That is true, I suppose. They claim the Grand Canyon was essentially carved out of mud, though that does not explain how the walls could stand once carved, and leaves the problem of where all that sediment came from. But I submit that it is still disingenuous to imply that a 100 foot gully in a pile of cinders and ash is somehow the same as the Grand Canyon. Sorry, but the problems are just multiplied if you go down the trail that the rock was not rock when the Grand Canyon was carved.
3 Likes
There is a rhetorical game being played here. When YEC claims that there is agreement on the relative age of sedimentary layers, the intention is to create the wholly false impression that creationist geology is scientifically and observationally founded, and that the difference is over interpretation of details. That is dino corprolites. There is no common ground between sequence stratigraphy as the response to sea level change over tens of millions of years, and the farcical narrative of continent spanning tsunami’s within the course of one year. That is playing the geological definition of “older”, and the proper response is to call the nonsense and turn the conversation back to reality.
5 Likes
So, how did all this sedimentary rock come about again? When did it consolidate?
1 Like
It’s interesting that it can consolidate after the canyon has been cut. 
Talk about disingenuousness (aka dishonesty!).
3 Likes
And how does granite form after being eroded? It’s a plutonic igneous rock. It cooled straight from magma deep underground; and no, there are no other ways to make granitic rocks, other than pointless deceptive miracles or magic.
3 Likes
Your claim was that Lyell and Hutton did not base their arguments on evidence. Why start with a third hand YEC site article? You can get it straight from Hutton himself - here is vol 3 of his Theory of the Earth, with Proofs and Illustrations. which contains plenty of evidence. Hutton did not get everything right, but give the man a break - he did lay the foundation for modern geology.
2 Likes
Is the Coconino Sandstone fossilized desert sand or of marine origin?
Okay, I woke up the sleeping dog so to speak in asserting that the Coconino Sandstone was laid down by water. In doing so, I intentionally violated the “let the sleeping dog lie” principle. It is often instructive and sometimes amusing to see what happens when the dog awakens from its slumber. And now I feel obligated to provide the evidence for my assertion.
It has been argued that the Coconino Sandstone is fossilized desert sand dunes. This is of course a serious challenge for Flood geology. If there is a layer of sandstone from dry desert origin sandwiched between sedimentary layers laid down by water, then the account of a worldwide flood in Genesis is undoubtedly false. We can’t have a desert in the middle of Noah’s Flood.
So what does the evidence show? Watch the following 6:50 long video by Dr. John Whitmore, geologist, for the evidence found that demonstrates conclusively—not just “probably”—that the Coconino was laid down by water. Following is a short 6:50 video, with the evidence summarized. Surely that is short enough for a curious evolutionist to watch.
Whitmore’s conclusion is based on the following:
- The study of the literature
- Collecting samples for examination of thin sections under the microscope
- Examining the sandstone in the field
- Laboratory experiments
What is the evidence for the Coconino Sandstone being laid down by water shown in the video?
- The cross-bed angles (angle of repose) are more consistent with being laid down by water rather than by wind.
- Not well rounded sand grains, but sub rounded to angular.
- Not consistent sized sand grains, rather moderately to poorly sorted.
- There are tiny flakes of muscovite (a form of mica), found in beach sand but which doesn’t survive well in desert settings.
- Dolomite ooids, cement, clasts and even beds of dolomite are found in the Coconino Sandstone. Dolomite is a marine mineral.
- Crossbeds are folded on its side forming parabolic recumbent folds. These can only form under water due to very strong currents.
How extensive is this sediment? There is a fairly extensive layer of sand similar to this over the western United States from California, Arizona, and all the way to the Dakotas. In Europe there is the Hopeman Sandstone with very similar characteristics to the Coconino.
Conclusion
This sandstone is then not a problem for creationists, but rather strong evidence for the worldwide flood in Genesis.
Here is a link for more information about Professor Whitmore’s research and publications:
And oh, the footprints. Again, the research shows that these tracks are always going up. And in the laboratory, the tracks are most like those of an amphibian underwater, not in wet sand or dry sand.
Exactly, using the normal processes we see today. But take the Columbia Gorge for example. After J. Harlan Bretz’s geologist contemporaries finished bashing his work and him personally, as it turned out, he was right. The Columbia Gorge was primarily carved out in 48 hours when Lake Missoula burst through its ice dam as the Ice Age was ending.
Bretz’s theory has been modified to include several events (to soften the blow for uniformitarians no doubt.) Even in the display from the USGS (hardly a hotbed of YEC geology) at the visitors center at Multnomah Falls near us, it is the first flood (if there was more than one) that did most of the work. And that work was done through well consolidated sedimentary and volcanic layers, and not by normal processes that we see today. It seems that there was a lot of geological work that was done in the past “not by normal processes we see today.”
So it either took a little water over a lot of time (uniformitarian geology), or a lot of water in a little time. That the Columbia Gorge and the scablands of Eastern Washington were formed in a short time by a lot of water is hardly a YEC conspiracy theory.
Source: Giga Flood by Rick Thompson, foreword by David Alt, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Geology, University of Montana.
There is a lot more evidence of a worldwide flood in the Pacific Northwest and the Columbia Gorge. There are the travelling quartzite rocks, cobbles and boulders that come from the Rocky Mountains and are scattered across the Pacific Northwest and east into Wyoming, Montana and Canada. These were carried by water over relatively flat surfaces as far as 400 miles in water moving at least 65 miles per hour and 200 feet deep.
And then there is the partially permineralized petrified wood, dating less than 50,000 years old and sandwiched between lava conventionally dated at 12 and 16 million years old. All measured in standard labs.
Although dating back to 1979, this 400 page paper remains an essential reference.
A Study of Global Sand Seas - GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1052
The basis for considering the Coconino
Sandstone to be of eolian origin involves numerous
criteria, some of which are distinctive of an eolian
environment and others merely compatible with
but not diagnostic of it. No single type of evidence
seems entirely conclusive, but, together, the
various features present very strong evidence. The
principal criteria of dune deposition are as follows:
- The extent and homogeneity of the sand body.
- The tabular-planar and wedge-planar type and
large scale of cross-stratification. The common
high-angle deposits are interpreted as slipfaces
on the lee sides of dunes, and the relatively
rare low-angle cross-strata that dip toward the
opposite quadrant apparently represent
deposits of windward slopes.- Slump marks of several varieties preserved on
the steeply dipping surfaces of lee-side
deposits. These are distinctive of dry sand
avalanching.- Ripple marks which are common on surfaces of
high-angle crossbedding suggest eolian deposi
tion both by their high indexes (above 15) and
by their orientation with axes parallel to dip
slopes.- The local preservation of a distinctive type of
rain pit. Such pits illustrate the cohesion of
sand grains with added moisture and a reorien-
tation of the crater axes with respect to bed
ding slopes.- Successions of miniature rises or steps ascending
dip slopes of crossbeds.- The preservation in fine sand of reptile
footprints and probable millipede trails with
sharp definition and clear impression.- The consistent orientation of reptilian tracks up
(not down) the steep foreset slopes.
It should be noted, that even if the evidences were otherwise and supported an aqueous environment, that the features do not support any sort of violent flood.
3 Likes
Or, you could be misinterpreting the text.
EDIT: The main problem with YECism is not that it’s adherents hold to a young earth or believe in a globe spanning flood. It’s their way of interpreting Scripture. Let’s not just deal with the symptoms.
Friends, and I say that sincerely because I know that you’re all image bearers of God and are to be honored and respected for that reason alone. And I know if I were to meet you in person I’d be blessed to have spent that time with you.
So please forgive me if I rustle feathers and maybe even offend you slightly but I just can’t resist sharing this. Hopefully at least one of you will take this in the right way. And please understand, science & discovery is great and has brought much good and blessing to mankind and comes from the very goodness of God. But like anything in life, we must be careful not to make our science and discoveries into idols.
So I read this forum regularly and happened to read thru this entire post and found myself pulling out comment after comment. Here are just a few of the…how should I say…interesting…comments and very, very confident claims…from people who have maybe lived an average of 50-70 years on the earth but are very certain of facts and data on things that happened at least thousands of years ago…and as some want to believe, even millions or billions of years ago. Please, send me the data from whoever was around at that time collecting the real-time data/observations/measurements…photos would be great…video even better…satellite footage outstanding…can’t wait to receive all that! (sorry for a little sarcasm but it only gets…a little better?):
- All soil life would have died from the sea salt alone (Hmm…really? I like sea salt on my steak.)
- Sediment world wide…in the same order everywhere (Hmm…really? You’ve used a lot of shovels!)
- Obviously that takes very long periods of time (Obviously! Right? Obviously!?)
- Little erosion would take place as turbulence at depth is minimized (Yeah…I’m pretty sure about that too)
- The only thing that explains the deep layers of sediment, is deep time (Yes…its the only thing! And very deep!)
- The flood is being used as a magic excuse to ignore every piece of evidence for an ancient earth (Totally! Mahjeek!)
- The Rocky mountains were at one time as high as the Himalaya’s (Yes!..I live here…took a selfie…higher than Everest!)
- So just on my own property the geology refutes a global flood (Yes…and your property IS the source of truth!)
- The Bible does not try to teach modern science (Indubitably! Modern Science knows all things! Bible old…SCIENCE NEW!)
- Sea level ingress and regress, yielding a continuous record both local and general (It’s all about the ingress/regress!)
- There is nothing about a global flood that is (scientifically) documented. (Of course…unlike…Evil-lution!)
- It’s not okay that you continue to work against God’s kingdom (No…not ok…I reject His words in Genesis…but that’s ok)
- It’s their way of interpreting Scripture. Let’s not just deal with the symptoms. (Right! They read the Bible! Stop them!)
As I read all these and many more “scientific” claims & facts…it only brought me to Job and what God said to him because it speaks to all of us (yes, I have pride too and think I know everything):
Job 38:1-3
Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? "Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
Continuing until chapter 42:6, the God of Creation then proceeds to magnificently declare His glory in all that He has created through question after question that no one knows the answers to…only God who created. And wonderfully, He has given His revelation of things that we could never know or discover thru “science”…only thru His revealed word contained in the Bible.
Perhaps the only comment in this blog that is worthy of consideration is this one:
- The Bible does not change; science texts by their very nature change all the time. So we must be careful to not change our understanding of scripture based on the shifting sands of current scientific fashions.
Well said. Yes, we should be very wary about trying to dismiss/deny an event or account that God speaks of with absolute clarity and purpose (Genesis 5 thru 9, Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 17:26-27, Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:21, 2 Peter 3:5) because it does not fit with our “science” of the day. This elevation of “science” (man centered) above the revelation of God’s word (Divine Truth) brings one into a dangerous position of reducing the word of God, and the saving Gospel of Christ, to a belief that is an empty shell of the truth in God’s word…and most dangerously, a gospel that does not save (ie. just be a good person).
So “Let’s not just deal with the symptoms”…read the Bible…believe the Bible…study the Bible…find Christ in the Bible…its God’s Word…not shifting sands of “science”.
Have a great Friday and weekend!
Science texts rarely even mention the Bible. Apologetics sites, however, just cannot leave science alone.
The Bible does not speak about sedimentary rock or sequence stratigraphy, so why would you be concerned about geology at all?
That is your prerogative. Nobody is compelled to appreciate nature or study science.
1 Like
Science rarely gets turned on its head and it mostly changes by becoming more accurate and more precise. It also tends to be self-correcting. So I’m afraid your “science changes” and “shifting sands” argument is a classic straw man and a pretty hollow one at that. On the other hand, flawed interpretations of scripture and bad exegesis have the opposite tendency, resisting correction and becoming worthy of characterization as a rut, a rut deep enough that those in it cannot see out of it and it becomes their entire reality.
That also applies to Biblical interpretations – they can be and are turned into idols, false representations of the true God and the truth that comes from the reality of his creation.
All science does is investigate physical reality, and where the interpretation of that reality appears to conflict with the interpretation of reality based on the Bible (which not so incidentally is concerned with spiritual truths, not scientific ones), one or the other, or both interpretations are in error.
This is a truth that comes from physical reality and cannot be discarded simply because of one’s misinterpretation of biblical reality:
6 Likes
My feathers are not ruffled, but your framing is inappropriate here. Accepting that through science we have learned some things about the physical world does not mean that we are making science an idol. I see no reason to pretend we haven’t learned those things just because they conflict with a particular hermeneutic approach to the Bible. The Christian tradition, including the New Testament itself, allows for a broader and freer range of interpretations than you would permit. That’s entirely your choice, but your choice is not binding on other Christians.
6 Likes
What a perfect verse to respond to some of the claims of YEC. Knowledge is not the problem, pride is. To put forth one’s interpretation of ancient scripture as being being equal to the inspired word of God is folly, whether YEC, ID, or EC.
4 Likes
Every time I compare young-earth claims to the actual rock features, the young-earth claims do not turn out to be an accurate representation.
Whitmore’s conclusions are not true. Muscovite is typical of sand that is not too far from where it eroded out of rock. A desert is actually generally a better place than a beach to find muscovite in the sand, because many beaches have sand that has been washed around for very long periods of time. The beaches here on the east coast don’t have significant amounts of muscovite, for example.
Muscovite is flimsy and breaks up very easily; it is also vulnerable to chemical breakdown into clays. Deserts, being dry, have slower chemical change of minerals.
Many of the cross-bedding angles are consistent with deposition by wind, and incompatible with deposition by water. (Keep in mind that the occasional flash flood, etc. produces some water deposition in deserts, but wind deposition can’t happen underwater.)
Well-rounded sand grains are typical of beach settings. Deserts typically do not have well-rounded sands - wind is less efficient than water for rounding. Likewise, well-sorted is more typical of beaches than of deserts.
Dolomite forms in association with desert-type playa lakes as well as in coastal areas and through long-term alteration of calcite by pore water.
In other words, Dr. Whitmore’s claims are based on thoroughly misrepresenting the significance of the geological evidence.
The account of a worldwide flood in current creation science teaching is undoubtedly false, because it relies on misrepresentations rather than on a serious effort to honestly assess the geological evidence. The interpretation of Genesis as describing a global flood is almost certainly false, both because it does not fit well with our best understanding of ancient Near Eastern writing and because the geological evidence is strongly against it. Although our understanding of the text and of geology is imperfect, the support for current best understanding in both cases is strong, and a credible challenge must actually engage the evidence, rather than cranking out promotional videos and writing that only fool those who don’t know better.
Geology has extensively investigated the globe. There’s a lot of data and a lot that has been analyzed. While there actually is a lot still out there to analyze (Paraleptopecten is grinding through making descriptions of over 300 new species of fossil shell from one deposit in the Carolinas), accurately assessing the existing work is an essential part of good work. But young-earth claims dominantly take existing research and attack it, claiming that it is merely made up by anti-biblical old-earthers and evolutionists. Slander is not the way to produce good science. An honest young-earth approach has got to admit that in fact there is excellent reason to think that the earth is old, recognize weaknesses in the young-earth models, and reject bad arguments. Only then is there any hope of building a better young-earth model.
7 Likes
“we must be careful to not change our understanding of scripture based on the shifting sands of current scientific fashions.” This is quite true. The young-earth approach reflects interpreting scripture based on the modernist fashion of treating science as the ultimate truth and claiming that one’s personal beliefs are scientific, rather than on a careful effort to develop the best possible understanding of the text and its meaning in the original linguistic, literary, and cultural setting.
Also, it is critical to distinguish between the latest “science headlines” and fashions from what is thoroughly established. Might tiny anomalies in physics experiments or puzzles in cosmology indicate that our current understanding of gravity needs some adjustment? Perhaps, but don’t get excited about a headline claiming “New challenge to gravity!”. However, the reality that gravity works is not something sensible to dismiss as scientific fashion. Setterfield’s attempt to dodge the fact that his bad claims about the speed of light would create problems with E=mc^2 by claiming that mass was smaller in the past in proportion to his imaginary faster light speeds would mean that everything had far less mass in the recent past. The patriarchs would have passed out from lack of oxygen as they drifted out into space from trying to take a step. No, that is ridiculous; gravity has not changed noticeably within the time for which we can find evidence.
" * All soil life would have died from the sea salt alone (Hmm…really? I like sea salt on my steak.)"
Do you like to be encased in salt? Salt spray kills many types of plants near the ocean. An animal “rescue” organization announced that they had freed a bunch of turtles from a lab and returned them to the ocean. They were freshwater turtles, and putting them in the ocean would have killed them. A saltwater flood would kill most freshwater life. A freshwater flood would kill most saltwater life. But the problem is more extreme, because there are many salt deposits around the world, of various ages. To make a salt deposit, you need to have something extremely salty, not just regular seawater. How does the Dead Sea get its name? Salt deposits are forming today where there’s an extra salt bit of water, such as at a sunny coast or some salt lakes. But in a global flood, the water is all mixed around the globe. Making salt deposits requires turning that whole flood into the Dead Sea. Yes, it would kill almost all aquatic life.
“* Sediment world wide…in the same order everywhere (Hmm…really? You’ve used a lot of shovels!)”
There are similarities and differences in the sediment patterns around the globe. But the similarities are similarities that we should see if global conditions are slowly changing over time - we see matching changes in types of fossils, in ocean chemistry, in climate, etc. around the world, and there are huge numbers of these changes, each one requiring a certain amount of time to complete. And there’s also the occasional weird layer such as from a major asteroid impact or volcanic eruption. Such layers ought to get mixed in with everything else under currently popular global flood models, but we see the layers existing and easily recognized. On the other hand, the varying patterns of regional differences over time as continents move also should not be visible in a global flood model where water is moving rapidly all around the globe.
“* Obviously that takes very long periods of time (Obviously! Right? Obviously!?)”
Yes, obviously. Observe how fast plates move, how fast sediment piles up, how fast rocks harden or erode, and you find that there’s a lot of geology that is very slow. Speeding it up has to have a cause that does not violate the laws of physics; “it happened faster during the flood” can’t just be a magic excuse for ignoring the evidence of vast age. Yes, miracles do happen. No, miracles are not just for convenience (e.g., turning the stones to bread). The idea that God miraculously covered up the evidence for a young earth and global flood to make everything look like He actually created it gradually over a vast period of time is not theologically sound. Miracles have the specific purpose of pointing to God, not removing the evidence.
“* Little erosion would take place as turbulence at depth is minimized (Yeah…I’m pretty sure about that too)”
Little erosion takes place in the deep oceans and deep lakes. Current global flood models would produce extreme erosion at all depths (if one ignores the fact that they would also melt the earth, which interferes with erosion.)
“* The only thing that explains the deep layers of sediment, is deep time (Yes…its the only thing! And very deep!)”
Yes, this is true. It was suspected by the late 1600’s and conclusively demonstrated by the mid-1770’s. All studies since then have increased the support for the need to have vast amounts of time to explain the appearance of the earth. No honest scientific arguments against an old earth have been found.
“* The Rocky mountains were at one time as high as the Himalaya’s (Yes!..I live here…took a selfie…higher than Everest!)”
Not correct. Although there are bits of ancient mountains from continent-continent collisions in the Rockies region, the present-day Rockies are pushed up by compression associated with the ocean-continent convergence, which doesn’t make as tall mountains as the Himalayas. The Appalachians would have been Himalaya-like in the Permian, though exact heights are not certain. We know that they were similar because they were shaped by similar conditions, as well as by the features of the rocks that we can observe today.
“* So just on my own property the geology refutes a global flood (Yes…and your property IS the source of truth!)”
It is a source of truth, because Genesis 1 tells us that God created humans with the responsibility to understand and care for the earth. Also, Genesis 1 tells us that there are no rival gods, rogue monsters, or uncontrolled forces out there - everything in nature is doing things the way God made them to. So we can use the evidence from a local patch of land, as well as the globe and beyond, to understand how creation works.
“* The Bible does not try to teach modern science (Indubitably! Modern Science knows all things! Bible old…SCIENCE NEW!)”
Modern science does not know all things, yet young-earth approaches claim that the Bible is better if we pretend that the Bible is modern science. The fact that modern science is new and the Bible is old confirms that the Bible is not modern science. The Bible does not teach us all things, despite misleading translations of a couple of verses out of context. How do I get from Charlotte to London? Look at a map and make use of what people have figured out about aerodynamics to be able to ride on an airplane. The Bible doesn’t tell us those things and doesn’t need to; we can work those out ourselves. What should I believe about God? What is ethical behavior? Those, we can’t figure out for ourselves and need help from revelation.
“* Sea level ingress and regress, yielding a continuous record both local and general (It’s all about the ingress/regress!)”
Yup, sea level does, and there’s very extensive geological records of it. And that doesn’t fit in a young-earth model.
“* There is nothing about a global flood that is (scientifically) documented. (Of course…unlike…Evil-lution!)”
Biological evolution by natural selection is very well-documented scientifically, as is the evidence against a global flood. Sadly, young-earth claims simply can’t be trusted. It’s like claims that Bigfoot just married a two-headed Elvis clone.
“* It’s not okay that you continue to work against God’s kingdom (No…not ok…I reject His words in Genesis…but that’s ok)”
Young earth models persistently reject God’s commands to be truthful. They do not carefully examine Genesis to find the best understanding. For example, claims to be caring about God’s creation clash with the frequent young-earth and ID support for anti-environmental false claims. Claiming that believing the Bible requires support for quite blatantly bad scientific claims does not advance God’s kingdom; instead, it’s a significant reason for people to abandon Christianity.
“* It’s their way of interpreting Scripture. Let’s not just deal with the symptoms. (Right! They read the Bible! Stop them!)”
Young-earth proof-texting routinely does not read the Bible carefully.
7 Likes
I wonder if @cewoldt remembers this exchange with the late Glenn Morton from a couple of years ago:
This was great stuff:
7 Likes
I find that entire argument to be, well, wrong. ‘We shouldn’t let science dictate how we interpret scripture.’ Why not? We read Jesus saying, ‘I am the vine’ and we don’t take it literally – we don’t think Jesus had leaves. Why not? Because we know that human beings aren’t vines. We have to use our knowledge of the world to interpret the Bible or any other text, or else the words don’t mean anything. And as it happens, science is one of the ways that we know stuff about the world.
7 Likes