I share in your frustration over the high “heat-to-light” ratio that nearly every venue has with these issues. Those who simply would like to just learn more about reality while leaving all the animus and triumphalism behind have a hard time finding those rare corners where they can grow in knowledge instead of anger, fear, and malice. Or at least I know that’s how I have felt. It sounds like you are in a similar place.
One solution is to strive to be such a refuge yourself. Let the fruits of your already hard-won findings become patient educational fruit for others. You aren’t alone.
The Bait and Switch. YEC’s are being dishonest with their audience. They make the argument that geologists point to geologic layers that are separated by millions of years. The YEC’s then make the dishonest claim that this applies to all layers, which it doesn’t. There are geologic layers that geologists think are separated by a single year or even 6 months in the case of varves. I am unaware of a single verified polystrate tree that has been confirmed to go through multiple layers that are separated by millions of years as measured by radiometric dating, and I have yet to find a YEC who can point to one.
Nature of Evidence. If a geologic feature could have been produced by local flooding millions of years ago, then it isn’t evidence for a recent global flood. We can observe polystrate fossils being formed right now from local floods and local processes. These same mechanisms would have been active in the past, even millions of years ago. Therefore, there is no reason to think that any polystrate fossil required a global flood nor a recent flood.
You need to realise that just because some fossils are dated based on where they fit into the fossil record doesn’t mean that all of them are. You’re probably thinking of the YEC claim that “fossils are used to date rocks and rocks are used to date fossils” here. You need to realise that that particular claim is a half-truth, and a very misleading one at that. While it’s true that some fossils are used to date rocks, and that some rocks are used to date fossils, the two techniques are never used together in ways that are circular in the way that they imply. You need to view these techniques – and polystrate fossils as well for that matter – in the wider context of the whole body of data. There are tens of thousands of radiometric results published in the scientific literature every year, for example, and in the best cases, they can be as tightly constrained as one part in ten thousand. And that’s just one discipline among many.
There’s one important thing you need to realise here. Those of us who have studied science to university level are aware that there are stringent rules that interpretations of the evidence have to meet. They have to be free from arithmetic error. They have to respect the basic rules and principles of how measurement works, including calculating error bars correctly. They must not quote mine, cherry-pick data, or exaggerate. Your equipment has to be calibrated correctly. There are even strict protocols about how you have to keep laboratory notes. And on top of that, there are all sorts of rules about health and safety thrown into the mix as well. When you do a science degree, you have to take practical exams and classes where you are assessed and graded based on your ability and willingness to adhere to these protocols and standards. And when you get out into the workplace, you very often end up in situations where not following the rules will result in people getting killed.
Here’s the problem. Young-earth “evidence” simply does not follow the rules. Everywhere I turn in young-earth “science,” I see tiny samples with huge error bars being proclaimed as “overwhelming” evidence for radical new laws of fantasy physics that they themselves admit would have vaporised the earth if they had any basis in reality. (Read up about the RATE project if you don’t know what I’m talking about here.) I see discrepancies in conventional dating methods of just 20-30% in a minority of cases being cited as evidence that all radiometric results are consistently out by a factor of a million or more. This isn’t anything to do with “secular naturalism” or “compromise” or “just so rebuttals” or anything like that – if you applied that kind of thinking to any other area of science, you would kill people.
Well I too would like to assume good faith with YECs as far as I can. Most rank and file YECs are honest and sincere people who merely lack the skills and technical know-how to be able to fact-check their claims. I’d much rather believe that they were just getting carried away with themselves, or that they’d misunderstood things, rather than accusing them of lying. But one does have to draw the line somewhere, and when I see a PhD geologist claiming that rock layers in the Grand Canyon are bent without fracturing, and backing up his case with an out-of-focus photo of a rock formation with people in front of the very fractures that he claims do not exist (and which can be seen clearly on other photos elsewhere on the Internet, some of them even on the same website), if that is not conscious and deliberate lying, then what on earth is?
This isn’t about “YEC versus OEC wars” or anything like that. This is about making sure your facts are straight. Nothing more, nothing less.
In particular I like the photo of Snelling studing a rock layer and clearly visible over his shoulder is a crack in the rock of the type which he says does not exist. He must not have proofed the photos for his article.
Argument from silence. If they were everywhere the YEC folks would be sure to let everyone know. Instead they stay with the few known locations. BTW, they don’t discuss the known fossil forests (trees buried in volcanic ash) because they don’t fit in their model.
The evidence against a global flood is massive, to me at least. Discussing polystrate fossils is just a distraction for both sides. I have read YEC papers and have never found one that didn’t have problems.
If you can suggest one that is really solid I would love to read it.
If you are not aware there is a specialized Google search function at scholar.google.com that lets you search for papers and books. I plugged in polystrate and got a sample of the back and forth that you mentioned. If you are not planning on traveling the world to check out each possible location what exactly are you looking for? Geology normally functions by carefully describing what is seen so in a way YEC or OE should both be providing the same description of the known locations. It is the interpretation that would differ. It does appear to me there are several classes of tree fossils that could potentially required different interpretations.
I just tried a search for fossil trees and got more results that appear to be OE geologists. And per Wikipedia “The word polystrate is not a standard geological term.” so if that is what you are searching for that could bias the results you are seeing.
I don’t know if having more sites for polystrate fossils would make any difference. It is how the interpretations fit together with other known data. Like the presence of vertical root systems in different rock strata that should have all been laid down in one year.
I was just making a suggestion. And it is defined (never seen the definition though) by creationists. In a discussion of the topic it makes sense to use their term. Geologists appear to just call them fossil trees.
What would the acceptable alternative be?
Would you mind sharing the search terms you do use?
One of the major points is that the YEC’s lack the information they require to make these arguments. They claim that the layers surrounding these polystrate fossils are separated by millions of years according to modern dating methodologies. I have yet to see a single reference supporting this YEC claim.
If the YEC argument is simply that floods can produce polystrate fossils, then I think YEC’s and standard geology are in agreement. It is quite ironic that YEC’s will point to events like the lahars caused by the Mt. St. Helens eruption as evidence for their claims when all it does is disprove their claims. If local flooding at any time in the past 4.5 billion years could produce polystrate fossils, then polystrate fossils can’t evidence a recent global flood.
[Edited by moderator]
It is possible to objectively and dispassionately address the arguments made by Ham and others which is what I strive to do.
I like to reference this picture in threads discussing polystrate fossils.
This is a polystrate telephone pole. It was buried by massive lahars after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines. In fact, you can see a polystrate factory in the background. If we are going with the YEC argument, then there were factories and telephone poles during Noah’s time, which is a bit hard to believe.
I’ve been studying and researching lately on this matter but as for why creationist scientists aren’t more and more plentiful in the field is strictly because the atheist scientists rebuke laugh at and harass and push out creationist scientists or anyone who wishes to be a creationist scientists. From preschool age up evolution and the millions of years Theory is shoved down children’s throats as FACT WHEN IN ALL TOLD TRUTH IT’S STILL A THEORY. And be that as it may, there is plenty of evidence that has been shared between both forms of science to conclude either point depending on where the scientist preconception is. But one major thing that really cuts down on the possibility of Earth being old is rate of decay for uranium which is 4.5 billion years half life. using that as a standard rated decay for all uranium mined out of the Earth and the fact that uranium is not created at all on this planet anymore what we have is all we got and all we will have, then all uranium mind out of the ground should be at least 50% uranium 50% lead if Earth was really 4.5 billion years old yet all uranium mind out of the earth is 99% uranium absolutely proven and debunking an old Earth.
Now on top of that these fossils that are surrounded by an unrefutable number of layers if the settlement which created each of those layers was deposited over a large span of time there would be varying amounts of decay evident on these fossils within each layer due to exposure to the elements outside of the sediment layer below which in all the cases that I’ve checked out, there is none. Others have brought up an extremely valid point which is have the previous datings of those layers been retested sense of discovery of these translayered fossils I’ve been discovered and I have the fossils themselves been dating for we absolutely do know that the date of the entire fossil should be older than all the ascending layers.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
163
How does that have anything to do with faith in the faithfulness of Jesus?
Scientific theories are considered facts. You aren’t using the word theory the way it is used in science. It doesn’t mean “a guess about something that might or might not be right.” Scientific theories have been rigorously tested and corroborated and are considered the best possible explanation of multiple streams of data and confirmed hypotheses.
This is creationist propaganda and is simply not true.
I respectfully disagree with you. And anything that isn’t creationist is the actual propaganda considering the fact that for thousands of years science was to study of God’s creation until 200 years ago when a group of atheist scientists decided they wanted to take God out of the equation.
This is a common creationist talking point, but it is not historically accurate. Ancient earth geology and Big Bang cosmology scientific frameworks were originally proposed by Christian scientists who very much acknowledged they were studying God’s creation.
Not exactly sure how to answer your question considering in fact that what I posted had nothing to do with the faithfulness of Jesus. it had to do with the fossils that transcend multiple layers of sediment. I once believed in evolution and Earth being millions of years old I even tried to mix that with the Bible to come up with a elongated Genesis story but all the evidence that I’ve been able to accumulate visually and to read about and check out has brought me back to the absolute belief and coherence that the Earth is less than a million years old. And then there’s a fact that creatures that are supposedly supposed to been extinct for over 100 million years are showing up to be alive and well like the prehistoric fish that was just found alive in India with no evolutionary changes like assumed by atheist scientists Charles Darwin
