Non-Scientist Young Earth Creationist Has Theories for you to Test

On that, you might be interested in Tattersall’s book, The Strange Case of the Rickety Cossack. Tattersall thinks that some of the taxa traditionally used, such as Homo erectus, are indeed bad taxa: “wastebasket” groups caused by lumping fossils together in preference to splitting them to reflect the real diversity of ancient human species. He attributes this to, among other things, Ernst Mayr’s view that human ancestry should be expected to be less “bushy” than phylogeny usually is. That said, however, there is no question at all that the various H. erectus fossils are not sapiens, and are well outside of the range of variation within sapiens. Indeed, the problem here is that they are TOO variable to all be the same species, much less the same species as we are.

What you’ll find if you scrutinize evolutionary literature is that sound and thoughtful critique of particular evolutionary views is something that goes on constantly. Science is not an echo chamber. But all critiques are not equally credible, and I think it’s very helpful to look at credible critiques of particular evolutionary hypotheses, and the way they are mounted by true experts in these fields, in order to understand how badly creationist critiques fall short. One nice example is this talk by the paleontologist Christine Janis on “arms races” between predators and prey: Coevolution of Predator Prey Relationships in Mammals: Do Legs Support the Notion of the Arms Race? - YouTube

When one understands what real scientific critique looks like, it illuminates the problems with the ersatz critiques that make up creationism.


“Some of my best friends are Ungulates”


1 Like

Having spent some time with Christine when she was with her horse, I can attest that this is true.

1 Like

I may not be cunning or wise, but I do believe that all truth is God’s truth.

1 Like

Really not understanding why the rocks have to be so far apart in age. All I see is one geological formation on top of another. To me that just points to one extreme event after an initial one.

Okay, I think can help you understand: Lake Varves, Volcanic Ash, and the Great Isaiah Scroll. Read the links therein in full (especially this one: A 60,000 Year Varve Record from Japan Refutes the Young-Earth Interpretation of Earth’s History – Naturalis Historia):

Looking at those lake varves, can you see why we say the earth looks older than 6,000 years? This evidence doesn’t get you to billions of years, but it seems impossible to explain as the result of 6,000 years. Would you agree that this shows the earth at least appears to be greater than 100,000 years old?

1 Like

They aren’t the sort of rocks that come out of extreme events, for the most part. And they contain clues to their ages, which cover a very long period of time. The rates at which sediments are deposited, the changes in fossil biota throughout the sequence, magnetic reversals, and radiometric dating all agree that it took a very long time.


The geologic formation at Siccar Point is called an angular unconformity. Angular unconformities take at least 7 separate geologic steps to form with each step taking millions of years

  1. Horizontal sediments are laid down on the ocean bed.
  2. As they are buried deeper the sediments lithify - harden into stone
  3. Plate tectonics raises and tilts the once horizontal layers
  4. Erosion planes off the tilted layers to a once again horizontal surface
  5. Another ocean ingresses and lays further sediment over top the planed off tilted area.
  6. The new layers are buried and lithify
  7. Eventually erosion exposes the whole combined sequences.

These sort of formations are impossible to form in a one year one time flood. YECs won’t touch this sort of physical evidence. As mentioned above it was famous angular unconformity at Siccar Point Scotland which convinced geologist James Hutton in 1788 the Earth wasn’t young.

Here is another good example.

These formations can be found all over the planet.


So I accept that carbon dating would be fairly accurate to a certain point.

I read through the varve article and I thought - oh that makes sense, but…

1 - why is it acceptable that the line on the graph is not perfectly straight?

    • I was just watching this dumb video to learn more :slight_smile: The Miracle Global Standard Timescale : Lake Suigetsu, Fukui Prefecture - YouTube and they mentioned at about 3:00 minutes of the video the 2006 research combined 4 samples - really? There isn’t 1 complete sample? If there’s not an extremely good reason for this, I’m chucking it :slight_smile: Otherwise I’m skeptical that’s it’s just “let’s make the data” fit our carbon dating.
1 Like

Also at about 6 minutes the scientists refers to “using [it] in a conventional way caused significant inaccuracies” what does this mean? lol, I’m still watching the video. I hope this is not a circular argument. Just trying to understand :slight_smile: I better watch the rest…

thank you for the example. Still see no reason this poses a threat to a young earth timescale. We’d need time for the new stone be created. How long does the second stone take to be formed?

Did you know we can see layer after layer like this, one on top of the other?

1 Like

As I explained before each step in the process take million to tens of millions of years. Ocean sediments which eventually form limestone or sandstone are typically deposited only 10-20 m / million years max. Plate tectonic movements which tilt the layer and expose them to erosion are also very slow, a few mm a year. Then we have to have another sea ingress (more millions of years), another thick layer of sediment deposited (million of years), then more plate tectonic tilting and erosion for the stack to be visible. There’s just no physical way churning flood water can produce such structures in a single year. As a confirmation the tilted layers can often be radiometric dated and show the vast time gap between each layer. In the case of Siccar Point the bottom layer is Silurian graywacke sandstone approx. 435 million years old while the top layer is Devonian sandstone and breccia approx. 375 million years old.

1 Like

You determined that exactly…how?

1 Like

Operative word: melting. Melting resets any radiometric clock, so there goes your theory.


This is a person who believes his god deliberately blinded you to “the truth.” Asking him questions is reasonable…how?

1 Like

4 posts were split to a new topic: Tim Clarey and Plate Tectonics

Fun fact - the Bible describes the first steps happening in observable time. And - if it’s just made up, how would they even make up such a theory of plate tectonics that did such a thing and why would they do so?

Thanks for the clarification. You probably already know this, but I should clarify that YEC do not believe in a “flood” in the typical way the term is understood. Look at the Hebrew Genesis 7:11 Interlinear: In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, in this day have been broken up all fountains of the great deep, and the net-work of the heavens hath been opened, it’s describing fountains deep in the earth breaking it apart. i’'m not a scientist - so plate tectonics on steriods :slight_smile: This action is what caused immediate climate change - rain for 40 days, and extreme climate change likely for 100s of years after. So words like “typically” are not relevant to the hypothesis that the Genesis account gives. Instead, what’s more relevant: what’s the amount of pressure that would take to form that rock, and what kind of extraordinary events would allow for that? If the probability of that extraordinary event is 0, then it’s posing a threat. (Hopefully I’m explaining that well.)

Sorry but nothing in the Bible describes plate tectonic movement or the lithification of sediment into sedimentary rock. Modern day YECs have tried to “back fit” modern knowledge of things like plate tectonics by extremely, er, creative :roll_eyes: interpretation of Bible passages. Sadly to do so requires them to misrepresent and/or ignore about 99% of the physical geologic evidence.

You can read about the physical processes by which sedimentary deposits are buried and subjected to tremendous pressures in order for them to lithify into rocks.

Sedimentary Rocks

All this has been common knowledge to Geologists for well over a hundred years. You can read much more detailed explanation in any good college level Geology text, or easily find more info online.

1 Like