|
Creation geology is an effort to study geology from a creationary perspective. Creation geology is identical to mainstream geology with regard to the study of the observable geological processes and formations of today. Creation geology differs from mainstream geology only with regard to the origin of the Earth and ancient geological formations. Creation geology is rejected by the mainstream scientific community, and considered pseudoscience.
Comparison with mainstream geology
The mainstream model of geology is defined by the principle of uniformitarianism, that is, the idea that geological phenomena are the result of gradual geological processes which took place over billions of years.
By contrast, creation geology explains geological formations primarily with respect to three defining eras:
- The original creation of the Earth by God, in which God separated the land from the primordial waters as recorded in Genesis 1:9. Contemporary creationists assert that this original dry land corresponds to Pangaea.
- A global flood which occured lasted for a year and occured between 4500-6000 years ago, which altered or destroyed many antediluvian geological formations, and is studied by Flood geology.
- The years subsequent to the flood until today, in which geological phenomena behaved in much the same way as they do today.
Since Flood geology is covered in detail on the appropriate page, and creation geology is identical to mainstream geology as to all events subsequent to the flood, this article will focus on the Earth as originally created by God.
The antediluvian Earth
Creationists believe that the Earth prior to the flood was significantly different from the Earth today. It is believed that God originally created a single continent, comparable to Pangaea. The fossil record indicates that the Earth enjoyed a global subtropical climate, and that the environment allowed for animals such as the dinosaurs, as well as allowing for people to live over 900 years, as recorded in Genesis. Further, the Genesis account indicates that there was no rain prior to the flood, but that a mist came up from under the ground to water the Earth. The Hydroplate theory of flood geology asserts that it was these sources of underground water that drove the flood.
Age of the Earth
There are several views of the age of the Earth by Creationists.
- Most young Earth creationists, who accept the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar which in turn is based on the Vulgate version of the Genealogies of Genesis, believe that God created the planet Earth approximately 6000 years ago, in the space of one day. Using the genealogies recorded in the Septuagint and the same reasoning, the Earth would be approximately 7,500 years old.
- Other Young Earth creationists believe that the Earth itself predates Genesis 1, because according to the text, before God created anything, "the Earth was formless and void, and God's spirit moved over the waters." However, the rest of the Genesis account is interpretted as literally historical.
- Day-Age creationists believe that the "days" in Genesis refer to millenia, and not literal days.
Creation geology and radiometric dating
The mainstream scientific community holds that Radiometric dating indicates that the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. Young Earth creationists reject the ages determined by these radiometric dating methods, due to perceived tenuous and untestable assumptions in the methodology.
In radiometric dating, a sample of igneous mineral is taken, and the ratio of two radioactive isotopes in the rock is measured. Geologists then make an assumption as to the original isotope ratio when the rock was formed, which cannot be observed, and calculate how long (according to the observable decay rates of those isotopes) it would take for the unobserved ratio to decay to the present-day ratio. Therefore, the "age" calculated is only as accurate as the scientist's assumption of the ratio when the mineral was originally formed, which by its very nature cannot be observed, but only inferred. Creationists challenge the validity and reliability of those assumptions.
Specifically:
- YECs argue that all dating methods rely on untestable assumptions. They further argue that there are sufficient demonstrated problems with radiometric dates to seriously question their usefulness. [1] (http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro14.html)
- With regard to U-TH-Pb isochron dating methods (typically used to date the oldest rocks and therefore determine the age of the Earth) are rejected, because grains found within the same uraninite sample have been shown to reveal radically different "ages," including some which revealed an "age" of 0Ma, so that the "ages" do not refer to a definite geologial event. Further, straight-line isochrons are found in the same sample as non-straight line isochrons, so that the straight line is not due to the reliability of the sample, but coincidence. This indicates that open system behavior is the norm, and that the "ages" of such rocks are utterly meaningless. [2] (http://www.icr.org/research/as/uthpbdating.html)
- With regard to the K/Ar method (which depends on the assumption that there was no Argon in the original sample), creationists argue that the method has been shown to be unreliable in at least 20% of the lava rock samples and at least one diamond sample, due to excess Argon in the sample which give ages far older than the known and observed age of the rock. Published articles in Science have stated that this is caused by excess argon in mantle fluids, and creationists believe these data render K/Ar dating methods utterly meaningless. [3] (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-307.htm)
- With regard to efforts to date sedimentary strata, creationists argue that "Radioactive isotopes don't tell much about the age of sedimentary rocks (or fossils). The radioactive minerals in sedimentary rocks are derived from the weathering of igneous rocks. If the sedimentary rock were dated, the age date would be the time of cooling of the magma that formed the igneous rock. The date would not tell anything about when the sedimentary rock formed."[4] (http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm)
- Further, YECs argue that dating methods are generally calibrated against rocks whose ages are derived from uniformitarian assumptions (including rejection of Flood geology) or against other radiometric dating methods that have the same problems, and as such they cannot then be used to support those uniformitarian assumptions.
- With regard to isochron dating methods, "When the isochron data are the result of the rock being a blend of two original species, the diagram is called a mixing line, having no time significance. All whole-rock isochrons are necessarily mixing lines. Since only whole-rock isochrons play a significant role in the dating game, isotopic geochronology can be rather generally discredited." [5] (http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons2.html)
- Creationists also note that "excess" helium has been observed in rocks supposedly so old that the helium should have all escaped long before now. [6] (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp)
In sum, creationists reject radiometric dating methods, due to the assumptions required, which creationists believe to be sufficiently tenuous and demonstrably questionable to reject the methods entirely.
|
