Caves, Uniformitarian Geology, Evolution and Faulty Premises
When having discussions with atheists and evolutionists, never let them build on a faulty premise. Perhaps they can construct a decent argument, but if the basis is fundamentally flawed, the rest of it is no good. When an argument is riddled with fallacies, more special "give me that" pleading is required to salvage what they consider logical arguments.
Uniformitarian geologists have this problem.
Their worldview is based on the presuppositions that the world is billions of years old and that evolution is true. (Indeed, evolutionists require an ancient earth to make their conjectures sound plausible.) Selective citing of radiometric dating results, discarding legitimate data that disagrees with their presumptions, making up absurd "explanations" that cannot be justified — when the explanations that they do not like actually explain observed data far better than their views.
Caves are considered excellent sources of geologic information, but the evidence they contain refutes "deep time".
Uniformitarian geologists have this problem.
 |
| Mt Septimus and Cream Lake, on Vancouver Island, BC — stock.xchng/FarmFresh |
Caves are considered excellent sources of geologic information, but the evidence they contain refutes "deep time".
Caves are a common feature of karst landscapes—the rugged sort formed in rocks that dissolve easily such as limestone (mainly calcium carbonate), forming underground passages and drainages. Caves have always been considered the perfect archive, preserving the past, unlike most other environments. And they offer evolutionary scientists an array of items aching to be radiometrically dated.
These include the inspiring stone decorations called speleothems—such as stalactites (on the ceiling), stalagmites (on the floor) and flowstone. These formed when water enriched by dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2)—making it acidic—dissolved the alkaline calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in one place and released the mineral in another.
You can finish reading "Caves and Age — How radioactive dating confuses the situation", here.Radiometric dating however often disagrees with the observed growth rates of speleothems and their complex formation processes.