Poor Alternatives to the Geological Time-Scale

There a number of really crappy alternatives (pseudo-science) to the geological time-scale and radiometric dating.  Maybe my bias is showing, but I feel that the accepted scientific paradigm is the only valid one so far proposed for describing physical phenomena like the age of the Earth.  Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that some of the more imaginative alternatives (such as the Theosophical and Anthroposophical timescales) have merit in providing an alternative (occult) perspective on the evolution of the Earth.  It is just that their time scale ranges have to drastically modified for them to be in any way viable.

Christian (and other forms of) Creationism
Theosophy and Anthroposophy
Alternative History (New Age, Parascience, and Pseudo-Science)
 

Christian (and other forms of) Creationism

The internal linkCreationists make the rather extraordinary claim that the entire geological column, with the complete fossil record it contains, is an aberration of Noah's flood!  The reasoning goes like this: dinosaurs were slower and clumbsier than mammals; they could not escape the rushing waters and were quickly overwelmed; thus their fossils occur in lower (Mesozoic) rocks.  The agile mammals and birds made it to higher ground before they too were swept away; their remains thus occur in higher (Cenozoic) rocks.  And so on.

Disproof of this thesis is easy and has already been pointed out by evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould and others.  Pterosaurs could fly; some dinosaurs were very agile, some mammals very slow.  Why aren't fossil sloths found with brontosaurs, hypsilophodons (a fast running dinosaur) with gazelles, and pteranodons with albatrosses?  And what about invertebrates and marine life?  A single modern mammal in link to palaeos com Cambrian rocks would be sufficent to disprove evolution - none has been found.  And wasn't Noah supposed to take two of every animal, including the brontosaurus (which the Creationists claim was alive at the time anyway)?

Web SiteThe Talk Origins Archive - Exploring the Creation-Evolution Controversy - gives good arguments refuting Creationism.  The arguments can also applies to other poor alternatives like Anthroposophy and Brahma Kumaris (Raja Yoga).  See especially:

web pagegraphicsThe Age of the Earth by Chris Stassen - refutation of the Creationist arguments for a young Earth  - from the Talks Origin archive
 


Anthroposophy (Rudolph Steiner)

internal linkRudolph Steiner claims that radioactivity only began after the time of Christ.  Radiometric dating is therefore useless.  So he would say that dinosaurs and prehistoric monsters may have indeed lived in the sequence their fossil remains have been found - no anthroposophist denies that - but the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic were no more than tens of thousands of years ago; one thousandth, or even one ten-thousandth, the time allocated by science.

Consider the following passage by Kees Zoeteman, based on one of Rudolph Steiner's lectures (Cosmic Workings in Earth and Man, Steiner Press, London):

Steiner pointed out that the Earth is sleeping now, just as it was 25,920 years ago.  The Earth is now dried up and cut off from the cosmos.  No more than 15,000 years ago everything on the Earth was soft, the Earth was a sort of plant...In the future, when teh Sun is once again in Libra, the Alps will be dissolved, and man and the animals will return to their original liquid condition.  In this way the Earth's biosphere has a cycle of 25,920 years, waking and sleeping, during which the life of the Earth returns...to a higher level of development."
[Kees Zoeteman, Gaia-Sophia, Floris Books, Edinburugh, 1991, pp.141-2]
The idea of a living pulsing Earth going through cycles makes a lot of sense, it feels right.  This is a process that would occur on the subtle physical plane.  But to say that each cycle lasts a mere 26,000 years and that all of recorded Wikipedia link geological and Wikipedia link palaeontological history is a mere 15,000 years or less is to fall into the Creationist fallacy (although the Anthroposophists differ from the creationists in that they uphold a dynamic cyclic esotericmeta-paradigm, not a static fixed and unchanging exoteric one).

 The problem here is that organic evolution and geological processes (erosion of mountains, continental drift, etc) simply could not have occurred with the rapidity that the miniscule time-scale requires.  Tens of millions of years are required, not tens of thousands.

internal linkThe Theosophical and Anthroposophical Time scale - varying attempts have bene made at correlating the Theosophical and Anthroposophical timescales with the geological column of modern science
 


Alternative History (New Age, Parascience, and Pseudo-Science)

It would be foolish indeed to reject out-right all of this material just because it conflicts with the current scientific paradigm.  I am open to alternative understandings of the Earth, but cannot accept sensationalist claims about ancient astronauts, sandal-prints squashing trilobites, etc, for which the evidence never stands up to hard scrutiny anyway.  The biggest error of the New Age and other Alternative History paradigms is that they confuse the subtle, inner non-physical (and hence metaphysical and a-scientific) etheric and psychic realities with the physical reality so superbly described by science.

web pageAncient Mysteries - a very large page - contains

A Personal Quest
Mysterious Origins of Man
Worlds Before our Own
Traditions of Ancient Technology
Jachin and Boaz
A Guide to Our Mysterious Earth
Cosmic Coincidences--A View of the Universe
Welcome to the Multiverse
Lost Human History According to Sheldon Nidle
The Earth Chronicles Time Chart --Zecharia Sitchen
ICA Stones of Peru
Additional Information on the Ica Stones
Everything is Photons
Sensational Find in Russia
Did a planet in our solar system explode in 3 Million BCE?


Geological Time-Scale main page
Geological 
Time Scale

images not loading? | broken links? | suggestions? | criticism?
contact me

content by M.Alan Kazlev

page history

page uploaded 28 May 1998
revised 18 June 1998
and again on 14 April, 18 May and 20 October 1999
modified again 3 & 31 January 2000