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.

The Dating Game In Death Valley

How old is the Ubehebe Crater? Estimates seem to be all over the map but one thing is for sure, geologists think it was a fairly recent event, recent enough for the possibility of happening again!

Science Daily reports

“Up to now, geologists were vague on the age of the 600-foot deep crater, which formed when a rising plume of magma hit a pocket of underground water, creating an explosion.”

“The most common estimate was about 6,000 years, based partly on Native American artifacts found under debris. Now, a team based at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory has used isotopes in rocks blown out of the crater to show that it formed just 800 years ago, around the year 1200.”

“That geologic youth means it probably still has some vigor; moreover, the scientists think there is still enough groundwater and magma around for another eventual reaction. The study appears in the current issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.”

This event which happened perhaps in 1200AD, replicates an atom bomb going off so park dwellers should be warned as this event could still happen again! How reliable do you think these old earth assumptions are when determining dates?  Geologists were over 700 percent wrong in the previous estimate.

This goes to show the need to tell the public that they are using “estimates” rather than telling them, X did this 5 million years ago, and Y happened 10 million and because of 5a, Z happened 100,000 years ago.  Rather just explain to the public that these are dating estimates using assumptions.

Geological Dating Discovered To Be Flawed

Last month, a special interest group know as NCSE went after creation geologists referring to them as people who interfere or meddles in the affairs of geology. One of the projects that creation geologists took on was called, “RATE” (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) which took eight years to accomplish. It challenged the very idea of the earth being billions of years old while being able to scientifically verify (proving the Bible to be correct) that the Earth was much younger! Other criticisms of geological dating included consistency over a vast period of time.

Opposition emerged and one of the sources was a man by the named of Greg Neyman from Answers in Creation who attempted to create a straw man, accusing creation scientists of being deceptive because the research was deemed good enough for peer-review publications.  Greg then says, “The methods used by the RATE theorists in this research need to be questioned” or in other words come up with a straw man’s argument. This wasn’t about where the evidence lead in Greg’s article as far as the research was concerned but who was able to present it.

Like many arguments in evolution, over a period of time it eventually gets falsified causing a variety of more complexity in the explanation. Geological dating is not immune from such falsifications as we shall see momentarily. For many years the undisputed champion with secular scientists has been microscopic crystals known as, “zircons” which are used for finding out how old the rock strata is. The method with the use of certain assumptions was very favorable to the idea the earth was billions of years old rather than thousands.

It is has been recently discovered that zircons on the inside appear to be vastly different in age! Confirming what creation scientists have been saying for many years and along with RATE research, “Earth’s ‘Time Capsules’ May Be FlawedScience magazine declares!

“Found in rocks throughout Earth’s crust, zircons are some of the oldest bits of mineral on Earth. These tiny crystals are so durable—and some are so ancient, dating to just 150 million years or so after our world formed—that geologists have long viewed the tiny bits of minerals embedded within them as a kind of time capsule, offering a peek at conditions on the early Earth. But a new study suggests that these so-called inclusions are not as pristine as scientists thought, raising doubts about conclusions that researchers have drawn from them, from the rise of early oceans to the movements of the ancient continents.”

About 7,000 zircons thought to be 2.6 to 3 billion years old came out to be 800 million years old. While this in itself doesn’t prove how old the earth actually is, but it does demonstrate the fact that zircons are not protected from outside influence as previously thought by secular geologists but confirms creationists view on the matter.

“In recent years, some researchers have used analyses of zircons and their inclusions—and in particular, the temperatures and pressures they’ve been exposed to since their formation—to infer the presence of oceans or of modern-style plate tectonics on Earth more than 4 billion years ago, well before previously suspected, Rasmussen says. But based on the team’s new findings, which will be reported next month in Geology, those conclusions are suspect, he notes.”

Over the years, secular geologists have had a method that assumed their own timeline, and tossing out any anomalies but new research is making it harder for them to do that this time.  Even disagreeing with creationists about the anomalies, they should have taken them more seriously instead of clinging to their own dogma that eventually bites them in the foot. The discovery for creationists is very exiting, and its great to see science improving in this area!