Is Young Earth Creationism a Science?

[harvey1]

Recently, I've had some discussions in the Christianity sub-forum where we argued about whether academia has the right to define what academic used terms mean. And, it seems that the consensus seems to be that the populace has a majority share in what terms mean. So, since many people believe that Young Earth Creationism is a science, I thought that a majority in this sub-forum would have no problem calling YEC a science. Is that true? Can we dispense with YEC as being unscientific because some certain populace now has defined science differently than the academic departments throughout the world? Any thoughts?

[seen da light]

Mt. St. Helens Explosion Gives Creation Evidence
Author: Bruce Malone
In order to determine what has happened in the past geologists study current process and use these observations to determine how rock layers came to cover our planet. Before the 1800's, geology was dominated by an acknowledgement that a worldwide flood was the cause of these rock layers. This changed when the founders of modern geology, James Hutton and Charles Lyell, succeeded in replacing this interpretation with the belief in uniformitarianism.
This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth.
Uniformitarianism is the belief that slow-and-gradual processes, like we see today, account for the geologic features of our planet. It also assumes that there has never been a massive and rapid accumulation of sediment caused by a world wide catastrophe. Charles Darwin was heavily influenced by this type of thought when he extended the concept of slow and gradual geological change to include slow and gradual biological change. In the last 30 years many geologists have come to accept as fact that the past has seen rapid geological changes far surpassing anything we see happening today. However, the geological community still clings to the belief that there have been millions of years between these catastrophes.
The foundational assumption of the creation model is that there has been a worldwide flood in the recent past. If this assumption is correct, there should be evidence for this event. A worldwide flood would have caused massive destruction of plant and animal life followed by a redeposition of this bio-matter and sediment. This bio-matter and sediment. This would result in enormous fossil beds at locations throughout the planet. This is what the fossil record reveals.
One criticism of the creation models is the lack of a natural model which duplicates the processes happening during this alleged flood. However, in 1980, the explosion of Mt. St. Helen's in Washington provided just such a model. When Mt. St. Helen's exploded an estimated 18 billion cubic feet of rock, ash, dirt, steam, and melted snow flowed down the side of the mountain at estimated speeds at 90 mph. This, and subsequent ash flows, laid down as much as 600 feet of sediment on the north face of the mountain slope. In essence, a massive flood event was modeled for the scientific community.
The sediments laid down during the violent mud and ash flows were not a homogenized mixture but rather a series of finely layered horizontal strata. They look quite similar to the horizontal layers of rock which can be observed in road cuts as you travel our interstate highways. These types of horizontal bands of rock strata are often assumed to indicate millions of years of earth history, but Mt. St. Helen's has provided geologists with a scale model of how this same type of horizontal strata could be laid down rapidly by flowing water. Subsequent to the Mt. St. Helen's explosion, a new river canyon was formed in one day (March 19, 1982) as backed up water broke through the newly deposited sediment. This canyon is 100 feet deep and looks amazingly like a 1/40th scale model of the Grand Canyon. Had no one been present to see this area form, we might assume that the small stream presently located at the bottom of the canyon had cut the canyon over millions of years. This is the story of most of us have been taught about the Colorado river and the Grand Canyon. Many geologists are now coming to acknowledge that just as the Toutle River canyon at Mt. St. Helen's formed rapidly , the Grand Canyon was also formed over a short period of time by a massive flow of water.
The majority of the geologic community believe that low energy processes and long time periods account for the geologic record. Creationists believe that high energy processes and short periods of time account for the geologic record. Only one viewpoint is correct. Only one viewpoint agrees with the Biblical record. Guess Which one?

Heres the article. argue with the professor and evidence with in it

[jwu]

First off, the author is not a professor. Please don't make up credentials.

Before the 1800's, geology was dominated by an acknowledgement that a worldwide flood was the cause of these rock layers. This changed when the founders of modern geology, James Hutton and Charles Lyell, succeeded in replacing this interpretation with the belief in uniformitarianism.

Because evidence was found which could not be reconciled with the concept that a single flood caused these layers.

Uniformitarianism is the belief that slow-and-gradual processes, like we see today, account for the geologic features of our planet. It also assumes that there has never been a massive and rapid accumulation of sediment caused by a world wide catastrophe.

Except for Chicxulub. Uniformitarianism does not deny large scale catastrophes, but there simply is no evidence for a global flood.

In the last 30 years many geologists have come to accept as fact that the past has seen rapid geological changes far surpassing anything we see happening today.

Like?

However, the geological community still clings to the belief that there have been millions of years between these catastrophes.

That's not just a guess though, but established with dating methods.

The foundational assumption of the creation model is that there has been a worldwide flood in the recent past. If this assumption is correct, there should be evidence for this event. A worldwide flood would have caused massive destruction of plant and animal life followed by a redeposition of this bio-matter and sediment. This bio-matter and sediment. This would result in enormous fossil beds at locations throughout the planet. This is what the fossil record reveals.

Except that these fossil beds are too large to be laid down by a single flood, aall the biomass in them couldn't possibly have been alive at the same time. E.g. there is about 100 times as much biomass worth of fossil fuel than there is biomass on earth right now, it just doesn't work out. Furthermore, the global flood is falsified by things like welded tuffs, fossilized footsteps and the sorting of fossils.

One criticism of the creation models is the lack of a natural model which duplicates the processes happening during this alleged flood. However, in 1980, the explosion of Mt. St. Helen's in Washington provided just such a model. When Mt. St. Helen's exploded an estimated 18 billion cubic feet of rock, ash, dirt, steam, and melted snow flowed down the side of the mountain at estimated speeds at 90 mph. This, and subsequent ash flows, laid down as much as 600 feet of sediment on the north face of the mountain slope. In essence, a massive flood event was modeled for the scientific community.
The sediments laid down during the violent mud and ash flows were not a homogenized mixture but rather a series of finely layered horizontal strata. They look quite similar to the horizontal layers of rock which can be observed in road cuts as you travel our interstate highways. These types of horizontal bands of rock strata are often assumed to indicate millions of years of earth history, but Mt. St. Helen's has provided geologists with a scale model of how this same type of horizontal strata could be laid down rapidly by flowing water.

Whose similarities to the geologic column are superficial at best. E.g. shale cannot possible form that quick, nor are the global limestone deposits compatible with a global flood, nor evaporites.

Subsequent to the Mt. St. Helen's explosion, a new river canyon was formed in one day (March 19, 1982) as backed up water broke through the newly deposited sediment. This canyon is 100 feet deep and looks amazingly like a 1/40th scale model of the Grand Canyon.

Except for the lack of granite or vertical slopes. The author either has no clue what he is talking about or he is deliberately lying to you.

Many geologists are now coming to acknowledge that just as the Toutle River canyon at Mt. St. Helen's formed rapidly , the Grand Canyon was also formed over a short period of time by a massive flow of water.

Names please.

The majority of the geologic community believe that low energy processes and long time periods account for the geologic record. Creationists believe that high energy processes and short periods of time account for the geologic record. Only one viewpoint is correct. Only one viewpoint agrees with the Biblical record. Guess Which one?

High energy processes which would have steamboiled everything on the surface of the earth to death. Including the passengers of an ark.

By the way, it would be nice if you could argue things with your own words. Else this will turn into a link or quote dropping contest, and it keeps things fair, as right now i had to put more effort into this as it took you to post a quote.

[Jose]

Thanks for joining us, s.d.l. It looks like we'll have a fun chat.

Before the 1800's, geology was dominated by an acknowledgement that a worldwide flood was the cause of these rock layers. This changed when the founders of modern geology, James Hutton and Charles Lyell, succeeded in replacing this interpretation with the belief in uniformitarianism.

Because evidence was found which could not be reconciled with the concept that a single flood caused these layers.

Exactly so. Hutton and Lyell went out and looked at what was there. They also thought a little bit. They said, "what if processes that occur today have occurred for some length of time?" Erosion chews off a little bit of rock each year, and sometimes a big chunk or two. Go down a cliff--the Grand Canyon would do--about 4000 years' worth of erosion, and ask "what's below that?" Oddly enough, you find pretty much more of the same. If you didn't know the biblical creation story you wouldn't have any reason to imagine that above the 4000 year mark you had normal, slow erosion, but for rock that looks just the same, below that mark you had something completely different. It just doesn't fit.

Uniformitarianism is the belief that slow-and-gradual processes, like we see today, account for the geologic features of our planet. It also assumes that there has never been a massive and rapid accumulation of sediment caused by a world wide catastrophe.

Except for Chicxulub. Uniformitarianism does not deny large scale catastrophes, but there simply is no evidence for a global flood.

Uniformitarianism simply says that normal processes have occurred in the past. For normal erosion, that's usually slow and gradual, but sometimes erosion undermines cliffs and they collapse. Sometimes there are floods. Sometimes there are volcanic eruptions. Sometimes there are meteor strikes. These are catastrophes--normal catastrophes that are part of "uniformitarianism."

In the last 30 years many geologists have come to accept as fact that the past has seen rapid geological changes far surpassing anything we see happening today.

Like?

How about Chixulub? That produced a rapid geological change at the point of impact, and more changes where the tsunami debri was deposited. The Deccan Traps would be another example. Still, I'd ask the same question: what examples do you have in mind, s.d.l.?

However, the geological community still clings to the belief that there have been millions of years between these catastrophes.

That's not just a guess though, but established with dating methods.

I would suggest that it's the fundamentalist community that clings to the belief that the measurements cannot be right. They can continue to cling to that belief as long as they don't actually look at the data.

The foundational assumption of the creation model is that there has been a worldwide flood in the recent past. If this assumption is correct, there should be evidence for this event. A worldwide flood would have caused massive destruction of plant and animal life followed by a redeposition of this bio-matter and sediment. This bio-matter and sediment. This would result in enormous fossil beds at locations throughout the planet. This is what the fossil record reveals.

Except that these fossil beds are too large to be laid down by a single flood, aall the biomass in them couldn't possibly have been alive at the same time. E.g. there is about 100 times as much biomass worth of fossil fuel than there is biomass on earth right now, it just doesn't work out. Furthermore, the global flood is falsified by things like welded tuffs, fossilized footsteps and the sorting of fossils.

Well said, jwu. S.d.l., I suggest you help us out with the thread, The Flood As Science. There, we treat the Flood as a valid explanation, and ask "if this is true, what do we expect to find?"

<Mt. St. Helens eruption> The sediments laid down during the violent mud and ash flows were not a homogenized mixture but rather a series of finely layered horizontal strata. They look quite similar to the horizontal layers of rock which can be observed in road cuts as you travel our interstate highways. These types of horizontal bands of rock strata are often assumed to indicate millions of years of earth history, but Mt. St. Helen's has provided geologists with a scale model of how this same type of horizontal strata could be laid down rapidly by flowing water.

Whose similarities to the geologic column are superficial at best. E.g. shale cannot possibly form that quick, nor are the global limestone deposits compatible with a global flood, nor evaporites.

Again, the important thing is to go out and look. What do the ash deposits look like? What other deposits around the world look like that? Go to Albuquerque, drive north a bit to Cochiti, and then take the dirt road NW to Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks for a nice little hike through such an ashfall--now welded tuff, carved by erosion. Or go to Bandelier for a view of the same ashfall in another canyon. Then go to the roadcut on I-70 just west of Denver, and walk along it.

Subsequent to the Mt. St. Helen's explosion, a new river canyon was formed in one day (March 19, 1982) as backed up water broke through the newly deposited sediment. This canyon is 100 feet deep and looks amazingly like a 1/40th scale model of the Grand Canyon.

Except for the lack of granite or vertical slopes. The author either has no clue what he is talking about or he is deliberately lying to you.

Again, look at the data. This is one of the problems with YEC "science." They take superficial similarities and wax poetic about how they support YEC belief. They present their "findings" as fact, in hopes that no one will actually look. Compare the grand canyon, which is the classic canyon "carved by the receding flood" with The Mt. St. Helen's canyon. Not very similar, are they?

Many geologists are now coming to acknowledge that just as the Toutle River canyon at Mt. St. Helen's formed rapidly , the Grand Canyon was also formed over a short period of time by a massive flow of water.

Names please.

I'd also like to know the counting system used...one, two, many?

The majority of the geologic community believe that low energy processes and long time periods account for the geologic record. Creationists believe that high energy processes and short periods of time account for the geologic record. Only one viewpoint is correct. Only one viewpoint agrees with the Biblical record. Guess Which one?

High energy processes which would have steamboiled everything on the surface of the earth to death. Including the passengers of an ark.

The "biblical record"? Or do you mean that only one agrees with a superficial reading of Genesis? If we consider Genesis more accurately, as a story told to an ancient people millenia before Hutton and Lyell, would we expect god to tell them the scientific details? No. He'd give them a simple story, knowing that people are smart enough to recognize it as such. He'd imagine that the brain he gave Man would enable people to give god credit for being smart enough to give an account that has a superficial meaning good for pre-scientific peoples and for kids, but also has a much deeper symbolic meaning that is good for all time.

By the way, it would be nice if you could argue things with your own words. Else this will turn into a link or quote dropping contest, and it keeps things fair, as right now i had to put more effort into this as it took you to post a quote.

I tend to agree. I suspect that you'd be unimpressed if we posted a reading list of scientific journal articles. Let's chat about this, rather than throw quotes at each other. It's much more fun that way.

[jwu]

How about Chixulub? That produced a rapid geological change at the point of impact, and more changes where the tsunami debri was deposited. The Deccan Traps would be another example.

I kind of implied that i was looking for examples other than Chixculub, by having mentioned it before myself

The Deccan traps are indeed new to me though, thanks for pointing it out.

[Jose]

I kind of implied that i was looking for examples other than Chixculub, by having mentioned it before myself

The Deccan traps are indeed new to me though, thanks for pointing it out.

I figured you were thinking of examples besides Chixulub, but since you'd mentioned it, I thought of it too. I wasn't sure the others would, though.

Is it the Deccan Traps or some other massive set of lava flows that are roughly contemporaneous with Chixulub? As I recall, the prior notion of dinosaur extinction was based on volcanic activity causing general climate change. I've wondered if that volcanic activity could have been triggered by shock waves from the Chixulub impact crashing into each other on the other side of the earth. I've heard the idea before...does it make sense? If so, then maybe my "second example" is just part of the first example, which is to say your example.

[jwu]

I've wondered if that volcanic activity could have been triggered by shock waves from the Chixulub impact crashing into each other on the other side of the earth.

They aren't exactly on the other side...but then again, a non-vertical impact at Chixculub might be able to account for that.
It's at least quite close to the other side of the earth...off by only a few thousand kilometres, and the correlation is significant.

[mrkite1977]

I could use some back-up. Please visit this link:



http://www.14ers.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=8323

[micatala]

I could use some back-up. Please visit this link:



http://www.14ers.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=8323

Hello mrkite1977.

I'm afraid any participation on my part would be on the other side of the debate. To me, the global flood is thoroughly discredited.

One good site arguing against a flood of global extent is Hugh Ross' Reasons to Believe site. I believe Ross does not accept standard evolutionary theories, but does accept an old earth and does not accept a global flood.

He gives both scientific and theological/biblical arguments against the global flood. Since the only reason anyone ever subscribes to the global flood is the bible, the compelling theological argument Ross gives is enough for me to consider the global flood irrelevant and even unbiblical, never mind the even more compelling scientific evidence against such a flood.