Young Earth Creationism in the LDS Church

[_Uncle Dale]

DrW,

I have no problem with what Holland said. I do believe it is likely that the continents drifted rapidly and not to long ago. I have studied this and feel is is more likely than what science believes. This is why I laid out the issue with overreach like I did. And speaking of that have you found any erosion vs atomic decay studies for me to look at? We can not start a discussion of age when you feel you stand on fact when in fact you do not. So we must settle the age issue before we can move along.

This is interesting.

Assuming that the island I now live upon was built
up from tremendous past lava flows from the
mid-Pacific hot spot, how long ago do you figure
plate drift left that same hot spot under Maui,
instead of the Big Island?

100 years ago
1000 years ago
100,000 years ago
100,000,000,000 years ago

???

UD

[_Tobin]

DrW,

I have no problem with what Holland said. I do believe it is likely that the continents drifted rapidly and not to long ago. I have studied this and feel is is more likely than what science believes. This is why I laid out the issue with overreach like I did. And speaking of that have you found any erosion vs atomic decay studies for me to look at? We can not start a discussion of age when you feel you stand on fact when in fact you do not. So we must settle the age issue before we can move along.

Wow Frank. So you believe the continents drifted apart in the past few thousand years? How do you account for the millions of years of sea floor spreading deposits in the Atlantic? You do realize those deposits have a magnetic orientation depending on when they were laid down. Do you also happen to believe the magnetic field on Earth has changed directions many times over the past few thousand years as well?

[_huckelberry]

Uncle Dale,
Similar to what you have pointed out a person could review areas like the Blue Mountains in Oregon which are additions to the continent from the Pacific ocean. They added long enough ago that large scale geologic events can be seen having happened after that joining.

[_Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale,
Similar to what you have pointed out a person could review areas like the Blue Mountains in Oregon which are additions to the continent from the Pacific ocean. They added long enough ago that large scale geologic events can be seen having happened after that joining.

Ancient lava fields are nothing new to me, actually.
I grew up among them in SE Idaho. The area around
Idaho Falls was at one time sitting over what is now
the Yellowstone caldera -- a mid-continent hot spot.

Likewise for Twin Falls, Boise, and other lava fields all
along what is now the Snake/Columbia river bed.

We know that continental drift has moved the crust
over the top of the Yellowstone caldera during the
past several hundreds of millions of years.

Or........ As our Young Earth friends might tell us,
in the period since Noah's Flood.

Hmmmmmm

UD

[_DrW]

DrW,

I have no problem with what Holland said. I do believe it is likely that the continents drifted rapidly and not to long ago. I have studied this and feel is is more likely than what science believes. This is why I laid out the issue with overreach like I did. And speaking of that have you found any erosion vs atomic decay studies for me to look at? We can not start a discussion of age when you feel you stand on fact when in fact you do not. So we must settle the age issue before we can move along.

Wow Frank. So you believe the continents drifted apart in the past few thousand years? How do you account for the millions of years of sea floor spreading deposits in the Atlantic? You do realize those deposits have a magnetic orientation depending on when they were laid down. Do you also happen to believe the magnetic field on Earth has changed directions many times over the past few thousand years as well?

You bring up an excellent line of evidence here. Changes in orientation of magnetic domains from rock in the "newly formed" crust are consistent with other measures of tectonic plate spreading rates.

As UD is trying to help subgenius understand with his Hawaiian Island and Yellowstone " hot spot" examples, this is a very slow process.

The new lines of evidence from you and UD have no doubt sent subgenius back to his creationist websites for some kind of counterargument.

I wish him the best.

[_Tobin]

I'd like to hear Frank's explanation of the evidence for the extremely long periods of time it would seem to have taken for continental drift. I'm just fascinated by his position and would love to hear his explanation of the many pieces of evidence that have been brought up (lava flows, the moving hot spots, the magnetic direction of the lava deposits, and so on) that this process couldn't have possibly happened over thousands of years and would have taken millions of years to accomplish.

For me, it is patently obvious that the world is billions of years old. But, I'm willing to listen to anything even remotely reasonable.

[Guest]

Uncle Dale,
Similar to what you have pointed out a person could review areas like the Blue Mountains in Oregon which are additions to the continent from the Pacific ocean. They added long enough ago that large scale geologic events can be seen having happened after that joining.

Ancient lava fields are nothing new to me, actually.
I grew up among them in SE Idaho. The area around
Idaho Falls was at one time sitting over what is now
the Yellowstone caldera -- a mid-continent hot spot.

Likewise for Twin Falls, Boise, and other lava fields all
along what is now the Snake/Columbia river bed.

We know that continental drift has moved the crust
over the top of the Yellowstone caldera during the
past several hundreds of millions of years.

Or........ As our Young Earth friends might tell us,
in the period since Noah's Flood.

Hmmmmmm

UD

Don't know why Franktalk* puts so much of his faith in erosion rates. Erosion and sedimentation rates are highly variable.

Both sedimentation and erosion are dependent to a large extent on differences in elevation, which occur because of plate compression and the consequent uplift and folding of the Earth's crust. As you and Huckleberry point out, this is a very slow process.
_________________________

*Edited to change subgenius to Franktalk (the guy who really loves erosion) -- sorry subgenius.

[_Uncle Dale]

As you and Huckleberry point out,
this is a very slow process.

I recall asking a Mormon seminary teacher in
Idaho Falls, years ago, where the sediment
deposits from Noah's worldwide flood were
locally.

His answer -- Under the Snake River area lava
flows, which happened in Jaredite and Nephite
times, after that great flood.

At least the seminary teacher had answers.
The local non-sectarian high school
Science teachers had no answers to give
out to us kids, on such topics.

UD

[_Brackite]

Radiometric Dating

A Christian Perspective

...

Arguments over the age of the Earth have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Even though the Earth's age is never mentioned in the Bible, it is an issue because those who take a strictly literal view of the early chapters of Genesis can calculate an approximate date for the creation by adding up the life-spans of the people mentioned in the genealogies. Assuming a strictly literal interpretation of the week of creation, even if some of the generations were left out of the genealogies, the Earth would be less than ten thousand years old. Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old. Many Christians accept this and interpret the Genesis account in less scientifically literal ways. However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best. Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues.

...


Link: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

[_DrW]

Radiometric Dating

A Christian Perspective

...

Arguments over the age of the Earth have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Even though the Earth's age is never mentioned in the Bible, it is an issue because those who take a strictly literal view of the early chapters of Genesis can calculate an approximate date for the creation by adding up the life-spans of the people mentioned in the genealogies. Assuming a strictly literal interpretation of the week of creation, even if some of the generations were left out of the genealogies, the Earth would be less than ten thousand years old. Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old. Many Christians accept this and interpret the Genesis account in less scientifically literal ways. However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best. Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues.

...


Link: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

As is evident from this thread so far, there are several lines of evidence aside from radiometric dating for the age of the Earth. Many more such lines of evidence exist that have not been mentioned here.

Christian apologists focus on radiometric dating because it is the Gold Standard for deep time geological age determinations, and because they believe that it can be challenged with other science.

What they do not seem to understand is that the corrections to be made to the data generated by this technique, if any, are at the margins. The possibility that the determined 5.45 billion year age of the Earth may be off by a few percent does not allow one to reasonably claim that the Earth could be less than 10,000 years old.

Of course, if one is an Evangelical Christian apologist (or truly TBM), then faith Trump's reason and everything is okay again (whew).