A fair analysis requires that both sides of a debate be granted the freedom to present their views. Charles Darwin held that belief:
A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question …[1]
In a long running debate about the age of the earth, there is virtually no middle ground between two opposing sides. One side claims that the earth is billions of years old. The other side claims that the earth has an age of less than about 10,000 years. A so-called young earth would be a fatal blow to the Fact of Evolution because everybody agrees that the complexity of biological life would require a very long time to evolve.
Many people reject any discussion of evidence for a so-called young-earth because they classify it as a religious theory. This includes not only Evolutionists, but also many advocates for Intelligent Design (see Chapter 1). There is no doubt that the young-earth theory has definite religious implications and that many advocates for a young-earth are strongly committed to a Biblical worldview.
If one reads the Genesis Creation account, it is clear that many of the described events predate the creation of man and his ability to record events.[2] Therefore, the accuracy of the Genesis account is dependent on the testimony of God being revealed to a human source. This John UpChurch quote from the Answers in Genesis website illustrates the importance that many Christians place on the principle of Biblical integrity:
For Christians, evolution is not really the main issue. An old universe is not the main issue, either. These are simply two examples of what underlies the controversy. The real issue should be a matter of authority. Either we trust what God said in His Word, or we trust what fallible humans have cobbled together in a vain attempt to remove God from the equation.[3]
This argument is clearly religious in nature. However, it is possible to do a religiously neutral analysis of the evidence for a young-earth. Religious neutrality requires neither accepting a theory for religious reasons, nor rejecting a theory for anti-religious reasons. The intent of this chapter is to examine the evidence cited by advocates for the scientific theory of a young-earth, in a manner that is independent of religious views.
One piece of circumstantial evidence supporting the scientific theory for a young-earth is that written human history only dates back about 5000 years old. According to Archeologist and Anthropologist Colin Renfrew:
The Egyptian King List goes back to the first dynasty of Egypt
If one assumes that human intelligence developed over billions of years, this seems like an extraordinary coincidence. Such historical evidence leaves open the theoretical possibility that human beings were created with intellectual ability in the recent past, rather than evolving it over billions of years. However, there is more to the young-earth position than an appeal to historical sources and a reliance on Biblical authority.
Proponents for a young-earth model stack a set of geological evidence on top of a Biblical foundation to argue that the young-earth model fits the empirical evidence much better than an old-earth model.[5] Consequently, the scientific arguments cited for a young-earth don’t depend on Biblical revelation. Therefore, they can be evaluated in a religiously neutral fashion.
Young-earth advocates promote a Catastrophic Model of geology that is based on the global flood described in the Genesis account.[6] They claim that catastrophic events associated with the Genesis Flood played a major part in constructing the geological features that we observe today.[7] They argue that empirical geological evidence fits well with a historical Genesis Flood happening within the last 10,000 years.
Much of geology is based on the principle that rocks from the bottom of a stack are older than rocks from the top of a stack. A good analogy to this is the events that happen after a fumble in a football game. After a fumble, the referee often removes players from a large pile to reveal a player holding the ball on the bottom of the stack. Referees assume this player got there first. Geologists make a similar assumption.
However, various former football players have described the nasty things done to change the order of the pile before the referee can undo the stack.[8] Apparently, some rock formations also seem to violate the bottom-first rule, with allegedly older rocks being found on top of younger ones. In What Is Creation Science?, Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker quote a Science News article that documents this:
The Appalachians, which run from Newfoundland to Alabama
… But beneath that jumble of rock … lies a younger, flat, thin (1-5 km thick) layer of sediments [ranging from about ½ mile to 3 miles thick] that “no one thought existed.” The unbroken, wide extent of the layer – researchers estimate it covers 150,000 km square [58,000 square miles]… and its similarity to sediments found on the East Coast indicates that the mountains “could not have been pushed up.”[9]
The suggested explanation for how the allegedly older Appalachian Mountains ended up on top of an allegedly younger rock formation is that they were somehow slid on top. However, Morris and Parker cite a 1980 article published in Geology, which claims that the force required to move a rock mass the size of the Appalachians would likely fracture it. This calls into question the explanation of sliding the Appalachians into place.[10]
Advocates for both a young-earth model and an old-earth model of geology share the common goal of trying to explain how different rock layers were formed. But young-earth advocates believe that catastrophic natural events in the recent past are the primary cause of many geological features. For example, they argue that massive deposits of sedimentation associated with a global flood formed features like the Grand Canyon .[11]
The volcanic eruption of Mount Saint Helens in 1980 is a modern-day example of the rapid formation of geological features by catastrophic forces. This eruption devastated 150 square miles of forestland. Within minutes, it led to massive mudslides that spilled over a million logs into Spirit Lake
The Mount Saint Helens catastrophe has led some geologists to reconsider the possibility that catastrophic causes formed various geological formations. Until Charles Lyell promoted the concept of Uniformitarian Geology in the mid-1800’s, geologists had widely accepted a Catastrophic Model. The late Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould described the geological upheaval brought about by the influence of Lyell:
Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the most brilliant briefs published by an advocate. … Lyell relied upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish. In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.[14]
The concept underlying Uniformitarian Geology is very simple: The present is the key to the past.[15] The Uniformitarian theory is that geological features are best explained by ordinary processes operating over long time intervals, rather than by catastrophic events, such as the Genesis flood. Young-earth proponents argue that this theory is more a product of imagination, than empirical evidence.
For example, the Gould quote describes how the cunning Lyell advocated using imagination to downplay empirical evidence for catastrophes. The implication of Gould’s analysis is that the geological evidence itself points to catastrophes. Lyell built his advocacy for Uniformitarian Geology on earlier work that was done by James Hutton of Scotland
… the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.[17]
The Mount Saint Helens eruption has produced clear evidence that a catastrophic natural event can have a sudden and immense impact on the geological record.[18] Anybody who has personally observed the area impacted by Mount Saint Helens is left with no doubt of that contention. Numerous trees were carried by eruption related floods and deposited in upright fashion as the massive mud slides came to a halt.[19]
The Specimen Ridge section of Yellowstone Park Mount Saint Helens are similar in appearance to the petrified trees planted upright on Specimen Ridge.[21]
The evidence of Mount Saint Helens has brought the assumed long time gaps of the Specimen Ridge trees into question, as it suggests that the Yellowstone trees may have floated in and deposited upright.[22] Tests have been run on tree rings in different layers of the Specimen Ridge area and they indicate a signature tree ring pattern.[23] This implies that the trees in different layers probably lived in a common time frame.
John Morris (son of Henry Morris) has pointed out that a roadside sign with a lesson on Evolution has now been removed from Specimen Ridge.[24] Why? The long ages needed to give multiple forests time to grow were not quite the empirical fact that they were assumed to be. The long ages were the product of imagination of Uniformitarian Geologists and not empirical evidence.
The accumulation of empirical evidence for catastrophic causes is starting to weaken the strong grip of Uniformitarian inferences that were set in place by the cunning and imaginative Lyell. One clear example of this is given in this quote by Dr. Derek Ager, former President of the British Geologist’s association:
The hurricane, the flood or tsunami may do more in an hour or a day than the ordinary processes of nature have achieved in a thousand years … In other words, the history of any part of the earth, like the life of a soldier, consists of long periods of boredom and short periods of terror.[25]
Morris has pointed out that there are now a growing number of Neo-Catastrophic Geologists.[26] This is certainly a blow to Evolutionists who seek to use the long ages imagined by Uniformitarian inferences as a collaborative proof for Evolution. As Morris has pointed out, the possibility of catastrophes forming geological features in sudden fashion is now widely accepted by leading geologists.
In Morris view, a single large catastrophe (the Genesis Flood) is the probable cause for many geological formations.[27] Instead of inferring the existence of a long time gap between each geological layer – the “long periods of boredom” in the Ager quote, Morris infers that events surrounding the Genesis flood deposited geological layers in a relatively short time period – as with the Mount Saint Helens mud slides.
Morris points out that many modern geologists now see evidence for catastrophic formation of the various geological layers – the “short periods of terror” in the Ager quote. He also claims that there is a lack of physical evidence for the “long periods of boredom”– when allegedly nothing changes.[28] Morris has cited the following evidence in support of multiple geological layers forming in a relatively short time span:
- Various geological layers contain surface features, such as animal tracks, raindrops, and ripple marks from water currents. Such surface features would only have formed in soft sediments, and they should have eroded if large time gaps separated the hardened rocks of different geologic layers. Morris asks the question: How did the surface features observable in the geological layers avoid erosion?[29]
- Living organisms rearrange the character of a surface by the natural activity of their lives (a process called Bioturbation). Within 20 years, Bioturbation destroyed various sedimentary structures, such as buried ripple marks and cross bedding, that were deposited by Hurricane Carla. Morris wonders: Why didn’t Bioturbation destroy the observable sedimentary structures in the geological layers?[30]
- The geological column has a lack of soil layers. The various geological layers are assumed to be separated by long time spans. Morris points out this puzzle: How could life thrive in so many geological eras with so little observational evidence of soil layers?[31]
- The geologic record contains many examples where two contiguous planes of totally different rock types exhibit a knife sharp edge when viewed as a cross section. The Grand Canyon is a classic example of this. Morris asks the question: How could the bottom of the rock planes have remained in place for a very long time without experiencing the normal erosion of an exposed surface?[32]
- The geological record contains numerous examples where fossils intersect multiple geological layers (called Polystrate Fossils). In particular, Polystrate Trees are commonly observed in coal veins. Morris points out this puzzle: How could single trees be buried in multiple geological layers separated by long time gaps?[33]
- Some fossilized specimens exhibit the characteristic of being buried alive with the preservation of skin and soft parts. For example, in the Green River formation of Wyoming, numerous well-preserved catfish fossils cross a multitude of millimeter thick laminations. Morris wonders: How could these fish have remained so well preserved during an allegedly long period of seasonal lake sedimentation?[34]
Many skeptics doubt that the massive rainfall associated with the Genesis flood is possible.[35] However, young-earth proponents theorize that the Genesis Flood was triggered by a set of volcanic eruptions that unleashed huge quantities of water. This Ken Ham and Tim Lovett quote from the New Answers Book describes that theory:
Evidently, the source for water below the ground was in great subterranean pools, or “fountains” of fresh water, which were broken open by volcanic and seismic (earthquake) activity.[36]
Volcanic eruptions do release huge quantities of water. This quote from a United States Geological Survey (USGS) article entitled Volcanic Gases and Their Effects makes that claim indisputable:
Volcanic gases undergo a tremendous increase in volume when magma rises to the Earth's surface and erupts. For example, consider what happens if one cubic meter of 900°C rhyolite magma containing five percent by weight of dissolved water were suddenly brought from depth to the surface. The one cubic meter of magma now would occupy a volume of 670 m3 as a mixture of water vapor and magma at atmospheric pressure (…)! The one meter cube at depth would increase to 8.75 m on each side at the surface. Such enormous expansion of volcanic gases, primarily water, is the main driving force of explosive eruptions.
The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H20)[37]
There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions are enormously powerful. For example, the Mount Saint Helens eruption produced an explosion with the equivalent power of 400 million tons of TNT. This amounts to approximately 20,000 atomic bombs of Hiroshima-size.[38] This Gary Parker quote from Creation: Facts of Life theorizes that a set of powerful volcanic eruptions was the natural cause for the Genesis flood:
What supplies the power for volcanic eruptions anyway? Water. Yes, water – superheated water found in the underground liquid rock called magma. If some crack develops to release pressure, the superheated water flashes into steam, generating colossal power – power to blow islands apart, power that dwarfs mankind’s nuclear arsenal. About 2/3 of what comes out of the average volcano is water vapor, what geologists call “juvenile water.” How much water could be released by volcanic processes? Most evolutionists believe all the earth’s oceans were filled by outgassing of volcanic water!
According to the Bible, the water for Noah’s Flood was first released when the “fountains of the great deep burst forth” (Genesis 7:11). Imagine volcanoes many times more powerful than Mt. St. Helens Grand Canyon .[39]
Even if one ignores the theological aspects of a worldwide flood caused by the judgment of God, there is abundant evidence that major geological features have been shaped by widespread volcanic activity. For example, consider this quote from America’s Volcanic Past (a 1994 USGS article by Steven R. Brantley):
Though few people in the United States may actually experience an erupting volcano, the evidence for earlier volcanism is preserved in many rocks of North America . Features seen in volcanic rocks only hours old are also present in ancient volcanic rocks, both at the surface and buried beneath younger deposits. A thick ash deposit sandwiched between layers of sandstone in Nebraska, the massive granite peaks of the Sierra Nevada mountain range, and a variety of volcanic layers found in eastern Maine are but a few of the striking clues of past volcanism. With this perspective, an erupting volcano is not only an exciting and awesome spectacle in its own right but a window into a natural process that has happened over and over again throughout Earth's history.[40]
The USGS website theorizes that a single supercontinent was at one time surrounded by a single ocean, that water deposited large amounts of sediments to form huge mountain ranges, that volcanic eruptions were prominent, that the single supercontinent ultimately split apart, and that much of the US
The rocks at the core of the Appalachian Mountains formed more than a billion years ago. At that time, all of the continents were joined together in a single supercontinent surrounded by a single ocean.
Sediments formed by the weathering of surrounding hills were transported by water and deposited in layers on the floor of the basin. Over a long period of time, a great thickness of sediments accumulated. These sediments now form the bedrock of the Great Smoky Mountains . Within these sediments, minerals like pyrite and metals like copper were deposited.
At the same time that the sediments were being laid down volcanoes were erupting in present-day Virginia , the Carolinas, and Georgia
Then, about 540 million years ago, the supercontinent split into pieces that drifted away from each other. Seawater spread into low areas between crustal plates and, in time, formed new oceans. A shallow sea covered most of what is now the United States
Evidence for massive sedimentary deposits and large areas being covered in seawater is certainly consistent with the Genesis account of a worldwide global flood.[42] The Genesis 1:9-10 description of a single land mass surrounded by water is also consistent with the USGS concept of a single supercontinent.[43] The only major inconsistency with the Genesis flood account is the long ages described in the USGS quote.
Finding marine fossils on the tops of mountain ranges is actually very common. This is described in a Gretchen Noyes-Hull quote from the Houghton-Mifflin Science website:
We understand why seashells can be found high on the summits of the Alps, the Andes, and the Himalayas . They are all remnants of organisms buried in the sediments of shallow seas.[44]
A worldwide flood covering the tops of mountain ranges certainly explains how marine fossils can be found at such high altitudes. These fossils include more than just seashells. For example, this quote from a New York Times article by Malcolm W. Brown describes fossilized whales found in the Andes Mountains of South America:
Scientists have found fossils of whales and other marine animals in mountain sediments in the Andes , indicating that the South American mountain chain rose very rapidly from the sea.
…
Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet.[45]
Young-earth proponents believe that such marine fossil deposits are related to global floodwaters leaving massive amounts of sediments. Many believe the mountain ranges, such as the Andes , were formed in recent times and at a very fast rate. For example, a New Scientist article (How a supercontinent went to pieces) describes a supercomputer model for what is called catastrophic plate tectonics.[46]
In the New Answers Book, this quote from an Andrew A. Snelling article argues that a catastrophic model for plate tectonics provides the best explanation for ocean sediments appearing on the top of widespread mountain ranges:
This catastrophic plate tectonics model for earth history is able to explain geologic data that slow-and-gradual plate tectonics over many millions of years cannot. For example, the new rapidly formed ocean floor would have initially been very hot. Thus, being of lower density than the pre-Flood ocean floor, it would have risen some 3,300 ft. (1,000 m) higher than its predecessor, causing a dramatic rise in global sea level. The ocean waters would thus have swept up onto and over the continental land surfaces, carrying vast quantities of sediments and marine organisms with them to form the thick, fossiliferous sedimentary rock layers we now find blanketing large portions of today’s continents. This laterally extensive layer-cake sequence of sedimentary rocks is magnificently exposed, for example, in the Grand Canyon region of the southwestern U.S. Slow-and-gradual plate tectonics simply cannot account for such thick, laterally extensive sequences of sedimentary strata containing marine fossils over such vast interior continental areas – areas which are normally well above sea level.[47]
Volcanic activity can have a significant impact on global climate. For example, in Frozen in Time, Meteorologist Michael Oard pointed out: “Large modern eruptions usually cool a region or hemisphere a degree or two Fahrenheit (about 1°C).”[48] Oard alleges that major volcanic activity could have led to the rapid onset of an Ice Age:
A shroud of volcanic dust and aerosols (very small particles) would have been trapped in the stratosphere for several years following the Flood. These volcanic effluents would have then reflected some of the sunlight back to space and caused cooler summers, mainly over large landmasses of the mid and high latitudes. Volcanoes would have also been active during the Ice Age and gradually declined as the earth settled down. Abundant evidence shows substantial Ice Age volcanism, which would have replenished the dust and aerosols in the stratosphere. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets also show abundant volcanic particles and acids in the Ice Age portion of the ice cores.
An ice age also requires huge amounts of precipitation. The Genesis account records the “fountains of the great deep” bursting forth during the Flood. Crustal movements would have released hot water from the earth’s crust along with volcanism and large underwater lava flows, which would have added heat to the ocean. Earth movement and rapid Flood currents would have then mixed the warm water, so that after the Flood the oceans would be warm from pole to pole. There would be no sea ice. A warm ocean would have had much higher evaporation than the present cool ocean surface. Most of this evaporation would have occurred at mid and high latitudes, close to the developing ice sheets, dropping the moisture on the cold continent. This is a recipe for powerful and continuous snowstorms that can be estimated using basic meteorology. Therefore, to cause an ice age, rare conditions are required – warm oceans for high precipitation, and cool summers for lack of melting the snow. Only then can it accumulate into an ice sheet.
The principles of atmospheric science can also estimate areas of high oceanic evaporation, the eventual depth of the ice, and even the timing of the Ice Age. Numerical simulations of precipitation in the polar regions using conventional climate models with warm sea surface temperatures have demonstrated that ice sheets thousands of feet thick could have accumulated in less than 500 years.[49]
Both the young-earth and old-earth models of geology allege that the same natural events formed today’s geological features – tectonic plate movements, volcanic activity, the flooding of large landmasses leaving massive sedimentary deposits, and glacial effects. It is not the natural events themselves that are in dispute. Rather, it is the timeframe over which these natural events took place that is disputed.
The concept that natural forces can cause massive geological changes in rapid fashion is not without scientific evidence. For instance, a 2005 report from a team of Indian and French geologists describes how a huge volcanic eruption covered 2 million square kilometers of land (about 1/5 the size of the US
[The] latest research … indicates that the dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago was partly caused by a huge volcanic eruption in the Deccan traps. Until now, it was thought that a huge meteor impact in Mexico
… “A huge volcanic eruption 65 million ago in peninsular India
The potential sudden impact on the climate from such a huge volcanic eruption is described in this News Release from the Geological Society of America:
The Deccan Traps of India are one of Earth's largest lava flows ever, with the potential of having wreaked havoc with the climate of the Earth – if they erupted and released climate-changing gases quickly enough. French and Indian geologists have now identified a 600-meter (2000-foot) thick portion of the lava that may have piled up in as little as 30,000 years – fast enough to have possibly caused a deadly global climate shift.[51]
As these articles indicate, scientists are considering shifting the blame for killing the dinosaurs from a meteor to rapid volcanic action. The possibility of natural forces causing sudden climate shifts is described in this quote from Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (a National Academy of Sciences publication):
The climate record for the past 100,000 years clearly indicates that the climate system has undergone periodic and often extreme shifts, sometimes in as little as a decade or less. The causes of abrupt climate changes have not been clearly established, but the triggering of events is likely to be the result of multiple natural processes.[52]
This NAS publication contends that natural processes can cause massive climate changes in short time periods. Imagine the sudden climate changes that would be caused if massive undersea volcanic and earthquake activity split the continents apart in a relatively short time frame and thrust mountain ranges up very rapidly. That is the scenario of the Genesis Flood – the driving force for the young-earth model.
Both geological models (young-earth and old-earth) require overlaying the empirical evidence with imagination. In a young-earth model, geological changes are imagined to have happened quickly and recently. In an old-earth model, geological changes are imagined to have taken place long ago and over long time intervals. The major difference in the two models is the time period during which natural forces are alleged to operate.
A major form of evidence cited to support the long time intervals of the old-earth model is Radioisotope dating. However, John Morris points out that radioisotope dating is based on some questionable assumptions. Morris also points out that radioisotope dating methods are known to generate questionable results.[53] For example, Morris cites several examples of recent lava formations that were dated with very long ages:
- A lava eruption at Sunset Crater in
- The Hualalai Volcano in
- The Mt. Kilauea Volcano in
Morris points out that Radioisotope dating methods are often known to produce widely different results. This leads Morris to questions the common practice of selecting dating results that match an assumed age. Morris then makes the following point: If rocks of known age are incorrectly dated by assorted Radioisotope methods, then how can it be assumed that Radioisotope methods will yield correct dates for rocks of unknown ages?[57]
For example, the Salt Lake Crater was thought to be less than one million years old. One dating method produced a date of less than 400,000 years, and this date was identified as the real age. However, 16 other methods produced results ranging from 2.6 Million to 3.3 Billion years, with an average age of 845 million years.[58] The results from dating methods that didn’t match the assumed age were simply rejected.
Morris asks a legitimate question: If most of the dating samples at the Salt Lake Crater site were rejected based on the resulting date, can any of the resulting dates be considered trustworthy? If one believes an assumed date is accurate before the dating process is run, the value in selecting a matching date from a set of ambiguous results is highly questionable.
The circular reasoning involved in radioisotope dating is obvious. Contamination in different samples is said to lead to widely divergent results. However, samples are selected for dating because they exhibit no evidence for contamination. Theoretically, all samples should be within the tolerance range of the assumed date.[59] If one is not able to assume a correct date at the start, then there is no reason to date the samples at all.
An additional example of how an assumed date impacts the dating result is given in this quote from The Revised and Expanded Answers Book (edited by Don Batten):
For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old,’ according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.[60]
The inaccuracies associated with radiocarbon dating are also well known. This quote from Robert Lee (Assistant Editor at the Anthropological Journal of Canada) describes how widespread the inconsistencies can be:
The troubles of radiocarbon dating are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technical refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a “fix-it-as-we-go” approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration wherever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted.
No matter how “useful” it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.[61]
A primary assumption used in radiometric dating is that: “The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.”[62] However, scientific studies illustrate that this fundamental assumption is not necessarily valid. For example, this Mike Riddle quote from the New Answers Book indicates that rocks known to have been formed from volcanic action within the last 100 years have been dated with ages in millions of years:
Steve Austin, PhD geology, and member of the RATE team, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years. These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false [i.e., the initial condition of the sample was assumed, rather than known]).
The dating of rocks containing fossils is even more problematic because they are formed from sediments of previously existing rocks rather than from the solidification of hot magma. Such sedimentary rocks can’t be directly dated with radioisotope methods because these methods are only able to date igneous rocks – i.e. rocks formed directly from volcanic magma.[64] This issue has led to the evolutionary concept of Index Fossils:
Index fossils are commonly found, widely distributed fossils that are limited in time span. They help in dating other fossils found in the same sedimentary layer. For example, if you find a fossil from an unknown era near a fossil from a known time, you can assume that the two species were from about the same time.[65]
However, dating both fossils and rocks with Index Fossils requires using circular reasoning.[66] This is illustrated by a quote from the well-known Evolutionist Niles Eldredge:
And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?[67]
The concept that allegedly extinct species can be used as reliable index fossils is a questionable one. For example, it was once thought that the fish species Coelacanth had been extinct for over 50 million years.[68] However, to the surprise of everybody, a living Coelacanth was caught in 1938. Other living Coelacanths have also been identified. For example, in 1987, a living Coelacanth was studied at an ocean depth of 600 feet.[69]
Living fossils such as the Coelacanth raises questions about the reliability of using index fossils to date rock formations. Because Coelacanth’s are still swimming around today, finding a Coelacanth fossil would not guarantee that a sedimentary rock is at least 50 million years old. This A.E. Wilder Smith quote from The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution makes that point:
Today most biologically informed persons know that any dating carried out using Latimeria [the Latin name for a Coelacanth] as an index fossil is completely erroneous, for exactly the same fish has recently been repeatedly caught – very much alive – off the shores of Madagascar Madagascar
If the Coelacanth were an isolated case, one might dismiss the challenge that living fossils present to dates that have been determined with index fossils. However, this Lexi Crock quote from a PBS-Nova website indicates: “Among living fossil fish, the coelacanth is the most famous, but there are many others.”[71] A website devoted to documenting living fossils states that there are actually millions of them.[72]
An alleged evolutionary sequence is not the only possible interpretation of the fossil record found in the various geological layers. For example, consider this John Morris quote from the article An Amazing Anomalous Fossil:
The fossil order, such as it is, could just as well (or better) fit the progression of encroaching Flood waters. In the lowest levels are found marine invertebrates. Increasing heights (not more recent time periods) bring fossils that lived along the shore, followed by more terrestrial sediments and fossils. The ordering trend is not due to evolutionary development, but to global Flood inundation.
There are, of course, many fossils that could fit in any/all time periods. For instance, clams, in great variety, are found in virtually every layer containing multi-celled fossils, and they are alive today.[73]
Young-earth proponents argue that a regular column of geological layers laid down over long time intervals is more a hypothetical concept imagined by Uniformitarian Geologists than a reality confirmed by empirical evidence. For example, consider this Steven A. Austin quote from the article Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column:
[The ten layers of the geological column] are poorly represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth's surface area on land and under the sea has seven or more (70% or more) of the strata systems missing beneath; 94% of the earth's surface has three or more systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.6% has at least one missing system. Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) [have all ten layers of the geologic column]. Even where the ten systems may be present, geologists recognize individual systems to be incomplete. The entire geologic column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists![74]
The list of inconsistencies and imaginative inferences pointed out by young-earth advocates goes on and on. The intention of this chapter has not been to argue that all the arguments they put forth are completely valid. Rather, my intention has been to point out that an argument based on empirical scientific evidence should not be rejected simply because it is advocated by somebody with a strong belief in Biblical integrity.
For example, all of the following arguments for a young-earth and global flood are based on empirical evidence, rather than on a-priori assumptions about the absolute integrity of the Genesis account [page numbers are from this chapter]:
- Written history only goes back about 5000 years (page 2)
- There is geological evidence for widespread catastrophes (page 4)
- Catastrophes can produce rapid and immense geological changes (pages 4-5)
- Assorted evidence suggests rapid formation of geological features (pages 5-6, 9-10)
- Widespread volcanic activity would release huge quantities of water (pages 6-7)
- There is abundant evidence for widespread volcanic activity (pages 7)
- Widespread land areas are known to have been covered in seawater (pages 7-8)
- Marine fossils are deposited in widespread mountain areas (page 8)
- Volcanic activity can produce rapid and extreme climate changes (pages 9-10)
- Various objects of known age have been incorrectly dated (pages 10-12)
- Dating rocks using index fossils requires circular reasoning (pages 11-12)
- Living fossils call into question the use of index fossils for dating (pages 12-13)
- The standard geological column is far from a standard occurrence (page 13)
If science was based on religious neutrality, these arguments for a young-earth would be debated based on evidence, rather than being dismissed simply because they are promoted by scientists who believe in Biblical integrity. Scientists who fail to take into account all forms of evidence are not being truly objective. And scientists who are not truly objective are prone to reach wrong conclusions.
Acknowledgements
Endnotes are contained in the following section. The following shorthand notation connects the numbered endnotes to permission statements:
N(x, y, z, …) indicates endnotes numbered ‘x’, ‘y’, ‘z’.
I gratefully acknowledge permission to reproduce quotes from the following copyrighted material:
N(3, 16, 37, 45, 47-49, 62-63): Used with the permission of Answers in Genesis – www.answersingenesis.org.
N(4. 9, 10): From What is Creation-Science? by Henry Morris and Gary Parker, 19th printing, July 2004. Used with permission from the publisher – Master Books, Green Forest , AR
N(2, 6, 35, 42, 43): Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
N(5, 7, 12, 13, 19-34, 53-59, 61, 64, 67): From The Young Earth by John D. Morris, 13th printing, February 2005. Used with permission from the publisher – Master Books, Green Forest , AR
N(11): John D. Morris, “Grand Canyon : Is It Really 'Exhibit A' For Evolution And The Old Earth?” http://www.icr.org/article/grand-canyon-it-really-exhibit-a-for-evolution-old/. The ICR Guidelines for Fair Use permit 100 words of quotation and/or a paraphrase/summary of an ICR article provided a proper reference to their website is provided: http://www.icr.org/home/copyright/.
N(14): From Refuting Evolution 2 by Jonathan Sarfati, 4th printing, April 2005. Used with permission from the publisher – Master Books, Green Forest , AR
N(14, 60): Used with the permission of Creation Ministries International – www.creation.com.
N(18, 38): Steve Austin, “Mt. St. Helens
N(25): Henry Morris, “Up with catastrophism,” Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/articles/view/84/356/. The ICR Guidelines for Fair Use permit 100 words of quotation and/or a paraphrase/summary of an ICR article provided a proper reference to their website is provided: http://www.icr.org/home/copyright/.
N(36, 45, 47, 49, 62-63): From The New Answers Book, edited by Ken Ham. Used with permission from the publisher – Master Books, Green Forest , AR
N(39): From Creation Facts of Life by Gary Parker. Used with permission from the publisher – Master Books, Green Forest , AR
N(48): From Frozen in Time by Michael Oard. Used with permission from the publisher – Master Books, Green Forest , AR
N(52): Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (Washington , DC Washington , D.C.
N(60): From The Revised and Expanded Answers Book, edited by Don Batten, 32nd Printing, April 2005. Used with permission from the publisher – Master Books, Green Forest , AR
N(66): Henry Morris, “Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology,” Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/circular-reasoning-evolutionary-biology/. The ICR Guidelines for Fair Use permit 100 words of quotation and/or a paraphrase/summary of an ICR article provided a proper reference to their website is provided: http://www.icr.org/home/copyright/.
N(73): John D. Morris, “An Amazing Anomalous Fossil,” Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/amazing-anomalous-fossil/. The ICR Guidelines for Fair Use permit 100 words of quotation and/or a paraphrase/summary of an ICR article provided a proper reference to their website is provided: http://www.icr.org/home/copyright/.
N(74): Steven A. Austin, “Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column,” Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconceptions-about-geologic-column/. The ICR Guidelines for Fair Use permit 100 words of quotation and/or a paraphrase/summary of an ICR article provided a proper reference to their website is provided: http://www.icr.org/home/copyright/.
Notes and References
[1]. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Introduction, http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/introduction.html.
[2]. See Genesis 1 and 2 at BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201-2&version=NIV.
[3]. John UpChurch, “Feedback: Should We Teach Evolution,” http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/06/feedback-teaching-evolution.
[4]. Colin Renfrew, Before Civilization, (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1973), p. 25, as quoted in the book: Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation-Science, 19th Printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1987), p. 14.
[8]. Tom Wier, “Pileups can be hazardous to your health,” USA Today, 25 October 2006, http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2006-10-25-pileup-cover_x.htm.
[9]. “Thin View of Appalachian Formation,” Science News 115(374), 1979, as quoted in the book: Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation-Science, 19th Printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1987), p. 234, and on the website: “Evolution Encyclopedia Volume 1 – Chapter 17 Appendix – Part 5,” Evolution-facts.org, http://evolutionfacts.com/Appendix/a17e.htm.
[10]. J. H.Willemin et al., “Comment and Reply on ‘High Fluid Pressure, Isothermal Surfaces, and the Initiation of Nappe Movement,’” Geology 8, September 1980, p. 406, as cited in the book: Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation-Science ,19th Printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1987), p. 235.
[11]. John D. Morris, “
[12]. John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (
[13]. John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (
[14]. Stephen J. Gould, “Catastrophes and Steady State Earth,” Natural History 84(2):14-18, February 1975, p. 16, as quoted in the book: Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2, 4th Printing, (
[16]. Terry Mortenson, “Millions of years and the Downfall of the Christian West,” pp. 4-6, http://www.answersingenesis.org/radio/pdf/MillionsOfYears.pdf
[17]. James Hutton, ‘Theory of the Earth’, a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785, as quoted from the website: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes/hutton.asp.
[18]. Steve Austin, “
[19]. John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (
[20]. John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (
[21]. John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (
[22]. John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (
[23]. John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (
[24]. John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (
[25]. Derek Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (New York: Wiley, 1981), pp. 54, 106 as quoted in the book: John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005, p. 93. Also see Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (
[28]. John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (
[29]. John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994), pp. 94-96.
[30]. John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (
[31]. John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994), pp. 97-98.
[32]. John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994), pp. 98-100.
[33]. John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994), pp. 100-102.
[34]. John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994), p. 102.
[35]. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. (Genesis 7:11-12, NIV). See BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207:11-12&version=NIV.
[36]. Edited by Ken Ham, The New Answers Book (
[38]. Steve Austin, “
[39]. Gary Parker, Creation Facts of Life (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994), Chapter 3, as quoted from the website: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-neo-catastrophism.asp.
[40]. Steven R. Brantley, “Volcanoes of the
[41]. “
[42]. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. (Genesis 7:18-20 NIV), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207:18-20&version=NIV.
[43]. And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:9-10 NIV), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:9-10&version=NIV.
[44]. Gretchen Noyes-Hull, Making Mountains: The Medieval & Modern Geology of Leonardo da Vinci, Houghton Mifflin Science, http://www.eduplace.com/science/hmsc/6/c/cricket/cktcontent_6c93.shtml.
[45]. Malcolm W. Browne, “Whale fossils high in
[46]. Jonathan Beard, “Technology: How a supercontinent went to pieces,” New Scientist, 16 January 1993, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13718563.400-technology-how-a-supercontinent-went-to-pieces-.html.
[47]. Edited by Ken Ham, The New Answers Book (
[48]. Michael Oard, Frozen in Time (
[49]. Edited by Ken Ham, The New Answers Book (
[50]. “
[51]. “
[52]. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (
[53]. John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994), pp. 51-57.
[60]. Edited by Don Batten, The Revised and Expanded Answers Book, 32nd Printing, (
[61].Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," Anthropological Journal of Canada 19(3), 1981, pp. 9, 29 as quoted from the website: http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating-2.htm, and quoted in the book: John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (
[62]. Edited by Ken Ham, The New Answers Book (
[63]. Edited by Ken Ham, The New Answers Book (
[66]. Henry Morris, “Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology,” Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/circular-reasoning-evolutionary-biology/.
[67]. Niles Eldridge, Time Frames, 1985, p. 52, as quoted in the book: John D. Morris, The Young Earth, 13th printing (
[69]. “Ancient Creature of the Deep,” PBS-Nova, PBS Airdate: 21 January 2003, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3003_fish.html.
[70]. A.E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (
[73]. John D. Morris, “An Amazing Anomalous Fossil,” Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/amazing-anomalous-fossil/.
[74]. Steven A. Austin, “Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column,” Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconceptions-about-geologic-column/.
No comments:
Post a Comment