Posted by: Rob Lester | June 5, 2010

Meteor strikes are missing from geologic column

There is something missing from the geologic column.  There is virtually no evidence of meteor strikes in the many deep layers of sedimentary rock.  If the layers were deposited gradually over millions of years there would be ample evidence of this.  Unfortunately, although there are numerous fossils of such things as footprints and even worm holes, there is no record in the geologic column to suggest meteors impacted Earth during those millions of years.  Of course, if the layers of sediment were laid down rapidly over the course of a year or so in a worldwide flood, that would better explain the absence of abundant meteor impact evidence.

Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), p. 157-158

Advertisements

Responses

  1. In the interest of fairness, here is opposing research which suggests some craters found in multiple geologic layers. Haven’t been able to locate the original source to determine how they arrived at these dates, but here is the source:

    (Grieve, R.A.F. and P.B. Robertson. 1979. “The Terrestrial Cratering
    Record” Icarus, Vol.38, No.2 (May 1979), pp.212-229).

    Also note that the above source is a bit dated (1979). This should not automatically discredit it, but it should give pause until verified by other more recent research. Just being careful.

  2. you realize this is trying to prove a negative? absence of x proves y. You do know that proving a negative is impossible?

    • “DR.”–Thanks for taking the time to comment.
      I’m not trying to prove anything. I just want to generate some thought. What does it mean that there is little meteor strike evidence in the geologic column? What implications does that have to long ages of evolution? This is just one example of the mountain of evidence which seems to favor a young earth.

  3. I understand the point of all these topics, I just wanted to point out that this line of reasoning is illogical and it’s impossible to prove something in this manner. It’s like saying, “I woke up and put on my lucky shoes and it did not rain. that must mean my lucky shoes prevent rain.” Same idea with lack of meteor strikes proving something.

    just my two cents

  4. I do know it is impossible to prove a negative. But again, I am not saying this lack of evidence “proves” anything by itself. But it is consistent with a young earth and adds to the weighty case against long ages. By itself–interesting but inconclusive. Added to other evidence–part of a strong case which grows stronger with each new discovery (in my young-earth opinion). But that opinion has been developed by objective analysis of the evidence for and against evolution.

  5. Just out of curiosity could you show me an objective measurement (non-theoretical) that shows a young earth? by non-theoretical I mean an experiment where the results were quantified, not just a mental exercise done only on paper.

  6. “DR.” here is one:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/radiohalos-three-granitic-plutons
    It concerns polonium radiohaloes in granite. It is quite long and technical (and admittedly over my head). But maybe you can grasp it better than I can. I always believe in providing the best info available and it has an extensive bibliography.

    The gist is that polonium passed thru the granite leaving a halo that happened too quickly to allow for millions of years of gradual cooling.

  7. That is quite esoteric, i’m more of a molecular bio guy. but from what i got out of that was in order for the radiohalos to form in the young earth time scale it would require accelerated decay, which has never been observed.

    What about distant starlight? i’ve never heard an objective response to this. the only responses i’ve heard have have basically been “god did it”. what are your thoughts on this?

    • Some creationists say Adam was created as an adult with the “appearance of age.” Therefore, the starlight was created by God to “appear” to have been on its way to earth for millennia (per the speed of light). But this makes God a deceiver. 1st Corinthians 14:33 says God is not the author of confusion. Adam really was made so there is no deception. But for light from supernovas, nebular explosions, etc. to reach earth when it never really happened makes God a deceiver. Therefore, I must throw this explanation out. Einstein’s “time-dilation” theory might have something to do with the starlight problem (and it IS a problem).
      God suspended the laws of nature to create the universe. Once done, He has set them in place and has not suspended them again except in the case of Biblical miracles done for a specific purpose. Perhaps God affected the speed of light along with other scientific laws during the creation. But, you must accept the supernatural to believe this and many are not willing to do so. I hope this is not just another “God did it” explanation in your mind. It does admittedly require a little faith on the part of the creationist, but no more than the Big Bang model requires faith in unverifiable assumptions by evolutionary astronomers. Is that fair?

      I have read several articles on this explaining the creationist position from ICR, AIG, and Apologetics Press. I have found the one below from AIG to be the simplest, fairest, and most satisfying. I am not a press agent for AIG (I know the other article I linked for you was also from there) but I have been impressed by their scientist’s work above others. Thanks again for the question. It’s a good one deserving an answer.
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove

  8. Yah I do interpret this as goddidit because each scenario relies on god using his omnipotence. creative most definitely, but unfortunately un-falsifiable (one must prove god’s existence for any of this to be true).

    if you do happen to come across an objective rebuttal i’d love to hear it. Be well

  9. Craters are subject to erosional processes that erase them from the face of the earth. We didn’t know about the Chicxulub crater until the advent of sonar – there are no surface clue to its existence.

    The same is true of your ‘evolutionist’ craters.

    What a Really terrible argument.

    • I approved this comment because it has at least some “possible” merit. Please be more respectful


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

Categories

%d bloggers like this: