Calling On Present and Future Creation Geologists

Dolomite which was discovered 200 years ago and was named after French geologist Déodat Gratet de Dolomieu, has remained a problem using the evolutionary framework.

In Phys.org

“More than 90 percent of dolomite is made up of the mineral dolomite. It was first described scientifically in the 18th century. But who would have thought that the formation of this mineral is still not fully understood, although geologists are aware of large deposits of directly formed (primary) dolomite from the past 600 million years.”

“The process of recent primary dolomite formation is restricted to extreme ecosystems such as bacterial mats in highly saline lakes and lagoons. “As these systems are very limited in space, there is an explanation gap for geologists for the widespread presence of fossil dolomite,” explains Dr. Stefan Krause, Geomicrobiologist at GEOMAR | Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel.”

What has been discovered here is that dolomite requires vast quantities of bacteria. In the lab, researchers were able to get dolomite to crystalize under conditions that prevail in the current oceans but this raised a new problem…

“Evidence of primary dolomite formation by a process as common as microbial sulphate respiration under conditions that currently prevail in the seabed, provides new insights into the reconstruction of fossil dolomite deposits. But why are large-scale deposits from primary dolomite no longer formed at the ocean floor?”

“Here we are still faced with a puzzle,” says Professor Tina Treude, head of the Working Group at GEOMAR.  “One possibility is that massive primary dolomite can form particularly during times when large quantities of organic matter in the seabed are degraded by sulfate-respiring bacteria. Such conditions exist when the sea water above the seafloor is free of oxygen. In Earth’s history, several such oxygen-free periods have occurred, partly consistent with time periods of intensified dolomite deposition.”

The tentative explanation which relies on conditions that at first were described as those that currently prevail, yet apparently do not prevail, because large-scale deposits of dolomite are not forming now on the ocean floor! While admitting to it as a “puzzle” using an assumption in the unobservable past, dolomite remains a gap after 200 years of research.

This is a great topic for research for creation geologists who can examine the data in terms of using global flood conditions.  They can’t do any worse than what we are observing with secular geologists who learn more about it, but create more questions than answers for the past 200 years.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Calling On Present and Future Creation Geologists

  1. This is a great topic for research for creation geologists who can examine the data in terms of using global flood conditions.

    If there were any creation geologists. But by the end of a graduate program, all creationists have become old-earth geologists, as noted in previous comments.

    They can’t do any worse than what we are observing

    That’s for sure. What could be worse than nothing?

    (I thought to try my hand at Michael’s favorite pastime of quote-mining. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the branta canadensis.)

    Give it up, Michael. Geology is a failure for creationism, and always has been.

  2. The tentative explanation which relies on conditions that at first were described as those that currently prevail, yet apparently do not prevail, because large-scale deposits of dolomite are not forming now on the ocean floor! While admitting to it as a “puzzle” using an assumption in [sic] the unobservable past, dolomite remains a gap after 200 years of research.

    No, Michael. You flunked basic reading comprehension again. Microbial sulphate respiration does exist under conditions that prevail today, but this process forms dolomite only in the absence of oxygen—which does not [revail today. The article goes on to say that evidence shows several such anoxic periods in the past 600 million years. And at least some of these periods are coextensive with known epochs of dolomite formation. FAIL

    … secular geologists who learn more about it, but create more questions than answers for the past 200 years.

    Michael has still not learned this simple, basic truth about science. Knowledge gained from answers leads to more questions, which lead to more knowledge from further answers, which leads to more questions ….

    Scientific theories are like living organisms. The only ones that do not grow and change are the dead ones.

    Creationism, which has not changed in 200 years, is as dead as you can get. For two centuries, the only answer to every question remains the same: “God did it. Period.”

  3. Olorin, just a friendly reply to your first comment that “by the end of a graduate program, all creationists have become old-earth geologists”–I have a MS in geology, and it was during my graduate work that I changed from being a die-hard evolutionist to tentatively questioning evolution and old age, to gradually becoming more and more convinced of the viability of the hypothesis. There are also young-earth creationist geologists with doctorates and industry experience who are actively involved in several of the creation ministries. But I will admit that there are far more life scientists who question evolution than there are earth scientists who question old age. I think the reason is that design is easy to detect in living organisms, whereas apart from radiometric dating, much of the evidence used to determine age is equivocal. However, I believe the basic conflict is one of assumptions. Those who a priori reject the existence of the supernatural will never be able to discuss origins with those who allow for the existence of an order of being beyond that which can be described by the senses, because their fundamental axioms are incompatible.

    Michael, I just found your blog–very interesting, and I will continue to follow it.

  4. “Michael, I just found your blog–very interesting, and I will continue to follow it.”

    Thanks S.J.

    You mentioned that you have a MS in geology, what made you change your mind during your graduate work from being a die-hard evolutionist to questioning it?

  5. Olorin, just a friendly reply to your first comment that “by the end of a graduate program, all creationists have become old-earth geologists”–I have a MS in geology, and it was during my graduate work that I changed from being a die-hard evolutionist to tentatively questioning evolution and old age, to gradually becoming more and more convinced of the viability of the hypothesis.

    I would also be interested in knowing why you changed your mind. To a scientist, anomalies are always more interesting than are expected results.

    My source is Ronald Numbers book The Creationists (Extended Ed.), which was written in 2006. A quick search reveals only two PhD creationist geologists. However both of them can be described as hypocrites, since they write papers using both old-earth and young-earth frameworks, depending upon the intended audience. Although Snelling writes apologetics papers for AiG; I am ot aware of any journal papers by Ross in which he attempts to justify a young-earth scenario on the evidence.

    Of course, if you accept supernatural primary causation[1], then two things. First, you are outside the pale of science, as it has been defined since Abelard of Bath in the 12h century, so you can’t claim that you are doing “geologic science.” The other alternative is omphalism. In that case, what you do is indistinguishable from mainstream geology..

    ==============

    [1] In the sense theologians use this term.

  6. SJ, it would also be interesting to understand how you practice geology differently as a creationist. That is, in what specific ways do creationist geological principles lead you to look for a mineral deposit in a different pace than would standard geology,, or to identify earthquake zones in locations different from those predicted by mainstream geology? After all, the usefulness of a theory depends upon its application to a goal that we wish to pursue.

    Further, what specific predictions does creationist geology make that differ from those of old-earth geology, and how can those predictions be tested? This is the hallmark of a scientific theory, of course. And don’t forget—as Michael often does—that a prediction must precede in time the result which the test elicits.

  7. Quoth Michael—
    You mentioned that you have a MS in geology, what made you change your mind during your graduate work from being a die-hard evolutionist to questioning it?

    After a week, I don’t think we will hear from SJ. Why does he refrain from answering? Perhaps his story is not quite as advertised?

    Ah well.

  8. Sorry about the delay in responding–I thought I’d checked “notify me of new comments,” but I guess I didn’t. Also, I’m a she, not a he.

    Michael:
    I had a conversion experience during grad school, and came into contact with a scientist who was also a creationist, who showed me the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. I started exploring the issue further, and finally came to the realization that God, if He exists, could by His very nature have created the world in any manner He so desired, including that described literally in the Book of Genesis. I adopted a forensic approach to the origins issue, and over the last couple of decades, I have come to the conclusion that a young earth and creation ex nihilo are the best explanation for the data.

    Olorin:
    Other YEC PhDs in geology are John Reed, John Morris, Tas Walker, John Whitmore Emil Silvestru, and Paul Garner. Reed has petroleum industry experience, and Silvestru and Walker both have mineral exploration experience. Art Chadwick and Elaine Kennedy-Graham are both Seventh Day Adventist PhDs in geology. Besides Marcus Ross, Kurt Wise is a paleontologist who studied under Stephen Jay Gould.

    In terms of the actual practice of geology, I’m not sure there’s any difference between conventional and YEC assumptions. Economic geologists use physical evidence to search for minerals; there are no origins issues per se. To me, the biggest advantage of a YEC mindframe is that it allows you to think outside the box when it comes to conventional geologic problems. For example, soft tissue preservation and the presence of C-14 in fossils presumed millions of years old aren’t a conceptual problem for YEC geologists, and neither are out-of-place fossils such as the Bug Creek assemblage of the Hell Creek formation in Montana. Laterally extensive, sharp, flat contacts between rock formations, such as those found throughout the southwest US and particularly evident in the Grand Canyon, are more supportive of the global catastrophic marine transgression model as well, as are water gaps, places where streams have cut through highlands in apparent contradiction to the law of gravity.

    You would probably agree with geologist M. King Hubbert, the founder of the peak oil theory, that natural laws are invariant in time and hypotheses of the violation of natural laws by supernaturalism must be excluded a priori. That may be a rational assumption, but it’s also a statement of faith that all that exists can be explained by solely by natural causes. I don’t agree with that assumption from the standpoint of logic, and that’s where our a priori axioms preclude coming to any mutual agreement on the issue. My view is that the requirements of logic and reason are satisfied by the practice of preferring the natural explanation unless there is a theological reason to do otherwise. It’s my impression that most YEC geologists would agree with that statement–certainly I know of none who espouse a supernatural origin for the Flood, for example.

  9. Forgot to mention PhDs Guy Berthault (France) and Alexander Lalomov (Russia), the latter of whom has industry experience in mineral exploration as well. Geologist Dr. Emmett Williams (deceased) also published in creationist journals, as does Carl Froede, who has a BS, and has had a long career in industry and government. A petroleum geologist who goes by the penname of John D. Matthews has also published technical articles in the AIG online research journal (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/origin-of-oil, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/chalk-and-upper-cretaceous-deposits). John Baumgardner and Russ Humphreys are PhD geophysicists with government experience.

    One testable hypothesis that I would love to see someone undertake is that C-14 should be present in coal deposits of all ages under the young earth scenario. Such a project should be relatively simple to implement logistically, if not financially. C-14 testing of non-mineralized fossils would be a similar project.

  10. Sorry, one more comment–I was wrong about Russ Humphreys, he’s a physicist, not a geophysicist.

  11. S.J.

    Or should I say, Miss or Mrs…S.J :) My apologies for the gender error. Interesting story how someone came into your life and change began to take place there after. What was it about the difference between microevolution and macroevolution that struck a cord with you?

    I will tell you something, and perhaps you may have thought of this too. How can evolutionists or even scientists in the modern intelligent design movement calculate the odds of non-living chemicals forming a living cell? Take for example, a truck that was taken apart piece by piece and then placed into a pile. A 10 year old boy with average intelligence attempts to put together the whole truck. One can calculate the odds of that boy putting the truck entirely together, even placing massive amounts of time on the project like billions of years of trial and error. So why is that possible to calculate those odds? Because there are observations on what it takes to put a truck together! When it comes to a living cell from non-living chemicals, there is no observational data! The living cell requires specialized information along with proteins who understand the information. Also, accuracy is required to build it. So how can one calculate such odds without observational data? It is the same with geological causes.

    I view nature as being engineered by a very intelligent mind, namely…God! The Bible is an eye witness account of the past.

  12. I will tell you something, and perhaps you may have thought of this too. How can evolutionists or even scientists in the modern intelligent design movement calculate the odds of non-living chemicals forming a living cell? Take for example, a truck that was taken apart piece by piece and then placed into a pile. A 10 year old boy with average intelligence attempts to put together the whole truck.

    Michael, everyone has thought of that one. In fact, it’s by far the most popular strawman of evolution in the world, dragged out wherever creationists get together for their midnight machinations.

    No scientist has ever claimed that life arose when a bunch of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon atoms gmet one day and decided to construct two-legged vertebrate from scratch. Or even a cell. This is no one’s scenario or the origin of cells.

    The evolutionary truck[1] analogy would not see a truck arising from a bunch of mixed screws and lumps of steel. Here’s a more likely one:
    > What are the odds of assembling a fuel pump from a collection of coils, plungers, and tubing having mating connectors? (Like chemical bonds for carbon, oxygen, etc)
    > What are the odds of constructing an ignition system from a collection of spark plugs, wires, and batteries?
    > And so on for pistons, bearings, valves, etc.
    >THEN: What are the odds of constructing an engine from a bunch of fuel pumps, ignition system, pistons, bearings, and valves? (Like a protein.)
    > What are the odds of assembling a drive train from a collection of wheels, axles, gears, and mountings?
    > And so on for body panels, steering gear, and windows.
    > THEN: What are the odds of building a truck (cell) from a bunch of engines, drive trains, body panels, body panels, steering gear, windows, etc.
    > And by the way, you don’t have just one engine, one drive train, etc to build your truck. You have billions of engines, billions of drive trains, produced over a billion years to make millions of trucks.
    > Now some of the trucks ran better than others, and reproduced themselves more frequently. So we needed only a few trucks that worked in order to fill the roads at rush hour.
    This is more like actual evolution. We start at the level of naturally produced amino acids, which combine with other compounds according to known laws of chemical bonding[2] Then we proceed in a hierarchical, modular progression. And, along the way, the original 4-cyinder engine becomes a V-8 through gene duplication, and a hydraulic system that previously served only the brakes is co-opted to reduce the effort needed to steer the truck. And so on.

    The odds of building a truck in this way is orders of magnitude higher than Michael’s scenario.[3]

    Michael, and other naive creationists, keep trotting out this strawman.[4] Do they really expect anyone to believe it anymore?

    ==============

    [1] Most creationists use a 747. Where have you been?

    [2] These bonds are like matching screw threads on the fuel-pump tubing, and so forth, in the analogy..

    [3] Ironically, actual trucks are not even built according to Michael’s program of assembling them from a pile of mixed pieces. They are built by assembling tubing into fuel pumps, and then fuel pumps into engines, and then engines into trucks.

    [4] Look up this word in the dictionary, Michael. You obviously don’t know what it means. It’s just a content-free place-holder, like “liberal” or “damnyankee.”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s