In the ongoing conflict between science and creationism, evolution is usually a main point of contention. The idea that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor is a major problem for creationists. As a geologist, though, I think that the rocks beneath our feet offer even better arguments against creationism. For the creationist model doesn't square with what you can see for yourself. And this has been known since before Darwin wrote a word about evolution.
What the rocks say
I don't have to travel very far to make this case. There's a slab of polished rock on the wall outside my department office that refutes so-called Flood Geology: the view that a global, world-shattering flood explains geologic history after the initial creation of Earth by God. This eight-foot-long slab is a conglomerate – a rock made from water-worked fragments of older rocks.
It's what you'd get if you buried a riverbed composed of many different types of rock deep enough below ground for temperature and pressure to forge it into a new rock. Preserved in it, you can see the original particles of sand, gravel and cobbles made of various kinds of rock. And if you look closely you can see some of the cobbles are themselves conglomerates—rocks within rocks.
Why does this disprove the creationist view of geology? Because a conglomerate made of fragments of an older conglomerate not only requires a first round of erosion, deposition, and burial deep enough to turn the original sediments into rock. It requires another pass through the whole cycle to turn the second pile of sedimentary rock fragments into another conglomerate.
In other words, this one rock shows that there is more to the geologic record than creationists describe in their scripturally-interpreted version of earth history. A single grand flood cannot explain it all. Embracing young Earth creationism means you have to abandon faith in the story told by the rocks themselves. This, of course, is no surprise to geologists who have established that the world is billions of years old, far older than the thousands of years that creationists infer from adding up the generations enumerated in the Bible.
Early Christians read nature as well as the Bible
In researching my book The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood, I looked into the history of thought about the biblical flood. What I found surprised me on two levels. First, most of the early workers who pioneered what we now call geology were clergy dedicated to reading God's other book—nature. Second, in pitting science against Christianity, today's young Earth creationists essentially ignore centuries of Christian theology.
For the first thousand years of Christianity, the church considered literal interpretations of the stories in Genesis to be overly simplistic interpretations that missed deeper meaning. Influential thinkers like Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas held that what we could learn from studying the book of nature could not conflict with the Bible because they shared the same author. Yes, it seems that one of the oldest traditions in Christian thought holds that when reason contradicts favored interpretations of scripture about the natural world then those interpretations should be reconsidered.
In keeping with this view, mainstream Christians reinterpreted the biblical stories of the creation and flood after geological discoveries revealed that Earth had a longer and more complicated history than would be inferred from a literal reading of Genesis. Perhaps, they concluded, the days in the week of creation corresponded to geological ages. Maybe Noah's flood was not global but a devastating Mesopotamian flood.
Young Earth creationists break from history
For over a century, such views dominated mainstream Christian theology until the twentieth century rise of young Earth creationism. This is the version of creationism to which Ken Ham subscribes – you might remember his debate with Bill Nye from 2014. Young Earth creationists imagine that people lived with dinosaurs and that Noah's flood shaped the world's topography. In fact, this brand of creationism, embodied by Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky, is actually one of the youngest branches of Christianity's family tree.
Interestingly, one can challenge Flood Geology on biblical grounds. What did Noah do in the biblical story? He saved two of every living thing. So consider the case of fossils, which creationists attribute to the flood. What you find in the rocks is that more than 99% of all species entombed in the rock record are extinct. This simple fact offers a stark contrast to what you would expect to find based on a literal reading of the biblical story.
After looking into the long history of engagement and cross-pollination between geology and Christianity, I find it curious that the conversation constantly gravitates to arguments for and against evolution. Overlooked is how the young Earth creationist's literal interpretation of biblical stories runs afoul of basic geological observations—like that slab of rock on the wall near my office.
A key point that gets lost in debates over the modern perception of conflict between science and religion is the degree to which this is actually a conflict within religion over how to view science.
Explore further:
The evolution of creationism
Returners
Technically, the Bible mentions an even larger world wide flood which pre-dates the continents, and is in agreement with the mainstream geology.
You haven't argued against "creationism" you have argued against a few mix-ups which have little to do with the ultimate notion that there is a creator god who must of neccessity pre-date our concept of space and time. This is because we can prove by logic that logic predates space and time, and more importantly this super logic is causative and is a mind.
I can PROVE this mathematically, using set theory, in a few lines of text and have done so several times, and not one person of any education has been able to undermine the position.
I've even found some maths evidence that suggests the universe may be older than mainstream science says, and I still believe in a God.
Returners
I am not religious, and at least I try not to be religious, as Christianity is inherently anti-religious, teaching that religious works cannot save or enhance a person.
It is very simple, as I have said;
Nothing{} is an empty set.
Nothing{P} is an incongruency and cannot exist.
Since our process, P, cannot be a member of the empty set "Nothing" then the first cause must be an entity which always existed, and moreover since creation has not always existed, our first cause must be an entity which has the power to choose to affect change, which makes it a MIND.
"In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God...all things were made by Him..."
Returners
Even if the Sun is a second generation star, it doesn't change much in terms of man. Things have been around for a lot longer than man can really even comprehend.
Returners
Doug_Huffman
Returners
Does that mean believing in God, or trying to deduce the nature of God is non-scientific? No.
Studying the nature of God is not like studying unicorns or your spaghetti monster.
Here's the thing, if something is absolutely true, then the proposition of "falsifying" that something is preposterous. It is inconceivable to disprove "The Truth", so it can't be non-scientific to study God. In fact all true science points to God, because God is the ultimate origin of all things, and this is automatic. It cannot be prevented or avoided because falsifying the truth is preposterous.
The postulate that God does not exist is preposterous.
Anyway, I just wanted to throw in a few more details, because the Biblical "First Flood" actually agrees with old-earth, mainstream Geology, which holds that the world was covered by shallow oceans, then small continents formed and then merged to make larger continents.
Returners
cjn
That out of the way, this author creates a strawman argument (creationists must be Young Earthers) and presumes to blanket across a whole group of people which certainly do not all fit within that block. Either he knows this and is disingenuous (since he obviously does not respect these people), or he is willfully ignorant of his opponent's platform. Both seem like egregious mistakes if you're going to take the effort to draft a [simpleminded] oped piece. Comments like "In the ongoing conflict between science and creationism..." additionally show disdain for the "others" and their belief systems. This is simply not a constructive way to deal with people you want to eventually see your side of the argument -and if that is not the goal, he's simply being a self-righteous twit who likes to hear himself talk.
Shootist
Returners
There is an enormous amount of chemically hydrated rock and water-based minerals in the crust and mantle, not to mention oxidized rock (silica, etc), so it's not hard to see how even a miles thick ocean could disappear into a 8 to 70 miles thick crust and oxidize or hydrate the rocks as appropriate, and we know this is true from basic geochemistry.
Serpentine can store the hydroxide group, and Feldspars and other Oxygen heavy rocks store the Oxygen part. This is geochemistry. It's known this happened over several cycles of the crust being created and destroyed through subduction.
I don't know where the water came from , nor does it matter in the ultimate narrative, but it is an interesting topic. I think water is actually necessary to create planets as it's electrical poled properties allows for the formation of ice-dust clumps to create space dust and space rocks under existing physics.
cjn
Returners
"God is not the author of confusion".
The Bible, whether inspired or not, does not present a God of lawlessness and fancy. Even biblical miracles occur according to a Law.
LariAnn
Just as young earth creationists are but a small subset of Christianity, believers in the judeo-christian concept of god are a small subset of all believers in god.
gkam
But we will.
Uncle Ira
That is why he belongs in the psychology article comment sections. Not the science section.
You missed that one big time Skippy. That is exactly what it means.
It more like that than it is like studying physics and geology.
Okayeei Skippy, I agree that that little gem was preposterous. And silly too.
btb101
Deal with it..
reset
Not all PHD's believe in mainstream theories. Some politicians actually do care about their constituents. Not all creationists believe in the young earth theory. When the choice is God or physics "breaking down"...God makes more sense. The claims made by proponents of the BB theory as to the nature of the event, when taken in the context of everything we know about physics, are considerably more preposterous.
In a debate between a logical creationist and a PHD who is an atheist about how the universe got here, neither can actually prove their belief to be true because neither side sees the "evidence" the other is presenting as evidence. Funny thing is, there are alot more anecdotal accounts of the metaphysical than there are of quark gluon soup.
rderkis
mytwocts
nowhere
Nothing{EntityM}
Nothing{EntityM{P}} - shifting the goalpost makes a bad argument.
Define this "nothing". How do you know what can or cannot be a member of "nothing"? Can "change", a property of P{} also be a property of "nothing{}?
PeterKinnon
Simply because the concept is based entirely upon mythology and has no evidential basis whatsoever.
Should we similarly waste time trying to disprove the existence of The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster?
As Scott David Weitzenhoffer aptly remarks:
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
SuperThunderRocketJockey
I shall now plug critical thinking skills:
http://www.rasmus...ter-now/
With critical thinking you can spot appeals to your emotions designed to whip up a profitable outrage. No geological data need be presented in a wrapper of disproving a tiny part of religion to prove its own validity.
FainAvis
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
So, no more magic delusions. Please!
*Theologically knowledgeable skeptics do not agree that Augustine was preferring a non-literal reading. [ https://whyevolut...e-bible/ ]
[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
And the article is traipsing into accommodationist land. There are no examples of "cross-pollination" between science and magic thinking. Only cross purposes.
If 'gods' existed, why did they 'create' skepticism?
Re how to reach out to magic thinkers, we have statistics that show that individuals are, well, individual. All approaches works. US is an example that coddling to magic thinkers works worse than shaming them as we did here in Sweden. [ http://en.wikiped...Hedenius ]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
Rejoice, slave, because you are set free!
Osiris1
Osiris1
antialias_physorg
Can you falsify the existence of grodilums? No.
Do you believe in grodilums? (And if not, why not - as it is exactly by the above argument that you seem to base your belief on. See how absurd that argument is?)
And this 'bias' does not apply to the god fiction because....? At least science is actively trying to minimize bias by means of the scientific method.
Google "genetic algoritms", "machine learning", "neural networks", etc. Humans may supply the framework for these - but the robots can program themselves.
howhot2
viko_mx
Eddy Courant
Nik_2213
411 of 463 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Problem with debating creationists, March 16, 2005
By S. D. Weitzenhoffer
This review is from: Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction (Hardcover)
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
The pro-creationist reviewers of this book clearly demonstrate this to be true.
===
ROFLMAO !!!
But, sadly, so true.
viko_mx
Leave your meaningless pride aside and go substantially. Can you explain what is the mechanisms that preserve only benefical mutations in living organisms to be posible evolution bilion of years? I prefer succinct statement so that you yourself can understand it.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
I wouldn't say "only" positive fitness alleles are preserved over long times, because there is a large contingency in the form of variation.
- So drift may also fix alleles, usually such that are relatively neutral.
- Another mechanism is gene duplication, which is the large driver of change throughout evolutionary history. Having duplicates means that the eventual destiny of one copy can be to be modified towards other functions than the original.
That creationists do not know this is akin to pigeons that craps on the board. Your claim of "meaningless pride" (where? it was an observation!) is taking a crap on this thread. Et cetera.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
I don't see any explanation, except that the first comment waves away the problem with confusing a "flood" with having no continents. But conglomerates can't arise without coastal or continental water-work of rocks!
The point of the article is that if you are an YEC, and can't abide with the fact of evolution no matter that is _is_ a fact, you have stepped into deep dodo before we get to biology. Worse than facts of geology, how would a YEC try to hide facts of cosmological observations? "Short times" ideas, mainly of "tired light" type, are rejected because they can't predict what we see! [ http://en.wikiped...ed_light ]
viko_mx
Good, but this is not true. Because the alleles are variations of given gene and exist naturaly in the gene pool of given species. They are not due to mutations. They are working togeder with embedded mechanisms for recombination of genetic information in all living organisms that provide biodiversity in the frame of species and give wonderfull results without the need of mutations.
There is no way to select minor mutations that are prevalent in nature because they not interfere with normal functions of the organisms and does not reduce the probability of organisms to leave offspring. Much stronger effect on parenting have random environmental factors,but not hereditary information. In fact the basic function of natural selection is to remove mutation that are uncompatible with normal function of the oprganisms...
viko_mx
God love beauty and biodiversity and took care of this when He created the life on Earth. God create mutual harmonious relationship between all living organisms and beauty in the living environment of His favorite creation - the man.
gkam
Does god have a penis?
Water_Prophet
So, the story of the flood by the Greeks (Deucalion) and the Babylonians (Ut-Napishtim) were acknowledged as made up stories, why is it the Bible acknowledges this myth as a truth?
jsdarkdestruction
You've had it explained multiple times to you. You just ignore it because it contradicts what you've read into the bible to support your young earth creationist beliefs.
viko_mx
I have to agree with the lies of pseudo science? Explain it to succinctly how we can understand whether a mutation has only a positive effect and what is the mechanism of selection of these mutations? Each gene in living organisms Influences the functions of many structures in the cells and other genes sumultaniuosly that control the functions of organs and systems ot the organism. But also many different genes affect the functions of single gene. Things are very complicates and interrelated. Random variation of this gene leads to loss of information in DNA and change its functions always in an unfavorable direction.
viko_mx
viko_mx
Mike_Massen
But, hey it must be Moses that made that confusion, so tell me Returners, just HOW was Moses trained to recognise ANY being that claimed to punish ALL of creation FOR EVER was really the SAME as a god that made the universe ?
Returners claims Evidence within the bible is against you, Eg in Samuel; god smote 50,000 ppl for looking in a box & other issues, the activities of a claimed god are MUCH more consistent with those of a Devil !
Returners claims Really ?
So its not a attempt by primitives to rationalize why ALL beings are subject to natural selection over long time frames based on organic chemistry ?
Mike_Massen
Returners asks Indeed, look at its attributes, especially that the source of ALL information of ANY so-called personal god is ONLY from the claims of men & VERY sporadic & uncaring - a Devil ?
Is this god a 'great' or lazy communicator & deals with humans well without arbitrary suffering ?
Returners claims Not necessarily, it depends how you define that god. An all knowing merciful entity that arbitrarily spoke to Moses then made up a test which it knew would fail (Eve) so ALL life is punished for EVER, is this sane ?
Clearly there's an organising force, we describe that through mathematics, its called Physics
Clearly universe has testable attributes, NONE so far are AT ALL consistent with Moses' claim
Mike_Massen
viko_mx claims The Physics has a consistency which your "Creator" doesn't.
Isn't your Creator - as a personal god claimed by Moses MUCH more like a devil ?
It punished everyone for ALL time because it made up a test of Eve yet she wasn't educated eg Guile.
The "creator" knew the future so it wasnt a test, deduction show it was a rationalisation by primitives !
viko_mx claims No, you have it wrong, natural selection is NOT random & organic chemistry is foundational ie Self Assembly
Mike_Massen
viko_mx hasn't noticed predators eat meat - the prey suffer & are consumed, herbivores eat plants, the (nice looking & some not so nice) plants/fungi are destroyed
Bacteria (estimate 10 million species and ALL cannibals), make food & create disease, can't viko_mx see its a dynamic of food exchange constantly fighting, constantly destroying/growing & competing.
How can viko_mx know god 'loves' when it made ALL become food for others !
viko_mx
No one evolutionist is able to explain how natural selection selects random mutations with positive efects for the organism, based on ideas consistent with the scientific reality. In reality function of natural selection is to keep the original information (health) of the gene pool as long as posible and to slow down genetic entropy. Man gets old with time, as aging gene pool of all living beings and things are not getting better but worse.
viko_mx
Mike_Massen
- Atoms self assemble (SA) from subatomic particles
- Molecules SA from atoms
- Functional (complex) molecules SA from simple molecules
- organisms SA from molecules
Problem all religions have is not understanding these are natural but, takes millennia to observe, we can infer a great deal from the fastest which is particles to atoms & atoms to molecules.
As you go down the list, reaction time increases, the more complexity takes longer, simple !
Mike_Massen
You can only have free choice (free will) from full & complete education - why ? Obviously so you can assess consequences of decisions & rate those decisions short vs long term etc, its called 'risk assessment' something the bible NEVER educates anyone & DIDNT educate Eve !
viko_mx show me when Eve was educated re Guile OR explained possible punishments - where ?
viko_mx claims By forcing all to suffer for due to Eve - a MOST insane god !
viko_mx claims You mean jesus is due back, isnt he very late, when is he due now then ?
viko_mx admission Ah ! you admit god makes so he can destroy & all WITHOUT education !
Poor Eve, she was set up by the Devil god !