Posted on 01/16/2009 8:09:59 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Clemens’s overview of the latest findings on the origin of granite demonstrates that the geological evidence is leading to models that are consistent with the biblical record...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
ping!
So what about granitic intrusions into metamorphized rock in Colorado? What about pegmatites in Colorado with massive crystals due to very slow cooling deep in the Earth? And what of the uplift and erosional processes that now have that granite exposed at the surface? What of sequences of granitic intrusions in eastern North America that are associated with the Great Meteor hot spot that is now well out in the Atlantic Ocean? What about the seamounts that progress from the Hawaii hot spot all the way up to the Aleutian trench?
What sort of time would it take to build a huge pluton? According to Clemens, a dyke 3 m wide and 1 km long (in plan) could build a batholith of 1,000 km3 in 1,200 years.
While this is longer than the biblical timescale, remember that that Clemens is working within the uniformitarian paradigm of a 4.6-billion-year-old earth. A period of 1,200 years is probably the longest he could comfortably stretch the time. A slightly modified combination of parameters (such as dyke dimensions, magma viscosity and fluid content) would make the biblical timeframe even more plausible. ‘Huge batholiths could be created quickly with relatively small dykes or pipes that tap magma sources many kilometres to tens of kilometres below.’
Essentially, the author of the article is taking a change in scientific theory and doing a lot of extrapolation to try to fit it into his 6,000 year window. The science - even as they report it - points to a time line MUCH too long to fit to the 6,000 year window, but that doesn't stop them from assuming it can be crunched as they desire.
It's a pretty specious and speculative argument for the young earth advocates, especially when you have to essentially make stuff up and guess about what the science really is...
Speed of formation, however, has no bearing on age.
You Bible literalists are so cute.
Plus, it completely ignores the fact that a pluton is an intrusion into an existing rock mass - how old is THAT rock? Also, the intrusion may happen quickly, but it takes a long, long time to cool to solid rock.
More selective cherry-picking of facts from the Young Earth crowd. My favorite is their use of the young age of the Mississippi Delta as proof of a young Earth. Of course, they ignore there are many, many older deltas that have been abandoned by the river - and that depositional sediments from the river go all the way back to Cairo, Illinois - to the head of the Mississippi Embayment.
Indeed, from a uniformitarian point of view, it happened a few minutes ago.
They are just pointing out that the long-age uniformitarians keep having to revise their dates closer and closer to the biblical time frame. If this keeps up, we’ll be down to six thousand years in no time :o)
cataclysmic earth changes every 4 thousand years or so- are consistent with what science seems to be finding out just lately about “planet X” and its orbital path and its effects on earth
http://www.december212012.com/articles/PlanetX_Nibiru/NASA_AND_PLANET_X.htm
Yes it is. But if correct, within the traditional geological time framework granite formation would now be a blink of an eye, practically instantaneous. It presents the possibility that granite formation may be much closer to the Biblical timescale than the traditional geological.
“While that gives come decidedly good news for us Bible believers: I’m afraid that there is no evidence to change the minds of those who believe otherwise.” ~ Hillary’s nightmare.
You embarrass yourself.
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Religion-Introduction-Alister-McGrath/dp/0631208429
Who are you to say that others don’t believe the Bible simply because they don’t follow your literal interpretation?
Creation Science is gaining new converts all the time—to include scientists. Sure, many of those who already have their minds made up will be difficult to pursuade, but I have read testimony after testimony of formerly evolutionist scientists and laypeople who have torn up their Temple of Darwin membership cards once exposed to the scientific evidence supporting the Bible’s historical account of God’s creation.
Unanticipated problem with the billions of years vs. thousands of years debate—
Relativity.
Time is not a constant, it is a variable. If you are traveling near the speed of light, time slows down for you (so that you will age less than those going at lesser speeds)
Ergo, on one scale, one person might “age” 50 years (50 years will pass); whereas for another, only one year will pass.
So the same event might take more or less time, depending on the time scale/frame being used.
A perfect description......of those ensnared by the Religion Of Evolution.
Too bad most of the growth is coming from islamic scientists.
Here is a view that many overlook:
Dr.Gerald Schroeder Genesis & The Big Bang Theoryshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.