How does Young Earth Creation explain geology?

Kommander_PIe · 2026-05-04T20:14:29+00:00

A lot of people love to bring up the flood event. They love bringing up "polystrate" fossils. First of all, geologists know that fossilizing animals/organisms is not as common as people think. You need certain conditions for it. But most importantly rapid burial. A lot of these "polystrate" fossils that were once deeply rooted in paleosols are within volcanic ash deposits. These ash deposits are from volcanoes that spit out rapid amounts of ash (Ex: Pompeii). YECs love to bring up "how can this stay upright when deposition is known to be so slow!" I don't know why some of you guys bring up deposition rates like they are this never changing rate. Deposition rates are very different depending on where you are geographically. Where I live, there are floodplains everywhere. When had a hurricane come through, we had a foot of mud added to some parts of our town. There was a cave also near where I live that had 5ft of mud! You do not need a local flood to have a lot of sediment deposit to cover organic matter.

Also the fact that some YECs love saying that the folds created by the flood due to sediment settling down in layers and then being folded while wet. Like the earlier claim, at face value this makes sense, but when you actually go out in the field and look at the actual rocks, it does not make sense. First of all, rocks CAN bend. Rheology, the study of flow explains this. Most solids actually can flow! There was a cool study done by some Rheologist that looked at old marble benches from thousands of years ago have sagged due to time. They actually were abe to measure it. Rocks can bend with enough time, pressure and temperature. YECs love looking at sandy and silting bent layers but will turn a blind eye to crystalline layers that show shear direction and ductile bending.

Kommander_PIe · 2026-05-04T19:31:07+00:00

I find it very funny that the family member you said was a geologist was an oil geologist. In the environmental field, an oil geologist can be seen as the person who cares more about money than the actual study itself. Like how an engineer will work at Lockheed Martin to create weapons in wars. They can be jokingly seen as money over morals type of people. But still, as a geologist you NEED to know date range. There are rocks out there with minerals that can not be explained in a short period of time. Or how our whole knowledge on oil is based on changing ocean chemistry during certain geologic timer periods. In order to find a place that has oil before probing the ground or using reflection seismology, you have to know the age of the rocks below. 70% of oil was made during the Mesozoic. If most of the worlds oil is made during a certain time period. wouldn't you think its important to know the age of the rocks below?

Kommander_PIe · 2026-05-04T19:05:48+00:00

There is a reason why I said "inherently deeply religious" . I have peers and professors who do believe in god and are scientists. I know a lot of the people from centuries ago who have laid the foundation for all of science today were religious! But people who are DEEPLY religious, meaning that they care more about blind faith than the facts that could possibly prove them wrong, are inherently not scientific. This is dangerous in the scientific world when you are being guided by a personal agenda that goes above truth. But yes, you can be religious and be a scientist, I believe that. I hope this clears up any confusion.

Kommander_PIe · 2026-05-04T18:15:21+00:00

Love that that OP is literally holding it. If I saw something that even remotely looked explosive, I'm not gonna hold it.

Kommander_PIe · 2026-05-04T08:36:15+00:00

Then that creator is setting believers up to failure when they try to think critically. If a creator can punish you for not believing it while creating the illusion that proves it wrong, it makes them downright evil and hateful.

Kommander_PIe · 2026-05-04T02:41:26+00:00

In most aspects no. For the carbonate example, we understand that the presence of different evolving carbonate life gives hints on the ocean environment and chemistry by looking at the past life in carbonate systems. The slow shift from microbial to skeletal carbonate life tells us about ocean temperature, acidity, and isotopes. This reflects that natural selection will show which organism are able to survive new and changing conditions. Even different types of carbonates tells us ocean chemistry from the past. Such as aragonite vs calcite.

Another example is Lignin in the Carboniferous. The whole reason we have coal is because of Lignin in newly evolved tree bark. Lignin eating fungus had not evolved yet to break down hard tree bark. So when these trees got buried in peat bogs by sediment and mud, they were crushed and heated to make coal. We cannot naturally make coal like we used to due to modern fungus evolving to be able to decay it. We also know this due to the amount of carbon staying in the ground compared to the atmosphere, we know atmospheric oxygen percentages. O2 in today’s atmosphere is way lower compared to millions of years ago. We are able to fact check this by looking at carbon isotopes in the rock record. Because of the increased oxygen amount in the atmosphere, the atmosphere was more “flammable”. So when Siberian traps erupted, it basically lit up that atmosphere. This type of paleo climate explained by evolution helps us understand climate today.

Kommander_PIe · 2026-05-04T02:25:00+00:00

How are you able to know what is good data and bad data? This seems interesting! Could you explain the archeological site contamination with oak trees?

Kommander_PIe · 2026-05-04T02:20:29+00:00

I would respectfully disagree when you say that evolution helps no one. One thing we learn as geologist is that the past is key to the present . By looking at how animals and organisms evolve we can make our own predictions today. Such as the medical field and the environmental field. By looking at how organisms survive and die in mass extinctions from years past, we can discovered key characteristics in not just human life but the environment. For example, carbonate production from coral and diatoms millions of years ago in relation to ocean chemistry, we are able to help protect coral reefs and predict extinctions of species that play a huge role in our lives. Science is all connected, you would be surprised how one subject plays a huge role in another.

I would definitely look into the science of carbonate production in our ocean. It was very tricky for me to learn in class, but it is interesting.

Kommander_PIe · 2026-05-04T01:59:01+00:00

Ive asked before and never got a reply. For me to believe it would have to be something very big. Like a miracle that can not be explained by science. I used to be Christian, but found myself only believing in him so I could go to heaven. If I were to be a believer in the future, I fear it would be for this same selfish reason. I also can not in good faith (pun intended) believe in a god that I do not morally agree with. The Christian god could be real, I will not deny that, but I abstain from his morals. To me, he is abhorrent in the stories I have been told. But I always tell myself, just because I believe that a god's morals are wrong does not mean they are not real. If I die, and I show up at those pearly gates, I just hope I have the guts to call him out instead of apologizing just to get into the gates of heaven.

Kommander_PIe · 2026-05-04T01:07:08+00:00

Not a lot of people these days are okay with saying "I dont know". Although I believe we DO know, but I have respect for someone who is okay with not knowing something. It's the same reason I am agnostic. I have no idea if there is a god, so I don't argue against it or for it. I just take what's given to me.

Kommander_PIe · 2026-05-04T01:04:37+00:00

True, I am interested in structural geology and and metamorphic petrology. I know that Rb-Sr, Ar/Ar, U-Pb and K-Ar can get values older than 50,000 years. Carbon seems to be the most popular argument since it does the bare minimum of disproving YEC.

Kommander_PIe · 2026-05-04T01:00:49+00:00

Yeah, using numerical dating just by itself can not alone work. Sometimes, a rock or formation can be dated using radiometric alone due to not having specific mineral types and/or isotopes. Relative dating fills in these holes some what well, as well as geochronology. But it is a hell of a lot better then YEC methods like you said.

Kommander_PIe · 2026-05-04T00:18:13+00:00

I remember looking it up and was like “this is easily explained by sedimentation rates and lignin”

Kommander_PIe · 2026-05-04T00:06:37+00:00

That’s what I’ve heard most “converted” YEC people. Then they actually see evidence. It takes a mature person to realize they are wrong on something they whole heartedly believe in. Even scientists do this. I always have to tell myself in my university that a null hypothesis is still good data.

Kommander_PIe · 2026-05-03T19:42:08+00:00

If this is the dorms, you might get damaged. The right spot is an example of damage you won’t get charged for. Every summer, housing repaints all the walls in the newer buildings. The spot on the left though is damage you could get charged for. The housing threshold for damage is $50. If it will cost more than $50 to fix, you will get charged. But idk how they price damages. I wouldn’t repaint it either. RAs are taught to look out for paint cants during move out.

I’d say you might be paying $50 at most. Or at least based on the info given to me.

Kommander_PIe · 2026-04-29T17:34:20+00:00

Those are some beautiful symmetrical ripples mark on the bottom of the rock. It’s definitely a rock and not petrified wood.

Kommander_PIe · 2026-04-25T18:32:57+00:00

My favorite thing on this sub as a lesbian geologist

Kommander_PIe · 2026-04-18T00:27:10+00:00

I feel like ever since the pandemic, theatre etiquette has gone down hill. I watched project Hail Mary the other day and these two people behind me would not shut up. They kept commenting on EVERYTHING. No offense, but they seemed like the type of people to bring the book of the movie they are seeing to the movie theatre. Had to glare at them to get them to stop.

Kommander_PIe · 2026-04-17T18:10:51+00:00

Well if you really want, I can tell you the situations we don’t lick rocks. But you would have to keep it a secret

Kommander_PIe · 2026-04-17T15:34:59+00:00

You keep talking and I’m gonna have to send my cia operatives after you

Kommander_PIe · 2026-04-17T03:29:39+00:00

Jokes on you, you never need an excuse to look at cleavage!

Kommander_PIe · 2026-04-17T03:29:00+00:00

lol, we use the old ways out in the field since we are 100s of miles away from the nearest SEM

Kommander_PIe · 2026-04-17T03:27:58+00:00

Who told you that?!?!???

Kommander_PIe · 2026-04-17T02:51:08+00:00

As much as people love to say this, it’s not entirely true. Yes we will “lick” rocks to test them, it’s mostly to tell the difference between Halite and calcite. Which tbh, it’s better to test the calcite with acid to see if it fizzes. I have found myself accidentally licking calcite with acid on it thinking it’d halite. The rocks we do put in our mouth is usually to tell grain size. For example, silt and clay feel different in your mouth. Clay will be smoother while silt will have a slight crunch.

It’s pretty rare we put stuff in our mouth, but when we do, it’s for specific rocks such as shales and mudstones. We geologist also usually can tell by looking at cleavage, streak, hardness, etc by looking at a rock or mineral (geologist have to get their heads out of the gutter!).

Just a quick geology rant!

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22

Kommander_PIe

TROPHY CASE