebgrYou did read my post as far as process and how things were made?
Assume for the sake of argument that God created the gold.
There is still the matter of science.
Where gold is found stems from geologic processes, and human prospecting. Successful prospectors usually work from a theory rooted in their geological knowledge. Young earth creationists argue that basic principles of the science of geology are in error. Th ...[text shortened]... ion of Gold?
I could, but will not. Take Geology for yourself, or stay out of the debate.[/b]
Kelly