Yes, given the bending can be determined in the lab looking at the rocks. And the personal increduality fallacy is not a good argument.
Correct
Incorrect. Batten failed to mention the know mechanism that results in folded, solid rock. He also failed to mention the impossibility of folds in soft sediment that contains tons of rock and yet did not slump. And, BTW, geologists have identified folds in soft sediment and they look nothing at all like what is seen in the Grand Canyon and elsewhere.
OK let’s apply common sense. Look at the fold on the right side of the picture. Notice the layer is vertical. Look at the bottom of the fold. See any indication that the soft, wet sediment slumped before it was hardened? Also, notice all of the cracks that run across the layers? The cracks the YEC say don’t exist.
Let’s not be generous. C 14 dating is limited by the half-life and doesn’t extend that far out. Now let’s look at more recent dating. How do you explain human artifacts that are dated out to 10,000 years (dates cross checked with the tree ring data) which totally destroys the YEC timeline for creation/flood?
Well yes, but not all rock is subjected to metamorphism. Dr. Snelling was trying to prove metamorphism in his Grand Canyon rock studies and failed.
Yes, because the effect has been duplicated in the lab, and God is faithful – He doesn’t change the rules in the middle of the game. His faithfulness is why we can assign dates to geological formations: we can count on Him to not deceive.
Yep – that’s also been done in the lab, and observed in the field. And if the sediments were mostly dry there would be crumbling, not smooth deformation.
Nice discussion following, too.
Because due to work in the lab we know what evidence different folding processes leave behind. This is why we know that upthrust mountain ranges are at the least hundreds of thousands of years old.
I still don’t get why you are so insistent on things the scriptures do not say.
YEC rejects that approach, preferring to read it as though it is all objective newspaper reports from the last century. You can’t read something as written when you’re reading it as something it is not. It is because I do take the narratives as written that I oppose YEC.
Huh? Which “later ones”? The genealogies in Matthew and Luke aren’t literal!
Up a river the other day drifting on an inner tube at a swimming hole I came across a piece of metamorphosed mudstone, the layers still clear but with the telltale ‘fuzzing’ along the borders. Earlier this summer I found a piece of gabbro (same basic chemistry as basalt but the material cooled well below the surface) with something else attached, which I guessed at being metamorphosed sandstone.
Now the interesting thing about both of these is that they cannot be only thousands of years old. To get metamorphosed mudstone (which is called schist), first the layers have to sit quietly long enough (and under enough pressure) that the water is squeezed out, and then sit even longer for the particles to be squeezed together into a solid rather than a gestalt. Finally this material, which needs thousands of years to happen just by itself, has to be exposed to sufficient pressure and/or temperature to be transformed into a schist. And to get schist attached to gabbro without a clear melt boundary requires even more thousands of years.
So the mere existence of schist is evidence that the Earth is older than 10k years. But wait, there’s more: these rocks are formed deep down, and there have to be processes that bring them to the surface! This changes the figures from many thousands of years by an order of magnitude or two. Thus just the two rocks I found at a random swimming hole in the Oregon Coast Range tells us the Earth is hundreds of thousands of years old.
Just BTW, since there are no fossils involved here, the existence of life is not at stake. This points to a blind spot in YEC thinking: nothing in Genesis 1 (if taken as history) tells us how long the earth was tohu wabohu, a term that applies correctly to a desolate world of volcanoes and upthrust and subduction. There is no time set on how long the Spirit hovered/meditated over the face of the Great Deep while the earth was in this state.
So even taking the text as history, YEC is making things up that the text does not say.
(Which is why one church Father explained that even if the genealogies are taken as literal we cannot know the age of the world, at best we can know the time since Adam.)
The very qualifications a paper in my geology courses was required to meet. Slip up on even one, and the result wasn’t a poor grade, it was a “do over”. Why a do-over? Because if those criteria weren’t met the paper wasn’t scientific.
Amen.
So some people believe a lie – we were warned about that.
Though to be honest, it’s not a lie, it’s a whole system of lies that don’t even fit together. But hearing the idea the lies are made to support is comforting so people cling to it.
You mean those of us who believe that God is faithful should be worried? I don’t see why – YEC can trumpet all the lies they want (what AiG excels at) and it won’t make God the liar they turn him into.
No, it doesn’t, since deep time was originally found in the Bible before there was anything called “science”. I will remind everyone once again that biblical scholars concluded, on the basis of scripture, that the earth is millions or billions of years old – and they did so before Galileo ever turned a telescope on the skies.
Nope – that’s called “bibliolatry”. We trust Christ first and foremost, or we are not Christians.
No, it came from the scriptures. I know you think that the church jumped straight from the Apostles to YEC, so you don’t have to pay attention to things in between, but the fact is that biblical scholars long ago concluded that the earth is millions or billions of years old (there was one guy who said a trillion), just based on the scriptures.
Science is a late-comer to the deep time concept.
Ah, scripture-based vs. evidence-based deep time!
You’re pushing the limits of my memory here . . . .
In second-Temple Judaism there were some who held to what we would call deep time, notably Philo (though he imported ideas from Greek philosophy so it can’t be assigned purely to scripture), but he’s the only figure I can name. Of course the Sadducees didn’t recognize its authority, but others saw in the book of Daniel an earth that had come through multiple epochs and eons/ages (sometimes just meaning “vast periods of time” but also sometimes indicating thousands [epochs] of years and thousands of thousands [eons/ages]; there was no standard usage IIRC). This ties into the title “Ancient of Days” that is ascribed to YHWH-Elohim, with the conclusion that since humans had been around for roughly a million days, then the Creation must have been around for at least thousands of millions of days, which made the world several million years old.
Christians picked up on this and reached the same conclusions. I don’t know how much crossover there was (probably nil) but in the eighth through the twelfth centuries both rabbis and Christian theologians continued to hold to an earth that was this old. Their number was never large, but their conclusions (while sometimes ridiculed) were not rejected outright.
I’ve mentioned one of these strains of thought fairly often here, the one where the days of Creation were regarded as “divine days” up until the sixth because there was only God to measure them, not any humans. This idea of course still treats Genesis 1 as somewhat historical, so it’s worth noting that a fair number of scholars didn’t see it as historical at all – and they were not treated as false teachers (indeed some were named ‘saints’ for their theology).
As for the transition of the topic into matters of evidence, I vaguely recall reading of a disputation in medieval times concerning fossils, between one scholar who considered them to be evidence of the Flood and one who considered them to be evidence of an earth alive with creatures before Adam. An interesting tidbit that stuck with me was the argument that in a global flood all the bones would have washed into the depths, so obviously fossils weren’t evidence of the Flood!
At any rate, the fact stands that “deep time” was first conceived of based on the scriptures, not by science. And it shows great ignorance and arrogance on the part of YEC to ignore that they are denying something long ago proposed based on the Bible!
That applies to the sciences rather broadly. It was an issue in both glaciology and coastal geology courses in my university days. Contamination was an issue that really hit me when a conversation with a ranger/technician on top of South Sister in Oregon (~10k feet high) at Teardrop Pool revealed that they had found traces of every kind of chemical used in agriculture and forestry and highway maintenance and more, from a region covering seven states, in the glacial water – sufficient that he was putting up a sign saying to filter the water from Teardrop Pool before drinking (toxic algae that had begun growing in the pool were the primary reason; they could grow due to the fertilizer residues from farms thousands of feet below).
There’s a phenomenon here that I first encountered din the early 1980s: doctrine above ethics. It’s astound and fascinated me that people who claim to take the Bible seriously can set aside plain biblical ethics in order to push their favorite doctrines, yet the phenomenon persists.
Well, at least unless he is willing to admit that his understanding of the Bible is equally feeble.
Seems to me that YECists want to acknowledge the Fall right up until time to apply it to themselves!
To be specific–
Key Features of Folded Strata
Bedding Plane Disruption: The original horizontal layers of sediment become warped and contorted. This can result in visible folds, such as anticlines (upward folds) and synclines (downward folds).
Layer Thickness Variation: The thickness of the layers may vary significantly due to the folding process. Some areas may become thicker while others thin out, depending on the intensity of the folding.
Folds and Faults: In addition to simple folds, more complex structures like faults may develop. These can occur when the stress on the sediments exceeds their ability to deform plastically.
Color and Texture Changes: The folding process can lead to changes in color and texture due to compaction and the movement of fluids within the sediments. This can create a variety of appearances in the strata.
Fractures and Joints: As the sediments are folded, they may develop fractures or joints, especially in areas where the stress is concentrated. These features can provide pathways for fluid movement.
On the Edge of Eternity by Ivano Dal Prete documents the history of ideas in Christian circles about the age of the earth. From the early church, there are four major lines of thought. One was that a creator needs to have a creation to be a creator, so creation was eternal though dependent on God. Another held that creation was of finite age, but quite old. Others thought that the days of Genesis 1 were roughly 5000-4000 BC but who knows how long the chaos was. Finally, there were those taking an interpretation similar to modern young-earth views. These views coexisted until the 1200’s, when papal declaration rejected the eternal creation. The claims that the church uniformly held young-earth views, and that it was nonbelievers discovering the geological evidence, are both lies invented to try to make the church make stupid.
I think a little observation is in order here, in respect to this quote:
There are two different aspects to science. There are the results that it comes up with: “what do we know?” and then there are the methods that are used to come up with those results: “how do we know what we know?”
Young earth creationism views both science and the Bible first and foremost in terms of results. It reads the Bible as saying “These are the results that you are to come up with; if the existing methods do not give you those results, you must come up with some different methods that do.” So for example, it will prioritise getting a figure of six thousand years for the age of the earth, and any methods that don’t do so need to be discarded. This is even stated explicitly in the Answers in Genesis statement of faith:
No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.
On the other hand, old earth and evolutionary creationism views both science and the Bible first and foremost in terms of methods. It reads the Bible as saying “There are rules and standards that you must follow when interpreting evidence; if you can’t get the results you want within the constraints of those rules, then you must accept some different results.” So for example, it will prioritise accuracy and honesty in measurement (e.g. Deuteronomy 25:13-16) in determining the age of the Earth, and if you can’t get a figure of six thousand years within those constraints, then you need to accept that the Earth is not six thousand years old and we have misunderstood the Bible if we think that is what it is saying. In other words:
No apparent, perceived, or claimed conclusion in any field of study, including history, theology, Biblical hermeneutics or apologetics can be valid if it does not obey the clear demands of Scripture for accurate and honest weights and measures and accurate and honest reporting and interpretation of physical evidence.
Thank you Adam,
I think you have summarised the situation here very accurately.
I know that I have many faults, I am a worthless sinner, that was made very clear to me when I first stood before the Lord, and I saw myself as I truly am. Praise Him, He has forgiven me for my sins and continues to forgive me when I let Him and myself down.
As I have stated before, my intention is not to insult anyone, that is not where I am coming from.
I have a yearning on my heart to expose the deception that is masquerading as science.
I am not attacking science, but I am attempting to expose an insidious deception that is leading many astray right now.
I hope and pray that many on this site will comprehend the error in the deep time and evolution philosophy.
In this present time it is important we all stand up for the Truth that Jesus is Lord of All, and anything that sets itself up against the revealed Truth written in the Holy Scriptures needs to be brought into the light where it is exposed for the deception it truly is.
I see from reading the posts above since my last post, that I am persona non grata here, that I suspect is because the deep time and evolution philosophy stands upon inordinately shaky ground, with foundations of sand and unimaginable eons of death and suffering before Adam sinned, contrary to what we are faithfully told in the Holy Bible.
Exposing that inconvenient Truth as the Fact that it is, does not go down well with the Powers and Principalities of Darkness that have manipulated people in powerful places to elevate deep time and evolution as established fact that sees them as two of the prime indoctrination’s of school children and university students in this present epoch.
I have said what I have said. I know Jesus LOVES us all, no matter what. He gave His precious human life for us all, so that we could be reconciled to Him.
I stand by and confirm the facts presented by Dr Don Batten in the opening video at post 1/1.
God Bless you Adam, for the vital work you’re doing here,
jon
Our current scientific understanding, though no doubt subject to correction and improvement, does reflect centuries of effort to understand the physical working of the world. Anything, whether it is science journalism, regular news, or someone promoting an outside view, that claims to overturn existing science in a single video is almost certainly wrong. A new idea, to be successful, must explain what the existing idea explains and do more. Claiming to show problems is not good enough; you need to show that your idea explains better.
The original video does not take the trouble to accurately represent geological understanding of rock bending. As a complete misrepresentation, it discredits young-earth views; the only challenge to conventional geology is how to help those deceived by his fraud.
You can get an idea of the reality of rock bending with a small assortment of chocolate bars. Varying the composition of the bars, the temperature, the amount of force, and the speed of force, you’ll have a range from sharp breaking to gradual bending. It takes fancier technology to do the same tests on most rocks. But the same pattern applies. Different kinds of rock under different conditions of temperature and pressure for varying amounts of time will produce a range of bending and breaking before you start to also metamorphose the rock. No real geologist sees bending of sedimentary rocks as posing any challenge to a conventional understanding.
It’s also easier to experiment with sediment than rocks. You can make some layers of sand and/or mud and squash them in different ways and see what the results look like. Contrast that with what happens with a solid rock layer. It is possible to test what the characteristics are of unconsolidated sedimentary layers versus rock layers. This has been studied for the past few hundred years. Rock layers that show unambiguous evidence of having been solid are falsely claimed not to in order to support a young earth. This does not honor God.
OK so “science” is a deception, false, not to be trusted. Got it.
Didn’t you just attack science in the previous sentence? I am confused.
So what does science look like when you lift the mask of deception? Me thinks it looks like YEC where results are dictated by a certain interpretation of the Bible.
When you claim that intrinsic 14C is found in coal, that is deceptive, albeit more clumsy than insidious.
No, your presentation of misinformation is subjected to correction. Deep time and evolution are not properly philosophies, but well founded conclusions driven by facts and data, and has nothing to do with the Powers and Principalities of Darkness. Do you think you could be so humble as to tone down the more humble than thou and deal with the veracity of your claims?
Agreement with Adam: Burrawang thanks Adam for “summarizing the situation accurately” and defends Adam’s critique of your post.
Personal Confession: He describes himself as a “worthless sinner” forgiven by Christ, stressing humility.
Intentions: Claims he doesn’t mean to insult, but instead wants to “expose deception masquerading as science.”
Main Argument:
Deep time and evolution are deceptions.
These are “shaky ground,” resting on “sand,” contradicting the Bible’s teaching that death entered only after Adam’s sin.
Deep time/evolution is linked to “powers and principalities of darkness” manipulating education and culture.
Perceived Persecution: He sees himself as “persona non grata” on the forum because he rejects evolution and deep time.
Final Stand: Affirms his alignment with Young Earth Creationist (YEC) voices like Dr. Don Batten (of Creation Ministries International).
Blessing Adam: He thanks Adam for “vital work” defending YEC views.
Analysis
Framing the Dispute Spiritually:
Burrawang frames the conversation not as a scientific disagreement but as a spiritual battle between biblical truth and satanic deception. This shifts the debate from evidence to ideology, making dialogue difficult.
Martyr Complex:
His claim of being “persona non grata” suggests he interprets pushback not as disagreement but as persecution for righteousness. This is common in YEC apologetics, reinforcing their sense of being a faithful remnant.
Binary Worldview:
He draws a sharp line:
Truth = Scripture (as he interprets it, i.e., YEC).
Deception = Deep time and evolution.
This leaves no room for Christians who see Scripture and science as compatible.
Ad Hominem Shift:
While he says he doesn’t want to insult, he labels mainstream science “insidious deception” and links it with “powers and principalities of darkness.” This demonizes his opponents rather than addressing arguments.
Reliance on Authority:
He doesn’t provide new reasoning but appeals to Dr. Don Batten as his source of “facts,” signaling deference to YEC authorities rather than independent engagement with evidence.
Critique
Scientific Weakness:
The argument is entirely theological; he doesn’t engage with evidence for deep time (radiometric dating, cosmology, genetics). Simply declaring it “deception” doesn’t disprove it.
Theological Weakness:
His claim that death before Adam is impossible reflects a specific interpretation (common in YEC), but other Christians interpret Genesis differently (e.g., death limited to humans, or “death” as spiritual separation).
Rhetorical Weakness:
By linking evolution with satanic deception, he closes the door to meaningful dialogue. Anyone who disagrees isn’t just mistaken—they’re deceived by dark powers.
Community Weakness:
His defense of Adam portrays forum criticism as “indoctrination” or “cult-like,” dismissing the possibility of sincere Christian disagreement. This is unfair and uncharitable to Biologos members.
In short: Burrawang’s post turns the forum conflict into a cosmic battle between biblical truth (YEC) and satanic deception (deep time/evolution). It defends Adam by spiritualizing the conflict, but in doing so, it demonizes dialogue and avoids engaging evidence.
The thing here is that it is not my or anyone else’s idea, it is precisely what is written ever so succinctly and clearly in the Holy Bible.
All I am asking is that as Bible believing Christians, we should, no must always put the inspired words of Scripture First. Doing so honours God and honours the truth.
It is not science that is in error, it is the uniformitarian deep time philosophy that permeates through every aspect of modern society these days, that is in error.
I do appreciate, how very difficult it is for many to see through it.
Indeed, I understand completely as I too was once under the delusion that deep time and evolution were real and were the method God used to create. I have had my eyes opened and now see more fully the seriousness of my error and importantly what is transpiring here on Earth right now.
It is beyond tragic, that so many bright eyed young people with noble and very good intentions are becoming totally indoctrinated into this insidious philosophy of deep time and evolution. Once fully locked into that mindset, it is exceedingly difficult to view any evidence objectively, as the fully accepted presumption of vast ages of millions and billions of years deeply affects how that person will interpret any data put in front of them.
The rock bending may be solved for you, however, for me an objective appraisal of the reality of vast numbers of examples of folded and bent strata, is very strong testament to plastic sediments, being shaped by enormous forces on continental scales.
If you believe that such a situation can be reproduced in the laboratory, then It doesn’t appear to me that you fully appreciate what has clearly occurred across the whole planet.
Also interestingly, the continental shelves were formed when the ocean basins were pushed down and the land, i.e., the continents as we know them today, were pushed up and as a consequence enormous volumes of sediment were torn from the land by fast moving water heading to the newly formed oceans as we now know them.
I understand that because of the deep time and evolution worldview, that I expect you hold to, you are completely unable to accept as faithful and true, what is ever so clearly written in the Holy Bible descriptions of the Creation in six normal days and the Global Flood of Noah’s day.
And thus the Theistic evolution dogma is invoked, that neatly explains away all the inconvenient truths, to ensure that no-one objectively looks at and considers the reality, and instead only consider and evaluate what they are seeing through the deep time, evolution worldview lens that they have been thoroughly indoctrinated into.
Firstly and foremostly here, we differ on so many aspects of our worldview. I presume that you believe the Flood of Noah’s day was a limited local flood, whereas I believe that the Holy Bible makes it more than unmistakably clear that the flood of Noah’s day was Global in extent, that is confirmed by common sense.
There is no need for any Biologos dogma to understand that the flood was Global in extent.
We are informed in the Holy Bible that the high mountains were covered to15 cubits underwater. Furthermore, have you ever asked yourself WHY our Loving and Gracious Lord God commanded Noah to build an enormous ark at enormous effort that would have taken many, many decades to complete, perhaps even a century, and have you ever asked yourself WHY God brought ALL the living animal kinds in breeding pairs to Adam to bring them safely through the Global Flood aboard the ark if the flood was only local; God could have moved them to higher ground at any time, and I don’t believe for a second that God does things that are inanely pointless?
It is beyond debate that the Flood was Global in extent.
The Holy Bible said it covered ALL the land under heaven, Jesus Himself said the flood of Noah washed them ALL away:
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.Matthew 24 :37-39
The fact that God commanded Noah to construct an enormous ark with eight people aboard, i.e., four breeding pairs, and the fact that there were ALL air breathing through their nostrils, terrestrial animal kinds aboard the ark, as commanded by God, PUTS BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT THE FLOOD WAS GLOBAL AND CATASTROPHIC IN NATURE, completely reshaping the Earth to the configuration of Continents and Islands we have today.
Almost all your posts here testify to it – you refuse to let the Bible be ancient literature, instead reading it as objective science despite the fact that objective science was not of any interest to ancient readers. That’s why Genesis 1 brilliantly uses two ancient literary types at once to deliver three sets of messages – an entire shipload of theology – because it was interested in the relationship between God and humans, not in any science.
That would be YEC: it sets itself up against almost the entire theological message of Genesis 1! Reading the first Creation story as history tosses the “revealed Truth written in the Holy Scriptures” into the trash!
Deep time is a concept that came from the scriptures long before science stumbled into it – so you are accusing scripture of being “shaky ground”!
So Genesis now contains “satanic deception”?!?
No, it isn’t – it is what is found in the Bible if and only if you force the Bible to fit modern scientific objectivity.
You’ve never answered a critical question: where does the Bible show any intent to do that?
You mean the teaching that God is faithful, thus being trustworthy in not changing the rules of the world in the middle of things.
Uniformitarianism is the logical conclusion from God being faithful. When you oppose uniformitarianism you are asserting that God cannot be trusted.
Then you are being deliberately ignorant because no lab in the world has ever shown that soft sediments deform the way the observed strata do except in rare instances.
More science fiction – that’s contrary to basic physics.
The Bible doesn’t teach either of those things – you only get them if you are so arrogant as to demand that the Holy Spirit had to inspire Genesis for you rather than for the people it was written for!
Sorry, but it doesn’t actually say that – it says that the waters rose 15 cubits and that that was sufficient to cover all the high hills. We think it says that because that’s how it came down to us when translated into Greek and then into Latin, so it was an established tradition by the time it got to English.
Why do you ignore how language works? It is also written that all of Jerusalem and Judea went out to see John the Baptist, among other uses of the word “all” that aare not meant literally.
