The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Geology (EvoWiki)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Evowiki headerlogo.JPG
Response Article

This article (Geology (EvoWiki)) is a response to an evolutionary or anticreation assertion that was published on the EvoWiki website.


EvoWiki's credibility regarding geology is sometimes in question due to some of their statements and the overall quality of their geology articles. EvoWiki, just like any other wiki, has a hard time categorizing all of their articles into the right categories. Thus not all of the articles mentioned here are in the geology category at EvoWiki.

Incorrect statements

EvoWiki has made numerous claims in the past, but some claims are worse then others. The following list of EvoWiki claims is purely reserved for the very worst.

Zircon crystals

Helium and other gases produced by radioactive decay can not easily escape from the rocks they were formed within without human assistance. Zircon minerals are not porous enough to allow gases to escape from them.
[1]

This is a complete misrepresentation of basic facts and is pseudoscience. EvoWiki denies repeated observations and basic knowledge about atoms. Here is a series of points:

  • Zircon may be tough, but helium is the fastest moving of the atoms and could easily move through zircon. This is a basic fact and is backed by hundreds of years of research. To deny this fact is paramount to saying volcanoes don't exist or that sun doesn't cast light on the earth.
  • Part of RATE's research was to measure the rate at which helium leaves zircon. If the editors at EvoWiki were remotely familiar with RATE's articles, they would know this. Maybe EvoWiki should read their own sources. [2] [3]
  • The anticreationist Kevin Henke didn't even use this argument and he fully accepts the fact helium can move through zircon. He instead argued that the rate was much slower in the past, not nonexistent. However, Henke's assertions have been refuted. Apparently, the EvoWiki editors haven't even read this classic anticreationist article.

Please read Response to criticism of RATE’s helium diffusion dates

  • Sadly, if you go through the history of the page, you will see that this claim was NOT made by a average EvoWiki editor. It was made by some of the administrators. This casts doubt of EvoWiki's standards.

Woodmorappe and discordant dates

If it's true that "discordant dates are not published", how does Woodmorappe know that these "discordant" dates even exist?
[4]

This statement is completely unfounded. Woodmorappe's paper claimed that various mechanisms filter out MOST of the dates, not all of them. If EvoWiki was remotely familiar with Woodmorappe's arguments, they would know that Woodmorappe has shown that there are hundreds of discordant dates.

An interesting part of EvoWiki's "rebuttal" is that they quote themselves out of context. The phrase "discordant dates are not published" is part of the claim they are suppose to refute. The phrase, when put into context, reads "most discordant dates are not published".

For more information, please read Consistency of radiometric dating comes from selective reporting (Talk.Origins)

Stalactites

This claim is irrelevant to the question of how old the Earth is. If some features of the earth's surface are indeed highly young, what of it? To argue that young stalactites indicate a young age for the Earth, is every bit as rational as arguing that "that bookshelf was installed in your home last month, therefore your home is less than one year old"!

[5]

This is rebuttal, EvoWiki completely misrepresents years of creationist research. At what point did this become an argument for a young earth? Nothing in EvoWiki's source remotely suggest this. To reproduce the conclusion of Austin's article:

Caves are among the most fascinating structures in the earth's crust. The processes which removed material from caves in principle are rather simple, but they were manifest geologically in response to many environmental factors. Deposition in caves was also complex. Although there is much in caves to challenge further study, it appears that they can be interpreted within the basic framework of earth history presented in Scripture.

Furthermore, their own claim section says:

Stalactites can grow very quickly. Some have been observed to grow more than half an inch per year. The largest stalactites and flowstones could have formed in 4400 years.

Last but definitely not least, if all the stalactites on the earth were young, it would actually support a young earth geology. Talk.Origins, a site EvoWiki worships, says :

Direct measurement via radiometric dating gives stalactite ages over 190,000 years (Ford and Hill 1999). Other deposits in caves have been dated to several million years old. For example, argon-argon dating of alunite (an aluminum sulfate mineral) gives an age of 11.3 million years for a cave near Carlsbad Caverns (Polyak et al. 1998).

[6]

If we assume that stalactites are young, you would be fitting a 11.3 million years into 4400 years. This would be awful news for old earth geology. But no one is arguing this.

Flood or floode theories?

[7] [8]

This is an other example of EvoWiki being unfamiliar with creationist research and creationist ideas. One article on the website is named "Why do Creationist Floode theories contradict the Bible?". The writer of the article explains the blatant misspelling of the word flood in the following quote:

The extra "e"s -- in 'Floode' and 'Arke' -- were a deliberate archaism. Since the Floode was clearly unlike any mere mundane event involving an excess of water, I figure why not use a nonstandard spelling when referring to it?

This is a clear example of an EvoWiki editor being unfamiliar with YEC.

Oard's geology

Main article Oard's Flood Follies (EvoWiki)

Many of EvoWiki's criticisms of Oard's geology are completely based on the faulty assumption that the Flood lasted 40 days. Others are pure speculation and a superficial treatment of data.

The geology category

The overall quantity and quality of the CreationWiki geology category is far superior to that of EvoWiki's. The EvoWiki's geology category has only 13 articles and 5 subcategories. Compare this to CreationWiki's 80 articles and 18 subcategories.

Good points regarding EvoWiki

There are good points regarding EvoWiki. Though CreationWiki obviously disagrees with the conclusion, EvoWiki's Paleontology category contains the most scholarship in the entire website. It's a must read for looking at the history of life from a evolutionary point of view.

Just like any Wiki, EvoWiki suffers from pages not being categorized well. These following uncategorized pages are the meat of the EvoWiki web.

Discussion of Clarke & Norell (2002)

Discussion of Harlid & Arnason (1999)

Discussion of Hedges (1994)

Discussion of Hou et al. (1996)

Discussion of Hou et al. 2004

Discussion of Maryanska et al. (2002)

Discussion of Zhou & Zhang (2001)

Others are included in this list of forgotten pages. Sadly, all of these higher level articles are all written by the same person. In the face of EvoWiki's main objective these days, to "refute" creationism, their standards for geology are horrid and EvoWiki needs to categorize their pages so they are easier to find.