Is
it quite certain that the earth is old as geologists declare? Yes, it is quite
sure. Even the Geoscience Research Institute of SDAs now admits this (after
denials of decades). The proofs run into scores, of which perhaps five percent
are questionable. For example, under the South Downs of England lie about 800
feet of chalk. These deposits are composed of tiny organisms, which sank to the
ocean floor after death, taking about 1,000 years to form one inch of chalk.
Think of the White Cliffs of Dover. Every microscopic fragment of it was once
living. The present color testifies that these cliffs were not the product of a
catastrophic flood.
Pitman:
I'm
not quite sure where Ford gets the idea that Geoscience Research Institute (GRI)
actively promotes the theory of an old geologic column? I don't think GRI
is nearly that "progressive". I personally know several who
currently work at or closely with the GRI who strongly support a young age model
for at least a large portion of the geologic column. Timothy Standish, Leonard
Brand, and Arthur Chadwick, to name a few well-credentialed well-published
scientists, strongly support the concept of a young age for much of the geologic
column and for life on this Earth. Leonard Brand, in particular, published
a fairly recent paper explaining his views on the global nature of the Noachian
Flood and of the recent origin for much of the geologic column as a result of
the Flood and its aftermath (see Link).
Arthur Chadwick's unique work on paleocurrents is also quite interesting in this
regard (Link).
As
far as chalk deposits are concerned, thick chalk deposits, such as those as
dramatic as the White Cliffs of Dover, are actually evidence of catastrophe on a
massive scale - not the slow uniformitarian interpretation so common in
mainstream literature.
These
white chalk deposits are a very pure type of limestone composed almost entirely
of calcium carbonate, which originally belonged to trillions upon trillions of
microorganisms to include foraminifera, calcareous algae, coccoliths, and
rhabdoliths.While living, the
habitat of these creatures is in the upper 100 to 200 meters of the open ocean.
When they die, their calcium-rich shells settle down on the bottom of the ocean
floor up to 5 km below the surface of the ocean.Below this depth there is little accumulation due to the dissolving of
the calcium carbonate into the ocean water before it reaches the bottom.That is why tall underwater mountain peaks have a "snow-capped"
look to them.When they die, it is
estimated that it takes up to 10 days for the microscopic bodies to settle onto
the bottom of the ocean floor with an overall average accumulation rate of 1 to
8 cm per thousand years.
Now,
given that the White Cliffs of Dover are about 400 meters thick, it would seem
to be a matter of simple math to establish the hypothesis that this much chalk
would take at least 10,000 years to produce just one meter of chalk - - or over
4 million years to produce a layer 400 meters thick!In fact, mainstream geologists suggest that it took around 10 million
years to form the Cliffs of Dover. Obviously, that's a very long time.How then can the Cliffs of Dover really represent catastrophic conditions
and extremely rapid formation?
It
gets worse than this.Some
geologists have estimated that if all of the creatures that form the chalk beds
were living at the same time, they would cover the entire planet to a depth of
at least 45cm.1 It is argued that there wouldn't have been enough
energy from the sun to support such a biomass or enough carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere to enabled the production of all the calcium carbonate needed by that
many microorganisms.2
How
are these challenges answered by Young Earth Creationists (or Young Life
Creationists like myself)?
Well,
under certain conditions these microscopic creatures are able to mass-produce
themselves in truly enormous quantities - hundreds of thousands of times more
than usual.These masses of
microscopic life are called, "algal blooms".
Usually,
these blooms are associated with significantly increased nutrients that enrich
the water as the result of some sort of contamination/pollution event or
catastrophe or when the water becomes exceptionally warm.Sometimes these blooms become so massive that they can be seen from outer
space (see illustration; Link).
These bloom conditions produce up to 10 million organisms per liter of
ocean water.6
Now,
consider that calculations that assume only 100 organisms per liter of ocean
water show that the entire thickness of the White Cliffs of Dover could be
produced within 1,000 years.3 What would a concentration 100,000
times as great due to this time span?
But
what about the sheer mass of chalk-type calcium carbonate produced?All the limestone contained within the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary
layers form around 17.5 million cubic meters of rock.Not all of this is chalk, of course, but let's just assume that it is for
a minute. Some fairly simple calculations show that only 12.5 million square
kilometers of ocean area (only 2.5% of the Earth's surface) is needed to produce
17.5 million cubic kilometers of chalk within 1,700 years given a concentration
of only 100 organisms per liter.4 Again, given the nutrient-rich
bloom conditions described above, that certainly doesn't seem all that
overwhelming to the concept of a young geologic record - does it?
The
problem with anti-catastrophist arguments is that many of them assume that these
chalk
beds had to have been formed within the one year of the Noachian Flood.That's not true at all.The
Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary layers likely followed the main flooding event
before the continents had been split apart and started forming large mountain
chains and ocean trenches.The ocean
basins immediately after the main catastrophe of the Noachian flood would have
been fairly shallow and filled with massive quantities of nutrients.The microorganisms would have gone wild producing diatomaceous blooms
larger than can be imagined - large enough to bury and preserve very large
creatures, like articulated whales!How
does one bury a whale in chalk at a rate of a few centimeters per thousand
years?
In
this line, the fairly recent discoveries of fossil whales (Miocene/Pliocene) in
western Peru are quite interesting. Leonard Brand (Ph.D. in Paleobiology from
Cornell) comments, "In our survey of the area, we found the fossil remains
of more than 100 whales in an area of less than two square kilometers… What
was even more exciting was the well-preserved nature of the fossil remains. . .
Typically, when a whale dies at sea, the carcass falls to the bottom and becomes
the source of a rich ecosystem. Many species of sea life benefit from the
decaying remains at each stage of the process. Within four to six months, the
whale carcass has been mostly stripped down to the bones. At that point, other
species of organisms burrow both into the bones and the surrounding sediment.
Within a year or two, the whale bones show much evidence of these burrowing
animals." 5
So,
how did the whales in western Peru meet their end? "These whales were
incredibly well-preserved," Brand observes, "suggesting that they were
covered quickly." Brand found that the whale remains were blanketed by a
thick layer of diatomite (silica remains of diatoms). These tiny creatures,
known collectively as plankton together with dinoflagellates, are part of the
food source for whales. In modern times, diatomite normally accumulates on the
sea bottom at a rate of a few centimeters per thousand years. "We also
found beautifully preserved baleen," he adds. Baleen refers to the
filtering feather-like structures in the whale's mouth that are used to strain
out food (plankton) from the water. "Whales feed by gulping in water and
forcing it out through the baleen, trapping the tiny plankton." Baleen is
actually more akin to the human fingernail or toenail in its structure.
"The well-preserved baleen supports the theory of a quick burial to an even
greater extent." 5 Other similar though arguably less
dramatic discoveries have also been published in earlier papers.7
But
why did these whales (and other kinds of preserved creatures) die in the first
place? "There is more and more evidence that red tides--blooms of diatoms
and dinoflagellates--produce toxins which can kill large animals and fish,"
he says.5 These massive blooms were so large that they not only
killed the whales, but buried them in thick layers before any significant decay
could set in.If this find does not
prove the reality of rapid chalk deposition, I don't know what does?
The
very purity of these chalk beds should cause one to question the uniformitarian
paradigm.It is very hard to
imagine how the very high level of purity of calcium carbonate could have been
maintained over millions of years without the incorporation of significant
amounts of contaminate material?Rather,
given a period of relative calm following a series of shortly spaced massive
watery catastrophes on a global scale (as indicated by the Biblical account and
numerous extra-Biblical cultural legends of a Noachian Flood), the oceans would
have been both relatively warm and nutrient rich (from all of the killed,
buried, and floating organic material).Such
a situation would have produced massive algal blooms on a global scale such as
the world has never seen before or since.8
2.Morton, G.R., 1984. The
carbon problem. Creation Research Society Quarterly 20(4):212–219 (pp.
217–218).
3.Roth, A.A., 1985. Are
millions of years required to produce biogenic sediments in the deep ocean? Origins
12(1):48–56.
4.Woodmorappe, J., 1986.
The antediluvian biosphere and its capability of supplying the entire fossil
record. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism,
R. E. Walsh, C.L. Brooks and R.S. Crowell (eds), Creation Science Fellowship,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Vol. 2, pp. 205–218.
6.Seliger, H.H., Carpenter,
J.H., Loftus, M. and McElroy, W.D., 1970. Mechanisms for the accumulation or
high concentrations of dinoflagellates in a bioluminescent bay. Limnology and
Oceanography 15:234–245.
7.(Reese, K.M. 1976. Workers find whale in diatomaceous earth
quarry. Chemical & Engineering News 54(42):40.).
Think
of the varves that run sometimes into millions in some
geographic locations, such as the Green River district in USA. Each varve (a
varve is a pair of distant layer of sediment) represents the climatic changes of
a single year . . .
Pitman:
Varves
are sedimentary layers generally interpreted as being laid down in a yearly
banding pattern with one varve being laid down once per year, like tree rings.
A
true varve consists of a couplet of summer silt and winter clay, a period that
is difficult to demonstrate. It
is thought that by counting the varves in a lakebed, one can determine a fairly
accurate age for that lakebed. Ancient dates are calculated for these lakebeds
using varves, sometimes into the millions of years based on varve estimates. In
the fall 1994 issue of Science Speaks, Don Stoner (1994) stated that the Green River
Formation of Utah, Colorado and Wyoming "contains more than four million
annual layers." He then says, "Obviously, this means that the lake
existed for millions of years before it disappeared."
This
is a great theory. It certainly sounds reasonable at first glance.
However, there are just a few problems with this theory. Multiple varves
are now known to form very rapidly in certain situations.
Buchheim
and Biaggi (1988) measured Green River Formation "varves" between two
volcanic tuff beds each two to three centimeters thick. Geologists
consider each tuff bed a synchronous layer, i.e., every point on that tuff bed
has the same age. The two tuff beds thus represent two different reference
times. If the laminations in between these two beds are annual layers, the same
number of layers should be present everywhere between the two beds. Buchheim and
Biaggi found the number of laminae between the tuff beds ranged from 1160 to
1568.
Lambert
and Hsà (1979) measured "varves" in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and
found up to five laminae deposited during one year. From 1811, which was a clear
marker point (because a newly built canal discharged into the lake), until 1971,
a period of 160 years, they found the number of laminae ranged between 300 and
360 instead of the expected one per year or 160.
Some
rather interesting experiments with varve formation have also been done. Julien,
Lan and Berthault (1994) experimentally produced laminations by slowly pouring
mixtures of sand, limestone and coal into a cylinder of still water. Using a
variety of materials, they found that laminae formed if there were differences
in size and density of the materials and that the thickness of the laminae
depended upon differences in grain size and density.
Fischer
and Roberts (1991) state, "In some cases the observer counting varves is
left in doubt as to which couplets are varves and which are subvarve units, a
matter that was handled in our image analysis varve counts by arbitrarily
counting only variations above the 30 micron level." In other words, they
arbitrarily chose 30 microns as the minimum thickness to be used for computer
analysis. However, many laminations are less than 30 microns thick. Also, many
of the "varves" consist of organic layers squeezed together with very
tiny carbonate laminae in between. There is no consistency in varve structure.
Geologists
have suggested other causes of lamination as potential contributors to varves,
including storm events, turbidites and glacial meltwater. Each one of these is
aperiodic, producing laminations with no relation to annual or other cyclic
processes. For example, turbidity currents from melting snow or heavy rain
produce extra couplets.
Our
investigations supported de Geer's first contention that sediment-laden
floodwaters could generate turbidity underflows to deposit varves, but threw
doubt on his second interpretation that varves or varve-like sediment are
necessarily annual.(Lambert and Hsa,
p. 454)
Turbidity
currents can mimic varves, especially at the end of the flow that is farthest
from the source or sediment. (Hambrey) Many supposed varves are multiple
turbidity current deposits and do not represent seasonal changes.
It
is very unfortunate from a sedimentological viewpoint that engineers describe
any rhythmically laminated fine-grained sediment as 'varved.' There is
increasing recognition that many sequences previously described as varves are
multiple turbidite sequences of graded silt to clay units...without any obvious
seasonal control on sedimentation. (Quigley, p. 151)
Turbidity
flows have the surprising ability to deposit silt and clay quickly in equal
thicknesses. Under normal conditions, silt usually settles in a few days and
clay can take years to settle.
As
both clay and silt fractions are transported to the site of deposition at the
same time, successive surge deposits are likely to have similar proportions of
silt and clay. In other words, thick silt layers will have thick clay layers,
and thin silt layers will have thin clay layers. (Smith, pp. 198-199)
Turbidity
flows are independent of season and can continuously deposit microlaminae
throughout the year, including the winter:
In
many cases where large ice lobes or glaciers sit or float in lakes, there is
year round delivery of sediments and turbidite activity occurs almost
continually resulting in graded laminae that are not true varves. (Quigley, p.
152)
How
many varve-like layers form from year to year becomes anyone's guess. Wood
(1947) describes peak river inflows after light rain that deposited three
varve-like couplets in two weeks. Just as we have seen in many situations, e.g.,
stalagmite and canyon formation, strata deposition, and fossilization, time is
not the essential factor for their development, although evolutionists insist
that such things took much time to form. While evolutionary catastrophists admit
rapid formation, they almost invariably propose long periods of tedium between
catastrophic events. (Ager)
Steve
Austin, who has done much field work at Mount St. Helens, documented in his new
book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe
(see announcement on last page) that the volcano eruption produced 25 feet
of volcanic ash varve-like deposits from hurricane-velocity surging flows in
five hours.
To
summarize the above findings:
Controversy
exists as to the source material comprising varves as well as the mechanism
of their cyclic formation.
Lamination
counts in historically known sections have been demonstrated not to
correspond to elapsed years or counts are inconsistent.
There
is frequently uncertainty as to how many laminations constitute a varve and
the use of arbitrary minimum sizes may lead to erroneous conclusions.
There
are many nonseasonal mechanisms for producing laminations such as storms,
floods, turbidites, glacial meltwater and spontaneous segregation of
dissimilar materials. All of these causes of laminar deposits indicate that
varve-like laminations are a common effect of many nonseasonal processes.
Various
materials that decay rapidly over time, such a delicate leaves, have been
found extending through many "annual" varve layers (see above
photo).
For
references and additional information see Link.
Ford:
.
. . and a multitude of other features of earth give the same testimony as radiometric
dating.
Pitman:
The
problems with radiometric dating are legion.It might not seem like it at first glance, but the whole process is
highly subjective.Many of the
methods do indeed "agree" with each other - but this is not an
objective agreement because they are calibrated against each other.I go into the problems of calibration, 'tuning', and other problems with
various radiometric and other related dating techniques at:
As
just one example of how various dating methods do not
agree (and there are many), consider the topic of tektites.
Tektites
are thought to be produced when a meteor impacts the Earth.When the massive impact creates a lot of heat, which melts the rocks
of the Earth and send them hurtling through the atmosphere at incredible
speed.As these fragments
travel through the atmosphere, they become superheated and malleable as they
melt to a red-hot glow, and are formed and shaped as they fly along.It is thought that the date of the impact can be dated by using
various radiometric dating methods to date the tektites. For example,
Australian tektites (known as australites) show K-Ar and fission track ages
clustering around 700,000 years.The
problem is that their stratigraphic ages show a far different picture. Edmund
Gill, of the National Museum of Victoria, Melbourne, while working the Port
Campbell area of western Victoria uncovered 14 australite samples in situ
above the hardpan soil zone. This zone had been previously dated by the
radiocarbon method at seven locales, the oldest dating at only 7,300
radiocarbon years (Gill 1965). Charcoal from the same level as that
containing specimen 9 yielded a radiocarbon age of 5,700 years. The
possibility of transport from an older source area was investigated and
ruled out. Since the "Port Campbell australites include the best
preserved tektites in the world ... any movement of the australites that has
occurred ... has been gentle and has not covered a great distance"
(Gill 1965). Aboriginal implements have been discovered in association with
the australites. A fission-track age of 800,000 years and a K-Ar age of
610,000 years for these same australites unavoidably clashes with the
obvious stratigraphic and archaeological interpretation of just a few
thousand years.
"Hence,
geological evidence from the Australian mainland is at variance, both as
to infall frequency and age, with K-Ar and fission-track dating" (Lovering
et al. 1972). Commenting on the above findings by Lovering and his
associates, the editors of the book, Tektites, state that, "in
this paper they have built an incontrovertible case for the geologically
young age of australite arrival on earth" (Barnes and Barnes 1973, p.
214).
This
is problematic.The argument
that various radiometric dating methods agree with each other isn't
necessarily true. Here we have the K-Ar and fission track dating methods
agreeing with each other, but disagreeing dramatically with the radiocarbon
and historical dating methods.These
findings suggest that, at least as far as tektites are concerned, the
complete loss of 40Ar
(and therefore the resetting of the radiometric clock) may not be valid
(Clark et al. 1966). It has also been shown that different parts of the same
tektite have significantly different K-Ar ages (McDougall and Lovering,
1969).This finding suggests a
real disconnect when it comes to the reliability of at least two of the most
commonly used radiometric dating techniques.
In
short, it seems like fission track dating is tenuous a best - even when
given every benefit of the doubt.It
is just too subjective and too open to pitfalls in interpretation to be used
as any sort of independent measure of estimating elapsed time. (see Link)
Another
example that really builds confidence in radiometric dating is the assumed
age of the Grand Canyon. Originally, the Grand Canyon was thought to have
started to form some 70 million years ago as the Kaibab started its uplift
around that time. This opinion was popular in the early 1900s and
lasted for about 50 years or so (Link).
It was even supported by radiometric dating. However, the popular view
of the age of the Grand Canyon began to evolve downward over time and ended
up at around 5.5 million years by the 1970s or so.
This
view lasted until around 2002 when researchers from Arizona suggested that
catastrophic lava dam failures in the Grand Canyon would have significantly
reduced the time needed to carve it. They estimated that the age of at
least the western part of the Grand Canyon should be reduced from 5.5 Ma to
around 600,000 years. They even started calling the Grand Canyon a
"geologic infant" (Link)
(Link).
Then,
in 2007, a group of researchers (largely from Arizona and New Mexico)
published their work on argon-argon dating (40Ar/39Ar
dates) of the Grand Canyon. They argued that earlier 40K/40Ar
dates indicating that Grand Canyon had been carved toessentially
its present depth before 1.2 Ma, were significantly off base. Their
own calculated ages were all <723 ka, with age probability peaks at 606,
534, 348,192, and 102 ka (Link).
As low as 100,000 years? Wow, now that's a significant reduction!
This
view didn't last very long before being challenged by the research of
another group that decided, in 2008, to date the canyon with
another radioactive dating method (uranium - thorium). Using this
method on samples taken from near the bottom of the Canyon, these
researchers think they have "pushed back [the Grand Canyon's] assumed
origins by 40 million to 50 million years" and maybe by as much as 60
million years "to the time of the dinosaurs" (Link).
During
this same year (2008) a different group from New Mexico used a
"recently-improved technique [uranium-lead dating of calcium carbonate
precipitates] to date mineral deposits in cave formations in one layer
of the canyon's rock and arrived at the more ancient age of 16 million to 17
million years old" (Link).
What's
going on here? The assumed age of the Grand Canyon starts out old,
then becomes a "geologic infant" and then gets old again - all
depending upon which dating technique one decides to use? That's a
real confidence builder in the reliability of various dating techniques and
how well they "agree with each other" if you ask me. I mean,
the differences in these age estimates aren't just a little bit different.
They are orders of magnitude different!
In
this same line, the very same thing happened to Mather Gorge and
Holtwood Gorge in Pennsylvania. These gorges were
once thought to have eroded over the course of 1.8 million years based on
geochronological and radiometric age calculations. However, in 2004 research measuring
beryllium-10 levels (the measurement of beryllium-10 that builds up in
quartz when exposed to cosmic rays) done by Luke
J. Reusser, a geologist at the University of Vermont in Burlington, and
other colleagues, suggests that these gorges my be as young as 13,000 years
instead of 1.8 million years.
Now
that's a real confidence builder in the reliability of radiometric dating if
you ask me! It seems like one could probably do better by just
guessing! Yet, mainstream scientists scoff at the idea that these
features, many of which show clear evidence of massive catastrophe involved
in their formation, could not have been formed within just a few thousand
years? - based on what? Can these scientists produce anything
significantly more reliable? Judging from their historical estimates,
it doesn't seem like they really have anything all that solid to go on.
Ford:
Do
not evolutionary scientists reason in a circle when they
date strata by the fossils and vice versa? George McCready Price, that good and
learned man, taught so. But he was wrong, as almost all SDA scientists now
admit. Radiometric dating and comparison of the sequence of strata in all
continents have made Price's views untenable.
Pitman:
Not
if the assumptions of radiometric and other forms of dating are themselves
largely subjective and often circular - and many of them are.
Outside of the problems with radiometric and other dating methods already
mentioned above, consider the following report of a conference in which
the whole concept of tuning was attacked by Richard Muller.
"Muller scored the most points at the meeting when he attacked a standard
technique, called tuning, that oceanographers use for dating layers in sediment
cores. The task of dating these strata is difficult because sediments may
accumulate more quickly during some eras and more slowly in others. To tell the
age of layers between known benchmarks, researchers often use the Milankovitch
orbital cycles to tune the sediment record: They assume that ice volume should
vary with the orbital cycles, then line up the wiggles in the sediment record
with ups and downs in the astronomical record.
"This whole tuning procedure, which is used extensively, has elements of
circular reasoning in it," says Muller. He argues that tuning can
artificially make the sediment record support the Milankovitch theory.
Muller's criticisms hit home with many researchers. "He scared the hell out
of them, and they deserved it," says Broecker."
Also
consider the problems with Uranium-Lead dating - thought to be one of the most
reliable independent dating methods of all. This dating method has very
subjective elements to it. Consider a paper published in the October 2004
edition of the journal Geology - by Turner et al. The
authors in this paper dated the Devonian-Carboniferous boundary at a location in
Germany to 360.7 million years using uranium-lead dating applied to thirteen
zircon crystals. The zircons were subjected to air blasts, then heating
and soaking in acid solution for days to make as sure as possible that any
contaminants were removed. After all of this cleaning, only 5 of the 13
zircon dates were kept and published. Why where the results of the
majority of the zircons thrown out? Because, they "yielded impossibly
old dates" and were said to be "inherited" zircons that were
previously formed and then included in the younger magma during its formation
and subsequent ash production.
"On
the basis of 13 analyses (single zircons or zircon fragments), a younger
zircon generation of 5 analyses is distinguished from older zircon
generations (Table 1). The latter, obviously inherited [i.e., formed
in earlier periods], yielded 207Pb/206Pb ages of 444 to 2044 Ma (Table 1).
The abundance of Precambrian ages is a remarkable feature; note that no
inherited zircons were detected in the study of Claoué-Long et al.
(1992). The error ellipses of the older zircons are clearly separated
from a tight concordant cluster of the five youngest zircon analyses, which
yield a 206Pb/238U concordia age of 360.5 ± 0.8 Ma (Fig. 2A). This
age is interpreted as the crystallization age of the comagmatic zircon
population and thus the time of eruption of the ash."
Trapp
et al., “Numerical calibration of the Devonian-Carboniferous
boundary: Two new U-Pb isotope dilution-thermal ionization mass
spectrometry single-zircon ages from Hasselbachtal (Sauerland,
Germany),” Geology,
Vol. 32, No. 10, pp. 857–860, doi: 10.1130/G20644.1.
Another
example of selective use of data to meet preconceived notions is from 2004 paper
published by Turner et al in the journal Science. The
scientists discussed evidence for extinct plutonium-244 in Australian rocks
dated at 4.2 billion years old. Plutonium-244 has a half-life of 82
million years. The authors, Turner et al., begin by assuming Pu-244
was well mixed within the cloud that presumably formed the solar system.
Since the Australian rocks are assumed to be among the oldest on earth, they
wanted to determine the ratio of plutonium to uranium (Pu/U) for clues to the
early evolution of the earth. Xenon-136 would have been produced primarily
by the more rapidly-decaying plutonium-244 in the early years of the earth, then
the slower-decaying uranium-238 would gradually have predominated; but the ratio
is so low, .004 to .008, that U tends to overwhelm the contribution from Pu
unless the rocks are older than 3.8 billion years - according to the authors.
To
test their hypothesis the scientists extracted eight tiny zircon crystals, just
50-200 millionths of a meter in size, from rocks they claimed are up to 4.1 to
4.2 billion years old. Detecting xenon in such a small grain – a
quadrillionth of a cubic centimeter – is beyond the range of most instruments,
"comparable to blank levels and sensitivities of conventional noble gas
mass spectrometers" (i.e., the instrument would show no xenon at all).
So, Turner and his colleagues developed a more sensitive instrument - two orders
of magnitude more sensitive (i.e., 100 times more sensitive). Using this
new instrument, they found a few thousand atoms of xenon per zircon crystal.
They then measured the xenon isotope ratios from the eight zircons and graphed
their results. Only two of them fell on the expected Pu/U ratio
line expected from the age of the rocks, compared with ratios measured in
meteorites which presumably predate the formation of the earth.
The
other six were "discordant," or off from their expectations by 24% to
97%. The authors explained that, "This could be the result of
preferential loss of the earlier-formed Pu xenon or the result of chemical
fractionation of Pu and U during or before the formation of the zircons."
How can this be, since they say "Xe is at least as strongly retained as Pb"
in zircon crystals? Well, lead has also been found to leach out of
zircons, and these crystals have been through a long, wild ride: "Nevertheless,
Pb loss associated with metamictization is commonly observed in zircons, and,
given the antiquity and complex history of the ancient [sic] detrital zircons,
it is likely that loss of Xe will also have occurred in a portion of our
samples". This history could have included "diffusion or
recrystallization events" and other metamorphic processes. Most of
the loss would have been early on, when plutonium production of xenon dominated,
according to their model, so that explains why the ratio fell short of
expectations. "To be more definitive requires an additional
relationship between the time of Xe loss and the degree of loss," they
suggest.
Turner
et al., “Extinct 244Pu in Ancient Zircons,” Science,
Vol 306, Issue 5693, 89-91, 1 October 2004, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1101014].
Now,
I don't know about you, but all of this sounds quite subjective to me with
more than a few indirect assumptions being brought to bear on the final
calculations. Again, the majority of the measurements aren't even
accepted as being correct. Not quite a directly calculated non-biased
radiometric age. . . or so it seems to me.
Additional
information can be found at the following Link.
Ford:
"God spoke,
and it was. He commanded, and it stood fast," refers to the certainty of
his creative work, not its duration.
Pitman:
I suppose that is why God took the time to repeat
himself so often by describing his act of creating life on this planet "in
six days"?- - to include the
additional description of "evenings and mornings"?I find it hard to imagine how one could describe literal days of creation
any more clearly if one wanted to?If
all God wanted to convey to us is the "certainty of his creative work",
why all the extra filler detail describing spans of time and other specifics of
his creative or miraculous activity that weren't quite accurate - not even close?
It seems to me that it would have been better to say nothing at all than
to say so specifically that he created "in six days" delineated even
more specifically by "evenings and mornings".
You see, in order to establish a firm basis for
belief in the certainty of God and his creative work, we must have some sort of
evidence of his activity that is actually testable and consistent with his own
claims of what he has done.Otherwise,
where is the basis for a reasonable belief in the very existence of God - much
less the certainty of his creative work?
Ford:
Other evidences
of the earth's great age, which are almost universally accepted by specialists
in the earth sciences include the following: The multitude of oil drills
in the U.S. alone testifies to the reliability of accepted geological data. A
fortune is regularly spent based on this research. There are literally hundreds
of places around the world where the same sequence of strata appear.
Pitman:
The
massive size of similar sedimentary layers covering major portions of continents
and sometimes the majority of the entire globe is actually more consistent with
catastrophic conditions acting over a very flat landmass.Notice that these sedimentary layers are universally very flat relative
to each other. The world millions of years ago must have been a very very flat
place indeed.Notice also that there
is little erosion preserved between these flat layers.The contact zones themselves are very flat as well.Strange that such features should exist given the uniformitarian notions
of those proposing such long spans of time to explain these sedimentary layers.
Is
the geological column an established fact? It is, and has been so since 1849, by
which time correlations had been made between strata in England and European
countries.
Pitman:
Agreed.The geologic column is a fact.The
question here is not if it exists, but what does it mean?Does it support slow uniformitarian ideas or a more catastrophic
interpretation?As it turns out,
catastrophism is actually gaining some ground - even within mainstream science.Consider the following statement of Robert Dott published in a
1982 edition of Geotimes:
"I
hope I have convinced you that the sedimentary record is largely a record of
episodic events rather than being uniformly continuous. My message is that
episodicity is the rule, not the exception. . . We need to shed those lingering
subconscious constraints of old uniformitarian thinking."
Dott,
Robert H., Presidential Address to the Society of Economic Paleontologists &
Mineralogists, Geotimes, p. 16, Nov.
1982
Even
in mainstream thinking, the huge amounts of elapsed time are no longer thought
to be recorded in the building of the layers themselves within the geologic
column.The majority of elapsed time
is thought to have passed by in-between the layers - for the most part.This is a big step away from uniformitarian thinking and toward a notion
of some form of "punctuated equilibrium".It isn't too much more of a leap to end up with a rapid shortly-spaced
sequence of massive catastrophic events to explain both the geologic and fossil
records.
Ford:
Think
of coral reefs, sometimes forty miles long and of great
height and thickness.
Pitman:
This
is a common argument, which is interesting to me since these supposed
"reef" formations aren't really reefs at all.In other words, they do not represent in
situ growth and formation.Rather,
they are conglomerate deposits of fragments of coral and other materials into an
embankment of sorts.For example,
the Thornton Quarry 'reef', near Chicago, does not match any of the
characteristics of a modern reef.The
'core' of this reef shows no growth structures and is the wrong shape.The angle of the reef is too steep, reef binding organisms are absent, a
solid foundation rock is absent, and the reef is riddled with fossil tar,
indicating rapid deposition, not slow growth.1Also, investigations of assumed 'reefs' in Australia2
and Europe3 also reveal that they did not grow in situ, but were transported and dumped into place.
When
investigated with more than superficial interest, fossil reefs really do not pan
out as true reefs, but are depositional structures much more consistent with
catastrophic flood models than with slow uniformitarian notions of formation.Rather than being a problem for catastrophic models for the geologic
column, these 'reefs' actually provide very good evidence for the catastrophic model.
1.D’Armond,
D.B., Thornton Quarry deposits: a fossil coral reef or a catastrophic Flood
deposit? CRSQ 17(2):88–105, 1980.
2.Roth, A.A., Origins:
Linking Science and Scripture, Review and Herald Publishing Association,
Hagerstown, Maryland, pp. 239–241, 1998.
3.Scheven, J., The
Flood/post-Flood boundary in the fossil record; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings
of the 2nd International Conference on Creationism, Creation
Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 247–266, 1990.
Ford:
The
oilfields of the Great Lakes area, Texas, and Alberta were originally beneath
the sea and the thousands of feet of sedimentary rock that piled up contain
multitudes of marine fossils. On top of these sedimentary deposits coral reefs
grew which ultimately because fossilized into limestone. Some of these are many
miles long and about a thousand feet thick and required many thousands of years
to develop. On top of these reefs are more layers of sediment upon beds of mud -
only after the sediments became rocks did coral edifices begin.
The Bahamas Banks are underwater mountains of sedimentary rock enormous in size
and containing what has been described as "one tremendous stack of fossil
material". These banks have steeply sloping sides, evidence that the
fossils grew in place and were not deposited from elsewhere. Millions of years
were required for these massive banks to grow.
Pitman:
The
coral reefs of the Bahamian Banks are tertiary reefs.Even according to mainstream thinking these reefs are no older than
120,000 years old.No older in
situ fossil corals, or other subtidal deposits, have been found subaerially
exposed anywhere in the Bahamas (Link).Millions of years where not required for these in
situ formations to grow - even by mainstream thinking.
Beyond
this, other reefs, like the Eniwetok Atoll (~4,600ft thick) thought to have
taken around 175,000 years to form, aren't really built entirely of coral.The Eniwetok Atoll rests atop the surface of a submerged volcanic
seamount. The entire thing is composed of corals as well as calcerous algae,
foraminifera, echinoderms, oysters and so forth, which are cemented together to
form the 'reef' (Link).In other words, the framework of a coral reef can trap sediments and
other materials.In this situation
the live coral would not have to build the entire mass of the reef, but only
build a framework to hold the sediments. This situation would allow for a much
more rapid growth of a reef vs. that suggested by coral growth rates taken from
surface measurements (i.e., usually less than 10 mm per year).In fact, actual soundings of reefs carried out during the 1930s suggest
that a reef framework can grow much more rapidly.Sewell (1935) reported 280 mm/year in the Andaman Islands in the Bay of
Bengal, and Verstelle (1932) reported a maximum rate of growth of 414 mm/year in
the Celebes (Dutch East-Indian Archipelago). At
such a rate, the entire thickness of the Eniwetok Atoll could have been formed
in less than 3,500 years instead of the usually suggested 175,000 years of
growth.Even by surface
measurements, some species of coral can grow quite rapidly. Lewis et al. (1968)
found in Jamaica a maximum rate of 264 mm/year. Shinn (1976) studied the growth
of this species following destruction in a hurricane near Florida. He estimated
linear growth rates of 100 mm/year.Experiments
also suggest that one can nearly double such rates of coral growth by raising
the temperature 5ºC or by increasing the carbonate ion content of seawater (Link).
Even
by conventional dating, the seas are supposed to have been over 100 meters lower
20,000 years ago, before the "great ice melt", and, before then, the
sea-level was abruptly higher and the coral could not have survived. Therefore,
a continuous coral reef vertical development "for 175,000 years",
according the uniformitarian calculations, would be highly improbable.
J.
Verstelle, ‘The Growth Rate at Various Depths of Coral Reefs in the Dutch
East-Indian Archipelago’, Treubia 14:117–126, 1932.
Ford:
Sedimentary
rocks become metamorphic rock only under the
combination of tremendous heat and pressure - temperatures of about 600 degrees
centigrade and pressures of 30 tons per square inch, for long ages of time. . .
Pitman:
The
creation of metamorphic rock does require great heat and pressure, but not great
periods of time.Given sufficient heat and pressure, metamorphic changes can be realized
in very short order.For example, fairly recent studies on Norwegian metamorphic rocks have
shown that their metamorphic condition must have been produced in "ten
years or less" - and this is according to mainstream thinking (see Link;
and references below).
Camacho, A., J.
K. W. Lee, B. J. Hensen, and J. Braun, 2005. "Short-lived Orogenic
Cycles and the Eclogitization of Cold Crust by Spasmodic Hot Fluids."
Nature, 435:1191-1196.
Kelley, S., 2005. "Hot Fluids and Cold Crusts." Nature,
435:1171.
Jamtveit, B.,
H. Austrheim, and A. Malthe-Sorenssen, 2000. "Accelerated Hydration
of the Earth's Deep Crust Induced by Stress Perturbations." Nature,
408:75-78.
Austrheim, H., and W. L. Griffin, 1985. "Shear Deformation and
Eclogite Formation within Granulite Facies Anorthosites of the Bergen
Arcs, Western Norway." Chemical
Geology, 50:267-281.
Bjornerud, M.,
H. Austrheim, and M. G. Lund, 2002. "Processes Leading to
Eclogitization (Densification) of Subducted and Tectonically Buried
Crust." Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(B10):2252-2269.
Ford:
The
Bible says nothing precisely about the age of the earth.
Chronologies indicate descent not a chronological line. Terms such as,
"begat", and "son", do not in Scripture always have the
meaning we now give them. "Begat" can mean "the ancestor
of," and "son," can mean a distant descendant. Scripture begins
its story of the human race at the time when both writing and civilization began
(and when earth's population was much less than one percent of what it is now),
and never attempts to convey supernaturally any information man himself can find
out by using the gifts God has richly bestowed upon him. We see this truth best
illustrated in the teachings of Christ himself, and it was his Spirit that
inspired the Old Testament writings.
Pitman:
I
suppose that is why Jesus specifically referred to the prophecies as evidence of
God's hand behind the scriptures?He
also specifically referred to the creation account of Genesis, as well as the
flood, as literal events.
If
we could find out all of the truths listed in the Bible concerning us, our
origins, why we are here, and where we are going, what is the point in having
the Bible given to us by the miracle of Divine inspiration?- a supernatural interference by God himself?Beyond this, what evidence is there that God had anything at all to do
with the creation of the Biblical texts if they contain nothing within their
pages that is actually beyond the capability of human ingenuity and/or
creativity?
I
would like to ask Ford upon what basis does he rest his belief on other
metaphysical claims of the Bible that are clearly beyond our human ability to
test or confirm - such as the so called "virgin birth", the
incarnation of God, the resurrections of the dead, the New Earth, Heaven, and
eternal life?Perhaps these notions
are simply symbolic as well?How do
you know?
Ford:
Continental
drift with its inconceivably slow movement also demonstrates the earth's great
age. Denied by scientists till after World War II, continental drift is now
widely accepted.
Pitman:
Even
I believe that continental drift happened and is happening.The question is, did it always happen in the past at the same rate as it
is happening today? - in a uniformitarian manner?The clear answer to that question is no. The drift was much much faster
in the past than it is today.In the
same way that crashing cars slow down very quickly after the initial point of
impact takes place, the continental plates are slowing down very quickly after
their collision with each other.
Consider
that it takes a great deal of energy to form great mountain chains and ocean
trenches.That energy is rapidly
being dissipated.There is simply no
known force that can continue this sort of energy expenditure over hundreds of
millions of years without being rapidly exhausted.The current drift is simply the feeble remnants of the original
catastrophic release of energy, rapid drift, and massive continental plate
splits and impacts.
As
evidence for a fairly recent separation of the continents consider the fact that
they still seem to fit together pretty well (see illustration) despite
separating from each other some 200 million years ago?- really?Continental erosion
and deposition rates along the edges of exposed continental plates alone are far
too great for the continents to fit so well if at all after 200 million years of
elapsed time.
For
further discussion of continental drift see the following Link.
Ford:
It is
estimated that ninety-nine percent of coal seams are readily
explained by the burial of vegetation in tropical swamps to be ultimately
metamorphosed into coal. Coal reserves equal approximately 65 pounds of coal for
every square yard of the planet, and yet a whole forest of full-grown beeches
can only yield a seam of about 2 centimeters. No universal flood could ever have
produced the gigantic coal contents of our globe. Most coal seams are devoid of
flowering plants, trees, or the pollen found in recent sediments. Most of
earth's strata, including the coal layers are finely arranged and not at all
what the destructive work of a great flood would have yielded.
Pitman:
Ford
seems to forget that before the Noachian Flood there were no great oceans.The Earth was one vast landmass watered by four great rivers and
innumerable springs and "fountains".It didn't need to rain because of this extensive watering system that
turned the whole world into one huge very rich garden paradise. There were no
vast deserts of either land or sea.All
was rich and green and vibrant.The
amount of animal and plant life sustained before the Flood at the same time was
truly enormous.
The
notion that the massive coal seams that exist today can be generally explained
by slow burial over massive amounts of time in tropical swamps does not explain
the general purity seen throughout some of the worlds most massive coal
deposits.Note
the following comments published in a 1993 article in Earth Magazine,
"Powder River Coal: Geologic enigma, environmental dilemma":
Powder
River coal seams run remarkably thick and unsullied by other material.
Usually, unwanted sediment such as clay washes over a deposit before coal seams
can get very thick. But Power River coal is packed in immense strips, some more
than 200 feet thick. These seams stretch vast distances up and down the basin.
"They're hundreds of miles long. They're fifty miles wide." says James
McClurg, a geologist at the University of Wyoming. "They're not
little pods of an acre or two. They're immense things." McClurg, who
has studied the basin for more than a decade, says "No other place in the
world has as many seams 50 feet or more thick. But, the Powder River basin
is not only an economic resource. To geologists, it's also an intriguing
scientific enigma. Geologists have been studying the basin for more
than a century, largely to answer a baffling question: How did the seams get so
massive? Or more precisely, why weren't the seams diluted by influxes of clay
and other impurities before they thickened?" He adds, "It would
be like blindfolding yourself, spinning around, and hitting the center of a
dartboard one-hundred times in a row."
Rather
than the sorted and purified features of coal being a problem for a concept of a
Noachian flood deposit, these features are very difficult to explain without the
sorting and concentrating properties of water on a massive catastrophic scale (
see Link
).
And,
as far as pollen goes, does Ford not know that pollen, spores, and fragments of
vascular plants have been found in both Cambrian pre-Cambrian deposits? such as
the Salt Range beds in India?- and
that these findings have been published, unchallenged, in mainstream literature?
(see Link
)
Ford:
The
Yellowstone Fossil Forests have in one place 44 successive
forest layers that are encased in rock that was formed by volcanic ash. Beneath
the forests are thousands of feet of fossiliferous rock. SDA paleontologist, Dr
Richard Ritland, after considerable field work at the site, wrote, "The
transport theory for the origin of the fossil forests of the region as suggested
by Whitcomb and Morris is not in harmony with the facts." Creation and
Evolution, p. 130
Pitman:
What
kind of argument is this?An
argument from authority is simply not convincing here.Where is the evidence to support the notion that these successive
'forest' layers are actually forests?
What
is interesting about these places (ie: Yellowstone National Park were up to 65
different layers can be found
with trees in the vertical position) is that the trees are still oriented in
their positions with each other.Their
“soil” is also found to be water
sorted (course to fine), and often is found half way up a tree instead of at its
base.This organic material also
averages only 3 cm in thickness and, for many of the "forest" layers
it is missing altogether.In some
areas, such as Mt. Hornaday, as many as 43% of the forest layers have no organic
layer at all.The lower layers of
Specimen Creek generally do have organic layers (96%), but the upper layers of
Specimen Creek have far fewer organic layers.It turns out that the average "forest" without an organic layer
to is about 24%.It seems rather
strange for a forest to grow into full bloom without forming an organic layer.How is this explained?
Another
strange finding of the organic layers is the fact that they are sorted in
various ways.Take for instance the
fact that pine needles and leaves are not mixed together, but are found in
separate organic layers despite the fact that there are both pine and hardwood
trees "growing" from the same organic layer(s).Also, the are proportionately less pine needles than there are leaves
even in areas that are dominated by conifers.In a real forest, conifers drop a much higher mass of needles than
deciduous trees drop leaves.And
yet, in the fossil forests of Yellowstone, needles are relatively sparse even at
the bases of large fossilized conifers.This
interesting fact has been recognized as far back as 1899 when Knowlton remarked
about the absence of needles in the organic levels associated with the large
fenced petrified tree near Roosevelt Lodge in Yellowstone National Park.One would expect to find great numbers of sequoia needles and some cones,
since most of the upright trees are sequoia (70%). However, large numbers of
broad leaves and only a few pine needles are seen in the organic levels. Sequoia
needles were rare or absent. Although petrified sycamore stumps are not common,
leaves of sycamore are the most abundant broad-leaf fossils. It is also
interesting to note that, despite a heavy predominance of sequoia trees,
fossilized sequoia cones are very rare in the fossil forests of Yellowstone
National Park.This taxonomic
sorting seems quite strange indeed unless one uses a catastrophic model
involving flood such as occurred during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.In water, pine needles become saturated and sink before leaves sink.
Pollen
is another problem.Trees with
wind-transported pollen, such as walnut and sycamore, should have left a pollen
record in the forest floor, but little or no pollen of these two has been found.Modern forest floors contain pollen in abundance inversely proportional
to the distance from the source trees especially trees for which wind is the pollen-transporting agent. Research
done on four levels of Specimen Creek Petrified Forest showed no positive
correlation between fossil pollen abundance and the proximity of possible source
trees.
The
organic layers themselves also show no significant decay as one goes from top to
bottom.In a real forest floor,
organic material decays.Evidently,
this does not happen in the forests of the past because the leaves at the bottom
of organic layers are just as well formed as preserved as the leaves at the tops
of these organic layers.Also, the
material between the leaves is sorted, course to fine as one moves upward
(Consider the figure at the right).Evidence
for such water sorting occurs in about 70% of the organic layers.
There
is yet another problem with the intermittent burial of forests by volcanic
activity and mud-slides. If a volcanic mud slide buried only the lower
parts of the trunks of the trees of a growing forest (as might be suggested by
the fact that some of the upright trees penetrate overlying layers), the
taxonomic composition of the new forest that grew on this new surface would be
similar to the composition of the forest that was buried. The cones, seeds,
nuts, and fruits would fall from the unburied branches and foliage and
repopulate the new surface with a similar forest. Such correlation between
adjacent levels of the Specimen Creek Petrified Forest has not been found.
The
normal maturation of soil also involves the slow breakdown of feldspar and other
minerals into clay. Out of 65 layers of Specimen Creek in Yellowstone
National Park, only nine bands of clay were found among only seven organic
layers. Horizontal sampling of two of the clay bands at 2.5 - 3 m
intervals for 30 m showed a constant mineral distribution. Abundant unweathered
feldspar is scattered throughout the Yellowstone organic levels, suggesting
repeated rapid burials. None of the 58 organic levels outside the 9 bands of
clay contained detectable amounts of clay. The apparent absence of clay in the
majority of levels (implying that normal weathering of soil did not occur)
raises questions about the passage of long time intervals between levels. This
datum also questions the validity of the assumption that the organic levels
(upon which trees with hundreds of rings sit) represent true soils. Furthermore,
the sudden abundant appearance of clay in a few horizontal bands that included
both organic levels and layers of clay in the associated breccia beds between
levels suggests transport rather than in situ formation of the clay
minerals.
Despite
much study of the Yellowstone Petrified Forests, no animal fossils have been
found. Why are animal remains absent from the plant fossil-bearing levels of
Yellowstone? Because forests would be expected to harbor a wide variety of
animals, some of which would be buried by the successive mud slides, the absence
of animal fossils has been a mystery. Volcanic activity could have caused larger
forest animals to flee elsewhere, but flight cannot be used as an explanation
for the absence of all animal remains because many animals could not or would
not leave their forest habitats. Land snails, some amphibians and reptiles, many
insects, arachnids, and worms would not escape burial. Immature members of many
types would be unable to flee. In addition, bones, eggs, teeth, scales, molted
skins, castings, droppings, burrows, etc., would qualify as evidence of animal
life. None of these have been found in the fossil forest organic levels during a
century of research. Considering that delicate plant parts are excellently
preserved, animal remains should also have been preserved if they were present.
Only one exception is known. Remains of termites have been found in chambers
within the petrified wood.19 If the petrified trees are
standing where they originally grew and if the organic levels are the growing
surfaces still intact and undisturbed, the absence of animal fossils is
difficult to explain. If, however, the trees and the organic debris making up
the soil levels were transported by water, the separation of animals from the
plants before burial is much easier to explain.
The
volcanic ash found in the various layers is itself is quite interesting.
The chemicals that make up the ash are uniform throughout all the layers.
In fact, there are only four unique chemical patterns to be found in the ash of
Specimen Creek. Spark source mass spectrometry analysis of trace elements
in the bands of ash revealed pulses of ash from four source areas for the
Specimen Creek Petrified Forest. The four trace element profiles
interweave in an irregular manner up the sequence of 65 organic levels of
Specimen Creek Petrified Forest. If these 65 ash layers (organic levels) were
laid down over a long time span, the ash that was laid down thousands of years
later near the end of the series of ash eruptions would have changed
sufficiently to produce a new and different trace element profile (a new
"fingerprint"). This has not been the case. The rapid burial of the
whole sequence seems to be required.
The
root systems of the upright stumps seems to be a main argument in favor of their
in situ growth. Of course, some of the petrified trees have broken
roots; but when were they broken? Even if a permit to collect petrified wood
within the park is obtained, excavation of stumps is not permitted; furthermore,
digging is difficult in the hard rock. Consequently, to determine if the root
breakage seen is pre- or post-petrification is difficult. Several examples of
abrupt root terminations from Mt. Hornaday, Mt. Norris, Tom Minor Basin, and
Specimen Creek strongly indicate that, at least in some cases, the tree roots
were broken before the trees were buried by volcanic gravels and muds. This
evidence supports the view that the trees were transported. However, small
rootlets can be located at the bases of upright stumps, and this feature has
been used to argue against transport. Observations in Spirit Lake near
Mount St. Helens and of trees uprooted by bulldozing operations show that the
small roots and rootlets are usually still intact, but the larger roots are
usually broken (See Figure). The presence of small roots extending from
the base of a petrified tree therefore is not evidence for an in situ interpretation
unless large roots also extend unbroken. Broken and frayed large roots could be
the result of changing stream currents eroding the bases of growing trees, but
such activity should leave evidences in the sediments. Furthermore, erosion must
be limited; otherwise, trees would be removed or toppled.
If
a forest were killed by a mud flow that buried the bases of the trees, the tops
of the trees would extend above the new ground surface. They would overlap a new
second forest that would commence growing on the new surface. During the time of
the growth of the new second forest (before it in turn was buried by another
volcanic mud slide) the old first forest snags would have time to rot, to be
infested with insects, and to break drown. Even the tops of stumps that reached
only to the root area of the second forest level (no actual overlap) would also
be expected to experience decay. The soil in which the roots of the second
forest grew would not be a good preserving medium for the tops of the stumps
extending up from below. One of the striking features of the Yellowstone
petrified trees is their good preservation. If pieces of the petrified wood are
prepared as microslides, the wood tissue may look nearly as fresh as tissue from
a living tree. Seldom do they exhibit any evidence of decay and weathering. This
suggests that the trees have not been subjected to these processes during the
passage of time.
The
parallel orientation of the horizontal logs, mentioned earlier, is better
explained by water or mud transport. The dip of the beds from which the trees
arise seldom exceeds 7° which is not enough to cause all the trees
to fall downhill. Prevailing winds or volcanic blasts could align fallen trees,
but they would not cause the long axes of the cross-section of the upright
stumps to have a similar compass alignment. The asymmetry of the cross-section
of a stump, especially at its base, is usually a result of the influence of
major roots that cause flare to extend for some distance up the stump. Volcanic
lahars (fast-moving volcanic mud slides) or currents of water or mud could be
the forces that acted on roots and trunks to produce similar alignment for both
stumps and logs. Modern forests do not show the degree of orientation that the
fossil forests of Yellowstone show. This orientation seems to speak for
catastrophic transport and against in situ forest growth.
One
of the first observations made when research commenced on the petrified forests
was the barkless condition of both the horizontal and upright trees. Subsequent
examination has revealed some thin layers of bark remaining on a few of the
trees. In addition to the trees being mostly barkless, all the branches have
been broken off. Even large branches, 25 cm or more in diameter, have been
removed. Only scoured stubs remain on the tree trunks. Trees buried and later
excavated by water erosion during the eruption of Mount St. Helens did not have
all the bark or limbs removed. Trees floating for a period of time in turbulent
water would more likely lose bark and branches due to softening of the bark and
abrasion. Considering the fact that modern trees often sink in water in the
vertical position, a catastrophic model seems to be the best explanation for
these findings.A massive flood,
burying layer upon layer of sedimentary material in quick succession, seems to
be at the very least, plausible.
The
eruption of Mount St. Helens and the resultant flooding in locals such as Spirit
Lake might offer some insights into how the stacked forests of Yellowstone might
have formed.The floating log raft
in Spirit Lake does in fact provided some insights on taxonomic sorting. Most of
the stumps sitting erect on the bottom of Spirit Lake are Silver Fir, Nolle Fir,
and Hemlock. Douglas Fir, abundant in the surrounding forests, has only 2.2%
representation. Sampling of the trees in the floating raft solved this
discrepancy; 48% are Douglas Fir. Apparently this species is more buoyant and
resistant to water saturation. Cedar was represented by 2.2% of logs floating in
the lake; yet the surrounding forests contained a higher percentage of cedars.
Sampling of the broken wood pieces along a transect on the shore gave 11% for
cedar. Some of the erect trees floating in the lake or standing on the lake
bottom are over 20 m tall. The argument that tall petrified stumps must be in
position of growth does not apply to a flotation scenario. The flotation of
organic matter (including trees in an upright position) as illustrated in Spirit
Lake at the base of Mount St. Helens provides a model for interpreting the
upright petrified trees of Yellowstone. Trees and plants will float
vertically when there is sufficient water and time. The research at Spirit Lake
helps explain the presence of the organic layer at the level of the roots.
Saturated organic debris sinks to the lake bottom to produce a layer of organic
matter. Upright floating trees also have dropped out of suspension onto the
bottom of Spirit Lake in a spacing pattern similar to that of growing forests. They are not jumbled together
in log jams as might be expected.
Some
have argued that Spirit
Lake is not a good analog for the Yellowstone Fossil forests, because the large
number of logs accumulating on the bottom of Spirit Lake very different from the
more scattered fossil logs and stumps in Yellowstone. However, one important
difference between the two deposits is that Spirit Lake has not had adequate
sediment input to bury the sinking logs and stumps. If the 1980 Mount St. Helens
eruption had been followed by a series of volcanic breccia flows into Spirit
Lake, spaced long enough apart to bury successive sets of logs and stumps as
they sank, it would likely have produced a deposit very similar to the
Yellowstone Fossil Forests.
If
this is not yet convincing, these same trees were studied to see if they might
have matching patters of growth in a tree-ring analysis.Matching patterns of growth would be highly unlikely if the trees lived
thousands of years apart in time.In
1991, Dr. Michael Arct presented such a study for his PhD dissertation (building
upon research that he had been doing since 1979).He sampled fourteen fossil trees at different levels in a twenty-three
foot section of the Yellowstone formations.Analysis showed that all fourteen trees matched and that ten of them died
at the same time.The other four
trees died seven, four, three, and two years before the other ten died.The theories of ancient formation no longer seem to match the facts
available.
For
references and further information on this topic see Link.
Ford:
But
what about the universality of the Deluge? Because there is
no geological evidence of a worldwide deluge, most evangelical scholars believe
that the Genesis Flood covered the existing civilization, not the entire globe.
Others believe that the inspired writers took a well-known historical event of
limited proportions and used it to teach theological truth, transcending mere
history, which is never an end in itself in the Bible. When John Morris of the
Creation Research Institute was asked if he had ever convinced a secular
geologist regarding flood geology, he answered, "No." Furthermore,
flood geology is no necessary accompaniment of belief in a universal flood.
Pitman:
This
argument is like asking Ford if he had ever convinced an atheist of the
existence of God.The same could be
said for the story of Noah - was the truth of Noah's claim of a pending flood
dependent upon the belief of the "expert opinion" of his day?Does a lack of belief among mainstream "experts" today really
mean there isn't any solid evidence?Hardly.Take a look at the story of J Harlen Bretz for a striking illustration of
what mainstream bias can do to cause the experts of the day to ignore or
misinterpret otherwise overwhelming evidence (Link).
Beyond
this, John Morris has been instrumental in convincing several secular scientists
of the relatively young age of the geologic
and fossil records - even if he didn't realize it.Walter Veith is an interesting example (Link).
Walter
J. Veith obtained his doctorate in Zoology from the University of Cape Town in
1979. While senior lecturer in Zoology at the University of Stellenbosch from
1979 -1987, he became convinced that the theory of evolution he was teaching was
fundamentally flawed - and that young life creationism actually made more sense.This change of heart was in no small part due to the work of John Morris.
As
far as the Biblical story of the Noachian Flood goes, this story doesn't make
any internal sense at all unless it refers to a truly universal flood.It makes no sense to tell Noah to build an Ark over the course of a
hundred plus years if the flood is going to be some local event.Why not just tell him to move out of the local area?It also makes no sense to bring all the varieties of land animals into
the ark for preservation if the flood is going to be local.What about the wicked people? How
is a local flood going to wipe out all the wicked people described in the
Genesis account?Is the building of
the Ark simple a curiosity to act as a decoy to get everyone concentrated in the
same flood valley to wipe them all out at once?The story simply makes no sense at all give the notion of a local
flood - - even without mentioning the fact that Jesus read it very literally and
so did all of the other Biblical writers that mention it (as does Ellen White
who claims to have been shown the Flood in vision and to have discussed it with
her angel messenger). For those who claim to be SDAs and to believe that
Ellen White had any form of Divine inspiration, how can such a liar be inspired
at the same time? Either Mrs. White was honest in her claims of what she
was shown, or she was a liar - or perhaps just schizophrenic? How can you
have it both ways?
On
the flip side of the coin, if Ford doesn't believe in the Biblical support for a
world-wide flood or a literal creation week, what kind of support does he have
to believe in any other statements of the Bible that are not directly verifiable?- like the Virgin Birth or the resurrection of the dead (both of which
are scientific impossibilities as far as modern science is concerned)? At
some point, even Ford, as a theologian, has to disagree with the opinions of
mainstream scientific experts when it comes to the basis of his own religious
beliefs. Otherwise, what can Ford point to as evidence for any of the
metaphysical claims of the Bible? - to include the very existence of God
himself?
If
someone asked Ford for some sort of solid testable potentially falsifiable
evidence for God's existence, I wonder what Ford would come up with as an
answer? - an answer that did not contradict mainstream science in some
fundamental way? Would Ford argue, as some theologians do, that,
"Belief in God is based on Faith, not Science"?
I hope not. What good is blind faith or personal revelation when it comes
to giving someone else a solid hope in the future? We'd be better off not
having the Bible and its pages of fairy tales and moral fables. I would
think God would do better than that if he really wanted us to have some sort of
solid basis for belief in not only his existence, but the goodness of his
character, his love for us, and the trustworthiness of his promise to "give
us hope and a future" beyond this life of endless heartache, pain, and
death (Jer. 29:11).
Ford:
The
geological column points to death long before the arrival of
man. Did not death begin at the Fall? Scripture teaches that all human death
began with the Fall. In a creation such as we live in, existence is
protoplasmic--that is, acting upon existing life. Otherwise, the sea would soon
be solid fish, and the atmosphere a mass of insects. When Adam ate his first
piece of fruit, obviously he took its life. It may help to remember, as we look
at difficult questions, that God's work in creation is as mysterious as his own
nature. Indeed, mystery is a key word used by many recent scientists as they
discuss both the beginning of life and of humanity.
Pitman:
We
aren't talking about orange peals here or some prick on the finger.We are talking about the self-aware suffering of billions of sentient
creatures over hundreds of millions of years.Would anyone want to worship a God who would call such situation "very
good" (Genesis 1:31)?If even
we in our fallen human condition have sympathy for sentient animals, what does
God feel when he sees even the suffering of a little sparrow as it falls wounded
to the ground (Matthew 10:29)?What
is the need then to make everything new? - to notice that all sentient life on
this planet groans and travails in pain together until now?(Romans 8:22). Would any of us actually feel absolutely at ease in a
place where a lion is able to happily munch on a lamb?How is that "Good"?Yet,
according to Ford's argument, it seems like this sort of thing might actually be
a "necessary evil" in the New Earth - - in order for the current order
of things to continue. Otherwise, "the sea would soon be solid
fish" or the land a solid mass of lions, tigers, and bears . . . oh my!
I
think Desmond Ford mistakes the current "order of things" for the way
they have to be or were intended to be.The
sea would not be a solid mass of fish given a limited need for reproduction in a
place where there is no need to replace the dead.I mean really, Ford's argument here doesn't hold water since the very
same argument could be used for humans as well.Without death, even relatively slow human reproductive rates would fill
the planet to overflowing in very short order. We'd be wall-to-wall humans
before the start of the next millennium without death to cull the
population. Will these "necessary evils" have to be applied to
human life as well in the New Earth? I don't think even Ford would like
that idea. So, how does his logic really apply here?Think about it.Things will
hopefully be very different than they are now in the New Earth - for humans as
well as all other sentient creatures in God's universe. As a theologian,
how does Ford get around this?
But
what about the argument that when Adam ate the fruit of the garden, the fruit
lost its life?Therefore, there
obviously is death - even in the New Earth and in Heaven as well!
It is true that once the apple is eaten, it no longer exists as an
"apple". That can be defined as a sort of "death" of
something that used to be and no longer is. I agree, but no one
cares about the death of non-sentient things that are not self aware. Plants,
bacteria, and the like, while arguably alive, are essentially biosystem robots
that help maintain the place.They
have no apparent sense of self and cannot experience suffering or pain in any
real sense of the word. That is why
the diet of all sentient animal life, to include human life, was originally
limited to a plant-based diet. (Genesis 1:29,30).This is also why Inspiration specifically points out that modern meat
eaters, like the lion, will no longer eat meat in the New Earth, but will
"eat straw like an ox" (Isaiah 65:25).What is the point of such a promise if it were not a painful aberrancy in
God's universe to have sentient creatures eating and being eaten by other
sentient creatures? - the Law of Tooth and Claw? If that is such a good
law, why change it for a creature like a lion?
Now,
I have had very intelligent people tell me that if a lion became vegetarian that
it would no longer really be a "lion".Well, I guess that all depends on how one defines what it means to be a
"lion".Certainly the
current nature and dietary requirements of a lion will not be the same in the
New Earth - according to Inspiration.The
old lion "order" will no longer exist - that's true.That sort of lion, with its degenerative dietary requirements (it is
functionally more complex to be able to eat straw vs. meat), will indeed be
extinct.But will anyone wish to
trade the new and improved vege lion for the old meat-eater version?Not me!
"He
will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or
crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." (Rev.
21:4)
Andrews
University Seminary Studies,
Vol. 46, No. 1, 83-90.
Sean
Pitman
August,
2008
FERNANDO CANALE: CREATION,
EVOLUTION, AND THEOLOGY: THE ROLE OF METHOD IN THEOLOGICALACCOMMODATION
Review by:
R. E. TAYLOR
Prof. Emeritus, Anthropology,
University of California
Riverside, California
Taylor:
[Canale]
insists that scientists “dismiss supernatural revelation as an invalid
source of information on which to build their views” or that scientific
methodology “disregards the existence of God and his revelation in Scripture
as fantasy”. In point of fact, for the vast majority of scientists of whom
this author is aware by personal contact or reading of their writings, it is
not a matter at all of “dismissing” supernatural revelation as fantasy or
“disregarding” the existence of God or his revelation. The core of the
scientific impulse in Western scientific thought, almost from its inception,
sought to express no opinion on the subject of the supernatural—it neither
rejected nor accepted the existence of God. A “scientific approach” to a
given topic is characterized by a set of methodological understandings—one
of which is that naturalistic causes are the only agents to be employed in any
scientific argument. The “supernatural” was defined as outside of its
purview. That Canale is not aware of this simple consensus understanding
suggests that he either may have not read very deeply in the history of
science or perhaps finds it difficult to understand this approach.
Pitman:
It
is also my own experience that many if not most mainstream scientists try very
hard to separate "science" from "religion" - - as if these
studies do not overlap at all.While
this certainly is a common argument, I for one do not understand it.How can one arrive at any opinion of any "truth" that exists
outside of the mind without at least some testable potentially falsifiable
evidentiary basis? - i.e., "science".
I
once asked a prominent scientist at Loma Linda University (who also believed
that his religious beliefs were independent of his scientific theories) to
name just one thing that he believed to be true that was not subject to
testing or potential falsification.He
quickly responded, with a sly smile, that he knew that his wife loved him and
that this truth was not subject to testing or to potential falsification.I then asked him what he would do if I gave him a video of his wife
having an affair?His face turned
a bit red and he said rather sharply, "I'd believe my wife".He then suggested very strongly that I never put my own wife, "to
the test".
The
problem, of course, is that we all put our loved ones "to the test"
every day - even if it is done subconsciously.My notion that someone else loves or does not love me is based on some
sort of physical testable evidence that gains predictive value over time.I mean really, if I came home one day and my wife hit me on the head
with a frying pan as I walked through the door, told me all kinds of hateful
things, and continued to do so on a regular basis over a many days and months
(and I knew that she wasn't medically ill), I might begin to doubt my love
hypothesis - - as would anyone in a similar situation.Why?Because the physical
evidence is no longer consistent with the predictions of my love hypothesis.That's what makes it a valid potentially falsifiable
"science" - in a very real sense of the term.It is the basis behind a book that was fairly popular recently (part of
the Oprah book club) entitled something along the lines of, "She's just
not into you".When this sort
of thing happens, there's really very little that one can do about it.One can live in a fantasy world and ignore all the signs, as some
battered and abused spouses often do.Or,
one can accept the reality of the evidence and move on.
Sure,
some truths are known absolutely, without the need for testing or potential
falsification.For example, the
fact that I love my wife is absolute.No
one can argue with me.I need no
external physical evidence to derive this truth - because it is internally
known.The same is true of the
fact that I like vanilla ice cream.I
don't need to test it.It isn't
open to potential falsification.No
one can argue with me.Why?Because it is an internally-derived truth.
So,
is God like vanilla ice cream?Is
the idea that God exists or that God actually loves me an internally derived
truth? - a truth that is beyond the need for physical evidence or potential
falsification?Unless God
specifically talks to me directly, which he has yet to do by the way, how is
it possible for me to know that he exists at all, much less believe that He
loves me?
Erv
Taylor, in particular, noted in a very public forum that he would not know
what to tell his own granddaughter if she asked him for evidence of God's
existence.Yet, he says that he
believes that God does in fact exist.Based
on what?How can a belief that God
exists be more meaningful than a child's belief in Santa Claus without any
physical testable potentially falsifiable evidence?Is such a belief anything more than wishful thinking or living in a
fantasy world?
This
sort of thing seems to me to border on a form of benign insanity.In fact, I think that some atheists, like Richard Dawkins, are much
more consistent in their thinking than is Erv Taylor and many others in his
camp (Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, Fritz Guy, John Baldwin, Desmond Ford,
etc) who try to draw a sharp dividing line between science and religion.Rather, it seems to me that the two can and should be one in the same.In fact, many of the most brilliant scientists who have ever lived
believed them to be one in the same - i.e., that there was no dividing line at
all between science and religion.These
great pioneering scientists actually believed that their science was an
attempt to study the very mind of God Himself.
Taylor:
Canale
is also profoundly misinformed concerning the relationship between
evolutionary biology and geochronology. While it is correct that biologists
utilize the geochronological framework in their efforts to understand rates of
evolutionary change, the contemporary geological time scale does not depend on
any assumptions about biological evolution. The core data that geochronology
depends upon derives primarily from research in such diverse fields as
biochemistry, geochemistry, geophysics, and, above all, nuclear physics and
nuclear chemistry. None of the critical data derives from evolutionary
biology. It is simply factually incorrect to state, as Canale does, that
geochronology is structured “by assuming biological evolution”.
Pitman:
The
fact is that Darwinian-style evolution is dependent upon there being vast
spans of available time.Without
these millions and even billions of years of available time, Darwinian-style
evolution wouldn't be tenable - even within mainstream thinking.It is largely because of this recognized need for vast spans of time
that many experiments and observations within mainstream science have been
bent to match this bias.Consider,
for example, the dating of the hominid scull KNM-ER 1470 (Homo
habilis).The dating of this
skull and the overlying volcanic ash (KBS tuff) was dramatically modified
several times (ranging from 1.8 to 220 million years).The original 220 million year date for the tuff was not questioned
until it became necessary to question this date. The parameters upon which
"acceptable dates" were determined were largely based upon
pre-established age parameters which where themselves based on evolutionary
assumptions.For more information
on the dating of KNM-ER see the following link:
Dalrymple
and Lanphere sum what may be taken as a circular element to radiometric dating
in the statement, "If the potassium-argon ages of a group of rocks agree
with the stratigraphic sequence, determined on the basis of physical
relationships of fossil evidence, then the probability is good that
radiometric ages are reliable..."
Dalrymple
and Lanphere, Potassium-Argon Dating,
Principles, Techniques and Applications to Geochronology, pp. 197.
Taylor:
Finally,
although there are some scientists who do indeed argue that “real things are
only those that can be ascertained through sensory perception and/or
technological enhancement”, the core constituencies of the mainline modern
scientific community express no views about the ontological nature of reality.
This is a domain of philosophy and theology. Scientists in their personal
lives can and do hold and express a whole range of views—from an absolute
ontological atheism to membership and active participation in very traditional
faith communities.
Pitman:
I'm
not sure I even understand this argument.Ontology is all about determining or at least questioning what actually
exists vs. what does not exist.It
seems to me that science is fundamentally involved with answering certain
ontological questions . . . like, "What are an object's properties or
relations and how are they related to the object itself?"That is an ontological question and it is also a scientific question.As another example, one might ask if there is any evidence of
extra-terrestrial intelligence?-
- as in the search for ET (i.e., SETI science)? Does ET exist or is there any
evidence at this time for the existence of ET?This is both an ontological and a scientific question. What about Santa
Claus?Is there any evidence for
the existence of Santa Claus?Are
you telling me that this question is absolutely beyond the realm of scientific
investigation?If so, how can
anyone reasonably come to a point where they believe the existence of Santa
Claus to be at least unlikely?
The
same thing can be said for God.Is
there evidence of God's existence?That
ontological question is indeed within the realm of scientific investigation.Those scientists who hold membership in faith communities without this
sort of evidence are living in a fantasy world as far as I can tell.They are doing nothing more than wishful thinking.God is nothing more than a nice comforting fairy tale, like Santa
Claus, but not really anything more solid than that.
I
mean really, Erv Taylor sees no evidence for the existence of God which he is
willing to share.Yet, he calls
himself a Seventh-day Adventist Christian in good standing?How can he really be part of anything more than a social club given
that sort of thinking?
This
sort of thinking, "Has a form of Godliness, but denies its power"
(2Tim 3:5).
Taylor:
In
the view of this reviewer, the most glaring problematic aspect of this volume
is the author’s assumption that his interpretation of the data received from
his reading of the Bible comes directly from God. Creationist perspective,
which a reader would assume means his view, he argues, “springs from
divine revelation, God’s summary account of his handiwork. . . . Theological
data originates [sic] from divine revelation and inspiration.” It
appears that it is on this highly questionable foundation that Canale builds
the core of his complex arguments. It would appear that Canale assumes that
theologians who agree with him obtain their information directly from God and
thus can be trusted to provide entirely accurate information about how the
world and life upon it came to be. Theologians who disagree with him and
almost all scientists obviously do not receive their information from God and
thus cannot be trusted to provide the correct answers to these questions. This
reviewer will leave it to the reader to evaluate that position.
Pitman:
The
argument that the Bible is Divinely inspired in a very special and often in a
very direct way does not mean that the Biblical writers or us readers were/are
without error.Information is not perfectly
transmitted from God through the Bible to us by any means.However, this does not mean that the Bible is nothing more than an
ordinary human work without the clear markings of superhuman input.That's not true at all.Yet,
it is because we humans are subject and even prone to error both in recording
and in reading the inspired word that it should be left to the individual to
determine what God is trying to say through the pages of Scripture.Sure, it may be helpful to have access to the thoughts and experiences
of others to help one come to a better understanding of the Inspired Word, but
ultimately, it must be a personal effort outside of the forced influence of
anyone else.Even God himself will
not force truth upon anyone outside of his/her own consent.
Taylor:
It
has been pointed out to this reviewer that Canale is either not aware of or
disagrees with the clear and unambiguous views of Ellen White that the
“Bible . . . is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of
humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. . . . The Lord speaks to human
beings in imperfect speech” (Selected Messages, vol. 1: 21 (1890
ed.), 22 (1891 ed.).
Pitman:
As
noted above, it seems like this is a misrepresentation of the concept of
Inspiration when it comes to the type found within the pages of Scripture.A lack of perfection of information transfer does not mean a complete
lack of evidence, even scientific evidence, of the Divine - a power well
beyond human capabilities or even complete comprehension.
Taylor:
Canale’s
arguments are conceptually complex but, at their core, they advance an
essentially fundamentalist approach to Scripture and employ that approach to
endorse retrogressive arguments about how twenty-first-century Adventist
Christians should understand the Genesis creation narratives.
Pitman:
It
is always interesting to me how people tend to style their own positions as
"progressive" while the positions of those who might disagree are
"retrogressive". It is also interesting to me how change is always
seen as good, while any effort to maintain, in its original form, any aspect
of the past as valuable is also seen as "retrogressive" or short
sighted.
Taylor:
A
number of other Adventist theologians have already pointed out that a positive
appreciation of the role of the biblical Sabbath in an Adventist Christian
context does not depend on or require interpretations that the Genesis
creation narratives be understood as representing actual or literal history.
Pitman:
I'm
sure there are a large number of reasons to keep or appreciate a Sabbath rest
- any one of which might be quite beneficial and helpful to at least some
degree.It is the position of the
SDA Church as an organized body, however, that understanding the Sabbath as a
memorial of a literal creation week has additional benefits to those who
understand the Sabbath in this context.In
fact, the official organization of the SDA Church sees this particular view as
so important and fundamental that it has seen fit to include this view in its
very name.The SDA Church isn't
just the Adventist Church, as some at the progressive journal Adventist
Today might like, but is in fact the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Taylor:
Despite
its philosophical sophistication, Canale’s treatise is an exemplar of an
Adventist approach to a theological topic that is fatally trapped by its
wholesale commitment to a historically and culturally particularistic American
nineteenth-century conceptual package. The Adventism of the twenty-first
century in North America may have a meaningful future if it can reappropriate
and renew the commitment to “present truth” that was exhibited in the
nineteenth century when its original conceptions were formulated. However, the
general difficulty that established faith communities have in reevaluating the
validity and relevance of their original “present truth” messages do not
give us much confidence that this process can occur. The tragic results of the
recent Seventh-day Adventist Faith and Science conferences provide vivid
testimony of how difficult it is for religious traditions once solidified and
institutionalized to come to terms with reality.
Pitman:
I
really don't see why this is a problem in a free civil society - like what
exists in the United States of America at least.If anyone really thinks the SDA Church is stuck in a rut - or is
"fatally trapped by its wholesale commitment to a historically and
culturally particularistic American nineteenth-century conceptual package
(whew - now that's a mouthful!), then one is most certainly free to leave and
go elsewhere - or even create a new Church with new "progressive"
views. Why stay with any organization that is so obviously and tragically
off-base?Why would anyone wish to
continue to carry the label of such an organization?Why does Taylor call himself an SDA when he really doesn't believe more
than 4 or 5 of the stated fundamental positions of the SDA Church?
We
aren't talking about a question concerning one or two side doctrinal issues,
but huge fundamental questions that remove everything about the SDA Church
that makes it truly unique.Taylor's
positions, if accepted, completely remove the SDA Church from viability as a
unique entity. That, in my view, would be tragic indeed.
Now,
given that the White Cliffs of Dover are about 400 meters thick, it would seem
to be a matter of simple math to establish the hypothesis that this much chalk
would take at least 10,000 years to produce just one meter of chalk - - or over
4 million years to produce a layer 400 meters thick!
In fact, mainstream geologists suggest that it took around 10 million
years to form the Cliffs of Dover. Obviously, that's a very long time.
How then can the Cliffs of Dover really represent catastrophic conditions
and extremely rapid formation?
In
this line, the fairly recent discoveries of fossil whales (Miocene/Pliocene) in
western Peru are quite interesting. Leonard Brand (Ph.D. in Paleobiology from
Cornell) comments, "In our survey of the area, we found the fossil remains
of more than 100 whales in an area of less than two square kilometers… What
was even more exciting was the well-preserved nature of the fossil remains. . .
Typically, when a whale dies at sea, the carcass falls to the bottom and becomes
the source of a rich ecosystem. Many species of sea life benefit from the
decaying remains at each stage of the process. Within four to six months, the
whale carcass has been mostly stripped down to the bones. At that point, other
species of organisms burrow both into the bones and the surrounding sediment.
Within a year or two, the whale bones show much evidence of these burrowing
animals." 5 
Tektites
are thought to be produced when a meteor impacts the Earth.
Another
example that really builds confidence in radiometric dating is the assumed
age of the Grand Canyon. Originally, the Grand Canyon was thought to have
started to form some 70 million years ago as the Kaibab started its uplift
around that time. This opinion was popular in the early 1900s and
lasted for about 50 years or so (
Then,
in 2007, a group of researchers (largely from Arizona and New Mexico)
published their work on argon-argon dating (40Ar/39Ar
dates) of the Grand Canyon. They argued that earlier 40K/40Ar
dates indicating that Grand Canyon had been carved to essentially
its present depth before 1.2 Ma, were significantly off base. Their
own calculated ages were all <723 ka, with age probability peaks at 606,
534, 348,192, and 102 ka (
In
this same line, the very same thing happened to Mather Gorge and
Holtwood Gorge in Pennsylvania. These gorges 
Ford:
What
is interesting about these places (ie: Yellowstone National Park were up to 65
different layers ca
The
root systems of the upright stumps seems to be a main argument in favor of their
in situ growth. Of course, some of the petrified trees have broken
roots; but when were they broken? Even if a permit to collect petrified wood
within the park is obtained, excavation of stumps is not permitted; furthermore,
digging is difficult in the hard rock. Consequently, to determine if the root
breakage seen is pre- or post-petrification is difficult. Several examples of
abrupt root terminations from Mt. Hornaday, Mt. Norris, Tom Minor Basin, and
Specimen Creek strongly indicate that, at least in some cases, the tree roots
were broken before the trees were buried by volcanic gravels and muds. This
evidence supports the view that the trees were transported. However, small
rootlets can be located at the bases of upright stumps, and this feature has
been used to argue against transport. Observations in Spirit Lake near
Mount St. Helens and of trees uprooted by bulldozing operations show that the
small roots and rootlets are usually still intact, but the larger roots are
usually broken (See Figure). The presence of small roots extending from
the base of a petrified tree therefore is not evidence for an in situ interpretation
unless large roots also extend unbroken. Broken and frayed large roots could be
the result of changing stream currents eroding the bases of growing trees, but
such activity should leave evidences in the sediments. Furthermore, erosion must
be limited; otherwise, trees would be removed or toppled.
One
of the first observations made when research commenced on the petrified forests
was the barkless condition of both the horizontal and upright trees. Subsequent
examination has revealed some thin layers of bark remaining on a few of the
trees. In addition to the trees being mostly barkless, all the branches have
been broken off. Even large branches, 25 cm or more in diameter, have been
removed. Only scoured stubs remain on the tree trunks. Trees buried and later
excavated by water erosion during the eruption of Mount St. Helens did not have
all the bark or limbs removed. Trees floating for a period of time in turbulent
water would more likely lose bark and branches due to softening of the bark and
abrasion. Considering the fact that modern trees often sink in water in the
vertical position, a catastrophic model seems to be the best explanation for
these findings.
float
vertically when there is sufficient water and time. The research at Spirit Lake
helps explain the presence of the organic layer at the level of the roots.
Saturated organic debris sinks to the lake bottom to produce a layer of organic
matter. Upright floating trees also have dropped out of suspension onto the
bottom of Spirit Lake in a spacing pattern similar to that of growing