What young earth geologist currently asserts that the worldwide flood was violent in all places on earth and at all times simultaneously? Again, this is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of current young earth geology understanding.
Talk about shifting sands!! How about some consolidated sediment? 
Yes, YEC does indeed have a problem with consistency. For example, the heat problem would melt the Earth, but YEC still maintains there was accelerated radioactive decay and ultra-fast tectonic movement. YEC claims vast sediment transport which would have involved massive currents, but then claim rapid burial was required for fossilization, when the disruptive forces would have dispersed and pulverized them. This is based on understanding current YEC geology, and is fair criticism. YEC geologists, such as Austin, Clarey, Snelling, and Whitmore, need to get their alibi’s straight.
But in relation to this, it may be noted that the Bible itself speaks of rain falling and springs gushing forth, and in scripture there is none of the extra Biblical tectonic movement and other machinations YEC attribute to the flood.
3 Likes
Yes, I didn’t mean to imply the missing sediments were a worldwide phenomenon. It’s a regional thing.
1 Like
I recently surfed onto a documentary featuring the otherworldly Cave of the Crystals of Naica, a cavern that looks like a set piece from Jules Verne’s Journey to the Center of the Earth. It is home to clear faceted crystals that grew to longer than 11 meters and weigh in the tons. As it is rather obvious that such enormous crystals would require time to reach such sizes, I was curious to do some digging.
The cave was discovered by a mining operation extracting lead, zinc, and silver, and the geology has been well studied. To have caves, you must first have the formation, and at Naica it begins more than 100 mya:
The Naica Project - A multidisciplinary study of the largest gypsum crystals of the world
At the regional scale the Naica carbonate sequence consists of limestone, dolomitic limestone and calcitic dolostone… The carbonate sequence started its deposition during Albian age (Cretaceous) and its sedimentation went on for several tens of millions of years.
About 26 mya, caverns formed due to igneous intrusions which acidified the ground water cycle and leached the carbonates. The regular ore at the mine is due to these intrusions and displacement of the carbonates with ensuing deposits. The humongous crystals later also derived from this source.
So, to arrive at the Cave of Crystals, you begin about 115 mya with sediment accumulation to overlay evaporitic layers left by briney seas. Then, to about 100 mya, carbonate deposits were laid forming limestone. Some 26 mya hydrothermal flows linked with magmatic intrusions deposited the mineral that have been exploited by the zinc and lead and silver mine operating at the site. These flows carved out a network of caverns and tunnels. Given the temperature of the mineralized water was in a sensitive range for precipitation of gypsum crystals, the conditions were uniquely suited for nucleating and growing the largest known crystals on Earth.
How long would it take to grow such gigantic crystals? Lab replication of the cave conditions indicate on the order of a million years. Half that or double that, the time required stretches way further than 4500 years.
Ultraslow growth rates of giant gypsum crystals
This is commonplace with sedimentary formations, sequences of events where each step in itself requires vast tracts of time. The chalk cliffs of Dover started as plankton photosynthesizing at the surface depths of water and depositing over eons on the dark ocean floor. The energetics of that can only happen so fast, but there is more. Then remains which are buried deeper than about 500 meters are compressed to chalk. Within these stretches of geological time, conditions would sometimes change to allow for thinner layers of flint and even coal to form within the chalk. Not done yet. Then the stacked formation was exposed above sea level. Still more to come. The chalk cliffs of England and France were once united, so the erosion time required to carve out the English Channel must be accounted for to finally arrive at the present day.
There are many examples of sequences where each step would individually far exceed the time available were the Earth young, let alone taken all together. It is just a matter of clear thinking about observations available to any reasonably educated layperson, that the YEC flood narrative cannot account for the world as we see. YEC geologists have to be aware of that.
2 Likes
Natural selection is not evolution. It can only select from what exists.
I am currently re-reading Heretic by Matt Leisola and Jonathan Witt, and it gives convincing evidence that evolution is not well substantiated. He also argues that even many evolutionists have conceded this to him privately, but are unwilling to commit themselves publicly:
“I came to understand through many international connections that Neo-Darwinism, while little valued among mainstream biologists who spent any time thinking about the theory, was treated by them as a third rail—to dangerous to touch.”
He is of course referring to the electrified rail that some trains run on. His illustration is that the two rails the evolutionary theory train runs on are most shakey, but those who are skeptical of evolution are unwilling to state so publicly because as he states, “There is fear of expressing doubts about evolution in public because the enforcers of Darwinian orthodoxy still have the power to threaten careers and, in some situations, to deliver on these threats.”
His observations, if true, tell us that evolutionism sustains itself, not on evidence, but on storytelling and fear.
Sounds like Ken Ham. And they obviously do not know about the fact that neutral drift and the neutral theory of evolution actually does produce new information.
2 Likes
Read the book, Heresy. I know that Ken Ham is used as the icon of deception for evolutionists. Just because it sounds like something Ken Ham would say, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. Maybe he is actually right.
Actually, Dr. Leisola discusses neutral drift and the neutral drift theory of evolution and gives compelling reasons why it’s new information doesn’t support the evolution of new species. These information changes have limited boundaries (“nothing fundamentally novel has been created”) to what they can accomplish as he cogently argues.
When you do not have evidence, there is always off topic innuendo.
1 Like
Actually I have, several years ago before I came to acknowledge the validity of the science, and had forgotten. Maybe it was kidney cancer that helped convince me (in fact I’m sure it did), that God is sovereign over the mutations in DNA.
1 Like
And then there is @St.Roymond’s account that atheist and agnostic students became Christians because of evolution, that it is such a fantastic system for producing biodiversity. So YECs can lose their false nobility about upholding the truth of the Bible that they have misunderstood and the rut that they’re in.
1 Like
Nebrasca Man was proposed (wrongly) in 1922, and retracted in 1927- Piltdown Man was concocted in 1912, always disputed, and conclusively confirmed a hoax in 1953. By scientists. If you learned those were evidences of evolution, you must be older than dirt as well, or need to look further in your search for knowledge.
Regarding embryonic recapitulation, it is more complicated (and the roots actually preceded Darwin) but the advances actually provide a better understanding of evolution and development according to this frome Wikipedia: The modern view is summarised by the University of California Museum of Paleontology:
Embryos do reflect the course of evolution, but that course is far more intricate and quirky than Haeckel claimed. Different parts of the same embryo can even evolve in different directions. As a result, the Biogenetic Law was abandoned, and its fall freed scientists to appreciate the full range of embryonic changes that evolution can produce—an appreciation that has yielded spectacular results in recent years as scientists have discovered some of the specific genes that control development.[21]
Regarding peppered moths, they are still a good example of genetic shifts due to environmental pressures, that is, natural selection. Not sure what your point is with them. Same with Darwin’s finches, which are still a good example of natural selection, and when you consider their relationship to their nearest related species in South America, of evolution.
The Erey-Miller experiment had nothing to do with evolution. If you learned evolution from that, you might want to check your source.
Drawings of Ape to man- These are , well, drawings by graphic artists, not scientific explanations. You might as well criticize the Sunday School cartoons of clean shaven European looking Adam and Eve drawings in the Eden as being false theology.
4 Likes
He didn’t say that natural selection is evolution. He said evolution by [means] of natural selection. Do you understand the difference?
2 Likes
Do they believe the earth is only 6000 years old?
p.s. It’s Matti 
1 Like
I didn’t claim that it had.
OK so let’s get our facts straight about that.
The things that have been “surpassed or modified or discarded and replaced and even repudiated” all concern the fine details of evolution. It’s things such as, scientists used to believe that A evolved from B; now they have better evidence and know that A and B both evolved from C instead.
Sorry, but changes in the scientific consensus about the fine details does not falsify the bigger picture. To claim that they do is to exaggerate the extent and significance of the changes out of all proportion, which is a form of lying.
I’m sorry Craig, but if you want to argue against evolution on the grounds of fraudulent evidence, you need to do a lot better than that.
Piltdown Man was recognised as a fraud in 1953. That is seventy years ago. Nebraska Man—which was an honest mistake, not a fraud—was retracted in 1927. That is ninety-six years ago.
If you want to argue against evolution on the grounds of fraudulent evidence, you need to show that all the evidence for evolution, right up to the present day, is fraudulent. And remember, you’re talking about millions of different lines of evidence, all of them fitting together to paint a very coherent picture, at times with a very high degree of mathematical precision.
That kind of scenario would require vast amounts of tightly coordinated scientific fraud to be going on behind the scenes on an industrial scale, involving millions of scientists, for more than a century and a half. A tiny handful of isolated instances of casual scientific fraud from nearly a century ago doesn’t come anywhere close to establishing the existence of a conspiracy on that scale, and to claim that it does is to blow the extent and significance of the fraud completely out of all proportion. Which, again, is a form of lying.
In any case, as @jpm points out, neither of them were ever presented by mainstream scientists as evidence for evolution, so if your textbook claims that they were, it must have been written by young earthists.
Sorry Craig, but the shoe does not fit, and I’ve already explained why.
The term “shifting sands” would only fit if the scientific consensus changed arbitrarily, in response to whims and fashions. As I’ve pointed out already it does nothing of the sort: the scientific consensus only changes in tightly disciplined ways, according to strict rules, in response to new evidence or new and improved techniques for analysing the evidence.
As I said, to compare the scientific consensus to “shifting sands” is to misunderstand or misrepresent what scientists actually do and the strict rules and protocols that they have to follow. Which is at best wilful ignorance and at worst another form of lying.
6 Likes
When I studied evolution in high school was before the seminal paper on the neutral theory of evolution was even published. Maybe an analogy would be comparing Newtonian physics with relativistic physics? One doesn’t overturn the other (still taught) and ‘shifting any sand’, but illuminating details?
1 Like
Ah, the old, ‘The biologists support me in private’ ploy.
He’s lying. This isn’t something one with any actual experience with the worldwide biological research community could be honestly mistaken about. Among mainstream biologists, common descent is viewed as the central, organizing framework for understanding biological diversity. While there are plenty of disagreements about the details of evolution, the core reality is far too useful and far too well supported to be the subject of doubt.
Seriously, how does this make even the tiniest bit of sense to you? Why would thousands of evolutionary biologists, and hundreds of thousands of biologists whose work touches on evolution or depends on it in some way, spend their lives studying and relying on something they know to be false? Why not just take a job in biotech industry, where the hours are shorter and the pay better? And why would anyone bother enforcing such a ridiculous orthodoxy? What’s the gain in forcing others to study something you know to be false?
Yeah, but there’s the rub.
7 Likes
Okay, okay, it’s possible he’s merely delusional on this subject. Regardless, his claim bears no resemblance to the actual view of biologists.
3 Likes
Wow, you heard me! (How many times have I heard YECs say that we’re calling God a liar by not taking ‘the plain meaning’ of Genesis 1. 
)