Geological Dating Confused by Assumptions

There are numerous problems with the standard version of geology. It is based on uniformitarianism (slow and gradual processes; the present is the key to the past), and observed facts do not fit their paradigm. Replying to a recent post about unconformities (a problem well known in secular geology), one jasper stated that unconformities are only a problem to people who do not understand geology. That is like the absurd, "People reject evolution because they do not understand it." Unfortunately, geology is tainted by a dedication to furnish millions of years so that evolution can happen.

Creek in canyon, Pixnio / Maysam Yabandeh
Charles Lyell sought to free the science of geology from Moses. Actually, secular geology needs a reformation to free the science from Darwin! Like biological evolution, secular geologists tap dance around observed problems in procedures, including dating methods. When necessary, secular geologists have appealed to catastrophic processes happening within the overall framework of uniformitarianism. Some of them are realizing and publicly stating that there are too many assumptions being made. Obviously, they will never consider how the Genesis Flood mechanisms explain much of what goes unanswered in their ideas, but new considerations are a step in the right direction.
In a rare show of candor, geologists in the prestigious American Geophysical Union (AGU) admit that unproveable assumptions often dictate how rock strata are dated. Their statements are Open Access in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, so everyone is free to see what they confess, which includes implications that assumptions of uniformity can lead to gross inaccuracies in dating rocks, especially if non-uniform processes are not taken into account.

None of what follows should be construed to suggest that the authors (Barefoot, Nittrouer, and Straub) doubt the Geological Column with its millions of years. Their concern is accuracy when interpolating deposition rates within formations. For those outside the consensus Deep Time paradigm, however, some principles of interpretation they describe could be expanded for questioning even more assumptions.

To rock on to the rest of the article, see "Assumptions Distort Geological Dating."