The Unnatural Evolution of the Geologic Column
The reigning paradigm in the secular science industry is atheistic naturalism, which obviously includes evolution and deep time. No room for the Creator, and the truth of the Genesis Flood has a "Katie, bar the door!" effect on atheists because they are terrified of what it means.
Even the geologic column itself has evolved. Not naturally, of course. Unnaturally. Everything in geology must be seen through Darwin spectacles, and if they have to move mountains to make the facts seem to support evolution and naturalism, then so be it.
 |
| Rock formation near Hurley, NY, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen |
As discussed numerous times before, scientists (like everyone else) operate from their worldviews, making observations, interpreting data, making predictions, and all that good stuff. This includes a passel of assumptions, especially from secularists. When geological strata are named, some of that can be arbitrary and presuming that if the formations exist in, say, England, then they must be the same all over the world. But rocks are not easily ordered around, even though the rest of the world is expected to conform. Some secularists with power and influence can get their ways in naming even if it's not warranted.
Did the Permian exist before 1841 when Roderick Murchison named it?
In a sense, yes; obviously the rocks existed long before he was born. But the concept “Permian System” cannot be understood apart from the theory used to describe and interpret it. When terms and concepts become entrenched in a culture’s thinking, it becomes difficult to look at rock strata without reference to the consensus taxonomy and theoretical framework in which they are embedded.
Conceivably, other cultures might attach entirely different names and concepts to geological layers within their purview. Could a modern geologist accuse such a counter-cultural view of being mistaken? “You’re wrong!” says a geologist. “That’s not Gribbleflix rock. That’s Permian!” What he would be doing is bullying the other into accepting his theoretical framework, not correcting something false about nature. Both cultures would have access to the same observations.
The rest of this first article is found at "Geological Names Are Not Carved in Stone." Don't forget to come back for the second part.
Some secular geologists are dissatisfied with the current naming scheme of the geologic column. However, it's not because observed evidence prompts a revision. Using evolutionary presuppositions, arbitrariness, hypotheticals, and just-so stories that support the narrative, the committees vote to support the consensus. For example, Hadeon Era is in the geologic column because it's needed for the story, even though there's not a shred of evidence for it.
They look so authoritative, so empirical, so scientific. But the familiar charts of geological strata, with their corresponding obscure names, timelines and fossils that appear in textbooks and national parks, are not what they were a decade ago, or a century ago. Why? Because they are evolving. The rocks themselves look pretty much like they did in Victorian Britain when the conceptual scheme was invented, but the geologic column (hereafter GC) has changed, sometimes drastically. An evolving scheme cannot, by its nature, be a good reflection of reality. It might be becoming a better reflection if it were shown to be increasing in accuracy over time. It cannot be when it requires periodic overhauls, or is built on ideology more than empiricism.
Things are getting more interesting. To read the rest, head over to "Geologic Column Evolves." Be sure to come back for the final installment!
When biblical creationists discuss the age of the earth with anti-creationists, some of us bring up that thing called the Great Unconformity. There are huge amounts of Darwin years missing (so many, it can be spelled wit a y and pronounced yuge), and they know it. The yuge problem is often waved off and we're called creatards or something, and some of the insufficient rescuing devices are invoked.
Secularists must protect the narrative, uniformitarianism, and their phony-baloney jobs. We have seen many times that they ignore unpleasant data and also use the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™. Using a disputed theoretical concept and those other things, geologists try to make Great Unconformity acceptable to their beliefs. Since they have a priori rejections of recent creation and the Genesis Flood, they put the blinders on so they cannot see how creation science Flood models are the best explanation for the observed evidence.
The Great Unconformity is the biggest break in geology. It separates bedrock from most of the sedimentary layers. CEH has reported on news about the Great Unconformity several times. . .
As shared earlier, numerous aspects of the Great Unconformity suggest a catastrophic break rather than slow-and-gradual processes. Any event with global effect would, of necessity, speak of a major catastrophe. This month, another attempt has been made to fit the Great Unconformity into evolution’s gradual, uniformitarian worldview. Having just explored the ideological drivers behind secular geology (31 Jan 2022, 1 Feb 2022), we can look at this new study for another glimpse at current geological practice: how do they handle anomalies?
You can read the entire article by clicking on "Geology Tackles its Great Anomaly."