Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 01-09-2003, 12:01 PM

Antiquity of landforms: objective evidence that dating methods are wrong

Quote:

One major line of evidence consists of landforms that are dated quite old, while common sense indicates they should have disappeared in a short time within the alleged geological time scale. Therefore, there is something wrong somewhere in dating methods that come up with millions and billions of years.

Of course, creationist common "sense" is never wrong.

Quote:

The survival of these erosion surfaces all over the earth is objective evidence that the dating methods responsible for the old �ages� are highly exaggerated.

Therefore, God Exists.

Quote:

I wrote a challenge to Twidale�s paper and sent it as a discussion item to the editor of the Australian Journal of Earth Sciences. I was up front that I was a creationist and that I considered Twidale�s paper primarily a challenge to conventional dating methods. I was kindly told that my discussion of Twidale�s paper was not appropriate for publication in the Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (the technical journal), but might be considered for The Australian Geologist (the news magazine), since that magazine had published a few comments by creationists. Since Twidale�s article was not published in the latter magazine, I did not believe it was appropriate to send my discussion there. I and other creationists have been challenged that if our work were scientific enough, we should submit it to peer review in the mainstream journals. Those who say this should really know better. It is not necessarily the quality of the article, but the fact that it was written from a creationist perspective that elicits an automatic rejection.

:boohoo: :boohoo:
I wonder why he doesn't provide his rejection letter. Could it be that his paper was rejected because it was bad science? Evolutionists get papers rejected all the time. Why is it when a creationist gets a paper rejected (if they submit one at all) is it because there exists a "conspiracy" against him? But then again, when was the last time a creationist admitted error?

Rancid · 01-09-2003, 09:34 PM

I wonder why my bullshit-o-meter goes off when I read creationist literature? I REFUSE to call that crap anything that would even imply that it is science.

I think that these people have lost the gene for common sense.

Edited because I can't spell or type.

tommyc · 01-10-2003, 07:28 AM

Quote:

They commonly point to radiometric dating methods as proof that the earth is billions of years old, contrary to a straightforward reading of Scriptures.

Puke.

Jobar · 01-10-2003, 07:09 PM

OK, among all that unmitigated bullshit, I did see one question which I would like to have answered, if I may.

He quotes a figure of 5 to 35 mm/1000 years as an erosion rate for arid climates. For a 100MY old landform, this would give between 500 and 3500 meters of erosion. Do all the most ancient landforms on Earth- parts of the Canadian shield, for instance- show evidence of this depth of erosion?

Is his 5-35mm figure accepted by geologists? He mentions protection by ice sheets as one way in which landforms may be protected from erosion- I had always thought that ice sheets were far more erosive than open-sky precipitation and thermal erosion.

In short- just what *is* the explanation for the longevity of the world's most ancient landforms?

Skydancer · 01-10-2003, 08:30 PM

This is so full of problems, it's hard to know where to start. Your correspondent seems to confuse ancient rocks with ancient landforms. Landforms are indeed fairly ephemeral. The rocks that make them up are usually far far older than the current shapes.

If he's wondering why we haven't had everything eroded down to sea level, OTOH, the answer is that there are also processes that create uplift at the same time that erosion is whittling things down. Not the least is isostatic equilibrium, where large amounts of erosion release pressure on underlying rock which in turn makes it float up on the underlying dense mantle rocks... or when the massive deposition of delta sediment presses the rock down underneath and allows more room for more deposits.

You are right about glaciers, though. Far more erosive than water.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
OK, among all that unmitigated bullshit, I did see one question which I would like to have answered, if I may.

He quotes a figure of 5 to 35 mm/1000 years as an erosion rate for arid climates. For a 100MY old landform, this would give between 500 and 3500 meters of erosion. Do all the most ancient landforms on Earth- parts of the Canadian shield, for instance- show evidence of this depth of erosion?

Is his 5-35mm figure accepted by geologists? He mentions protection by ice sheets as one way in which landforms may be protected from erosion- I had always thought that ice sheets were far more erosive than open-sky precipitation and thermal erosion.

In short- just what *is* the explanation for the longevity of the world's most ancient landforms?

wehappyfew · 01-10-2003, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
OK, among all that unmitigated bullshit, I did see one question which I would like to have answered, if I may.

He quotes a figure of 5 to 35 mm/1000 years as an erosion rate for arid climates. For a 100MY old landform, this would give between 500 and 3500 meters of erosion. Do all the most ancient landforms on Earth- parts of the Canadian shield, for instance- show evidence of this depth of erosion?

Is his 5-35mm figure accepted by geologists? He mentions protection by ice sheets as one way in which landforms may be protected from erosion- I had always thought that ice sheets were far more erosive than open-sky precipitation and thermal erosion.

In short- just what *is* the explanation for the longevity of the world's most ancient landforms?

The short answer is that erosion can only erode down to sea-level. The really old parts of the continents have been at or near sea-level for most of their long existance. They can't erode any further. Currently, sea-level is a little lower than average, so these old cratons are a little more exposed than normal.

The article misses the obvious point that erosion AND deposition are taking place in nearly equal amounts, just not at the same time in the same place. The old parts get covered by a thin veneer of young sediments, which get eroded and reworked, then stripped off when sea-level falls. Then another layer gets deposited when sea-level rises. Sea-level falls, more erosion. The underlying preCambrian basement rock is hard, relatively non-erodeable, and is constantly being covered and uncovered by new sedimentary layers.

Blankman · 01-11-2003, 12:13 AM

Ah yes, Answers in Genesis. Warning: Be sure to check your common sense at the door before entering. That site is great, for a good laugh that is. ROTFLMAO

Jobar · 01-11-2003, 08:11 AM

Since it was AIG, I knew that there was some commonly accepted and completely reasonable explanation which was being overlooked, ignored, or concealed, but hey, it's been a very long time since that Intro Geology course. Thanks for the answers.

Duvenoy · 01-12-2003, 03:58 AM

Gracious! What do these folks smoke to come up with such nonsense? And they bitch about not getting published! Before you can publish, you must first provide something worth reading. Most editors are very hard-nosed about this.

Here�s an excellent link to No Answers in Genesis, a site that takes a long look at the AiG..

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/

"Creationism is not the alternitive to Evolution - ignorance is."

doov

ps418 · 01-12-2003, 09:42 AM

Erosion can indeed be extremely slow in the absence of liquid water or other erosive forces, for instance in parts of Australia, the Namib desert in Africa, or Dry Valleys, Antarctica. I wrote a little article describing the use of cosmogenic isotopes to date landforms, which includes arguments for the validity of the method, such as the concordance of ages produced by totally different methods.

Cosmogenic Exposure Dating and the Age of the Earth

Patrick

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-09-2003, 09:34 PM	#2
Rancid Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 42	I wonder why my bullshit-o-meter goes off when I read creationist literature? I REFUSE to call that crap anything that would even imply that it is science. I think that these people have lost the gene for common sense. Edited because I can't spell or type.

01-10-2003, 07:09 PM	#4
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	OK, among all that unmitigated bullshit, I did see one question which I would like to have answered, if I may. He quotes a figure of 5 to 35 mm/1000 years as an erosion rate for arid climates. For a 100MY old landform, this would give between 500 and 3500 meters of erosion. Do all the most ancient landforms on Earth- parts of the Canadian shield, for instance- show evidence of this depth of erosion? Is his 5-35mm figure accepted by geologists? He mentions protection by ice sheets as one way in which landforms may be protected from erosion- I had always thought that ice sheets were far more erosive than open-sky precipitation and thermal erosion. In short- just what is the explanation for the longevity of the world's most ancient landforms?

01-11-2003, 12:13 AM	#7
Blankman Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Midwest Posts: 41	Ah yes, Answers in Genesis. Warning: Be sure to check your common sense at the door before entering. That site is great, for a good laugh that is. ROTFLMAO

01-11-2003, 08:11 AM	#8
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Since it was AIG, I knew that there was some commonly accepted and completely reasonable explanation which was being overlooked, ignored, or concealed, but hey, it's been a very long time since that Intro Geology course. Thanks for the answers.

01-12-2003, 03:58 AM	#9
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	Gracious! What do these folks smoke to come up with such nonsense? And they bitch about not getting published! Before you can publish, you must first provide something worth reading. Most editors are very hard-nosed about this. Here�s an excellent link to No Answers in Genesis, a site that takes a long look at the AiG.. http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/ "Creationism is not the alternitive to Evolution - ignorance is." doov

01-12-2003, 09:42 AM	#10
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	Erosion can indeed be extremely slow in the absence of liquid water or other erosive forces, for instance in parts of Australia, the Namib desert in Africa, or Dry Valleys, Antarctica. I wrote a little article describing the use of cosmogenic isotopes to date landforms, which includes arguments for the validity of the method, such as the concordance of ages produced by totally different methods. Cosmogenic Exposure Dating and the Age of the Earth Patrick

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.