The Layman’s Guide to
The Amazing but Totally True . . . Scientific
Facts of Creation
By Wendy S. Scott
Geological Evidence: Brief List Of Facts
Disclaimer: The author of this guide is not a research
scientist. This information has been
compiled from an abundance of easily accessible and confirmed scientific
authorities. The majority of the
information is common knowledge in the scientific realm, while lesser known
facts are cited. Do not quote the author as a scientific authority. This guide is intended to systematically
build the case for Biblical Creation through the logical alignment and
application of the abundance of established scientific facts.
The author of this guide is not a research scientist. This information has been compiled from an abundance of easily accessible and confirmed scientific authorities. The majority of the information is common knowledge in the scientific realm, while lesser known facts are cited. Do not quote the author as a scientific authority. This guide is intended to systematically build the case for Biblical Creation through the logical alignment and application of the abundance of established scientific facts.
All undisputed facts in this guide are in bright blue.
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Explain it if you have understanding.” Job 38:4
According to all our observations, there is a stability within species and their biological processes today. In spite of this evidence, the theory of evolution insists that in the unobservable past, biological processes operated much differently. According to the same evolutionary model, though, geological processes are supposed to be dictated by the opposite assumptions about the past. These scientists claim that the geological processes witnessed today are the same processes that operated in the past, despite evidence to the contrary.
The difficulty with geological processes under the evolutionary model is that extremely long ages are necessary to allow for evolution to happen. Because of this, scientists must view geological formations from the perspective that it took millions of years to create them. The only way to do this is to impose the gradual, nearly imperceptible erosion processes we see today on all the world’s mountains, valleys, canyons, sedimentary deposits, and erosion zones, regardless of their catastrophic appearance. Geologists call this uniformitarianism. Unlike the other evolutionary fields, the motto for uniformitarian scientists is that “The present is the key to the past.”
Evolutionists disregard the implied contradiction between the predictability of uniformitarianism and the unpredictability of rest of the processes proposed for theory of evolution. The fact is that these two concepts are mutually exclusive. Scientists must contend that first the formation of the universe broke the laws of physics that we observe today, and they apply chaos as the mechanism for creativity. They must also accept that biological operations in the past broke the reliable genetic patterns we observe today, utilizing chaos again as the creative force.
All along, though, in these same conditions, the geological world created by this chaos is supposed to have immediately fallen into reliable physical operations, and the gradually erosive processes that have been completely maintained until today without globally catastrophic events. If the evidence supports these assertions, then certainly such an interpretation would be acceptable. The evidence does not. Not only have we already seen that chaos could not have created the complexities of the universe and life, but this geological section will reveal that the destructive forces of erosion have not always been slow and consistent. In fact, catastrophe is the best interpretation of the face of the world.
In light of the obvious contradiction, the only compelling reason for evolutionists to hang onto these gradual processes over millions of years is that if one has complete faith in evolution, it would by necessity have taken millions of years to occur. Otherwise, the geological record factually favors the Creation/Flood model. In science, one ought to be able to observe the evidence and make logical conclusions without regard to whether those conclusions are contrary to one’s expectations. In the instance of geological formations, however, the average person is capable of drawing such logical conclusions with little scientific background through casual observations.
This section proposes an appeal to logical thinking based on the natural processes we can observe in catastrophic events, the atmosphere, geological formations, and principles of hydraulics, sedimentation, erosion, mountain forming, and other information gleaned from the geological record. In concert, these observations help us to interpret this record of our geological past, and to draw sound conclusions based on our first hand knowledge of geological processes.
When we take the effects of known catastrophic episodes and compare them to the evidence of geological formations, there is a compelling resemblance. The record clearly indicates, through the impressive topographical features of the world, a story of quick bursts of catastrophe, followed by uniformity of an indistinguishable period of time. This evidence of catastrophe demonstrates how well the Creation/Flood model is supported by the actual geological features of the world.
Creation scientists have a great deal of factual support for the model they trust in. The evidence shows most logically that the world was formed, with all its unique features, intentionally. The uniqueness of our planet attests to this in every way, and the uniformitarian faith in coincidence is shattered by the beauty and perfection of balance that the earth maintains.
The earth is called the “living planet” not only because it has life, but because it has all the right physical and dynamic conditions to accommodate life. The first section already discussed the earth’s cosmological perfection. It is precisely the right distance from the sun, and the moon for temperature and tides, it has the perfect speed of rotation and tilt of its axis to engender tolerable temperatures and vital season changes.
Additionally, the earth’s geological and chemical package is uniquely suitable for supporting life. The earth possesses an enormous range of chemical and physical elements, and precisely meets the necessary conditions to keep these elements viable. If the earth’s gravity were too strong, our chemical atmosphere would be harsh. If the gravity was too weak, the necessary atmospheric chemicals would float away. If the earth did not have a hot interior, our planet would grow cold from the inside, like Mercury, and lose the vital dynamic of a molten inner core. If our planet were too hot, though, life would be impossible. All the other bodies and planets within our observation usually fail to meet any of these requirements, and always fail to meet all of them.
The earth exhibits so many factors of perfection that they all testify as facts of Creation. Even evolutionary science books cannot help marveling at the hundreds of perfect factors that we enjoy on our remarkable planet. This absolute edge of perfection is what is required to support life, which is unarguably more powerful evidence for design than it is for the instruments of chaos and chance. It would be necessary to write an entirely separate book on earth sciences in order to discuss simply the incredible facts of perfection that perform the concerto of our living planet. These facts confirm the careful planning of Special Creation. Evolutionists do not argue that the planet is not incredibly and perfectly balanced for life; they simply feel that this perfection is an inexplicable accident.
Even though these actual facts are indisputable, evolutionists offer subtle, but unsupportable explanations in order to fit them into their evolutionary perspective. These rationalizations are only fulfilled in conjecture, and not in the facts. For example, in the first section we discussed how evolutionists propose that the formation of the universe was the result of the Big Bang, and overstep the source of the materials. Rather than simply accepting these forced scenarios, we need to stop and break down the total implications of each.
Because evolutionists frequently misrepresent the true facts, or misrepresent concepts as facts themselves, the section that follows will have to address each of the evolutionary fallacies put forth about the formation of the earth, and its “early” state. By raising logical scientific objections, it is possible to think through and factually disprove each off-shoot assertion, which leaves only the rational and factually supported Creation Model as the best explanation. To do this, it is necessary to go back to the formation of the earth according to the cosmologist’s basic evolutionary model.
The main problem concerning these proposals about the “early” earth is that evolutionists cannot agree on what they believe these “early” conditions actually were. After the Big Bang, cosmologists propose numerous possibilities for how the earth itself was formed. Some say, unwaveringly, that the earth could have formed from a vapor of atoms that began to condense and heat up, leading to all the elements now melded together to form our planet. Others say that the earth was created by already formed debris discarded from the sun, or even that it was formed by hunks of rock left over from another further removed occasion.
No one knows which of these is the best option because these ideas are not based on the evidence, but on the faith that the universe was formed by itself, and therefore one of these ideas must be true. There is no evidence to clear up this important matter about the past because we only have the evidence of the scientific principles we observe today to guide us. These observations conflict with all these naturalistic assumptions, forcing evolutionists to create confusing scenarios in an attempt to account for everything.
The earlier section on Physics discussed in detail the difficulties with the formation of our planet after the Big Bang. If one brushes aside these problems, the next set of problems is just as crucial. One of these issues, which is unexplainable within Big Bang parameters, is the incredible abundance of water on the earth. Frankly, there is really a lot of water.
The problem with the presence of so much water on the early earth is how it got here. There is no agreed upon, or even feasible, explanation of how so much water came to the earth. Water is the most common chemical compound on the face of the earth, and covers 70% of our planet’s surface, totaling about 326 million cubic miles (one cubic mile has about a million, million gallons in it). This is not counting the water continually in vapor form above the planet. There are more molecules in one drop of water than the number of visible stars in the sky, and each molecule (just like every star) had to have a cause for its existence. If one believes that our planet was the result of the Big Bang, then a truly remarkable explanation is required for this incredible presence of water.
Because water poses such a difficulty for evolutionists, the explanation for this abundance of water must be geared to each scientist’s perception of the most realistic scenario for the formation of the earth. Depending on who you talk to, therefore, the water formed as a natural product of the Big Bang and either it was released as gas from a very hot earth, or it seeped out as water and vapor from beneath the planet’s cool crust.
The most humorous proposal has been that after the earth was formed, our profusion of water was delivered from outer space, by hitching a ride on a comet or some such extra terrestrial vehicle. Of course, this would be quite a lot of water to be hitching a ride, making this third concept absurdly unrealistic, and so common sense will simply be the argument against it. What a coincidence it would be for all that water to form in outer space somewhere, and then come to our nice planet for us. Imagine how huge that hunk of ice would be at 326 million, million, million gallons. Not only would it have left an incredible dent, but if there was any kind of atmosphere on the earth when it came, it would likely vaporize much of the water before it could reach the planet. Altogether this proposition is scientifically unreasonable, and only demonstrates the difficulty evolutionists have in explaining this abundance of water on earth.
There is good reason for the difficulty because the facts don’t allow a naturalistic explanation. Here are some factors to consider if we approach this from the evolutionists’ perspective: 1) the earth should have been very hot when it formed, or at some point, evidenced by the still hot mantle and core 2) the early earth would have had an unstable early atmosphere, from which evolutionists must exclude oxygen 3) we know that no new water is being significantly formed. These are some of the factors that make it difficult for evolutionists to come to a scientifically coherent explanation for the water on our planet. This little chemical wonder is quite a mystery.
Water is not an atom, but a molecule. Cosmologists might feel safe in saying that all the chemical elements of the universe formed naturally, and without further explanation, we are supposed to accept this. But water is a bonded molecule, not a single atomic chemical element (such as lead, or helium.) Though oxygen is a chemical element, and hydrogen is a chemical element, water is not an element. The water molecule is held together by a weak hydrogen, and chemical bond susceptible to breakdown.
Scientists must argue that the molecular bonds that form all the water that now resides on the earth came as a direct result of the explosive forces of the Big Bang, and survived the chaos of forming a new planet. The miracle of such a molecule is unfathomable. Though there are many chemical elements that scientists could argue resulted from the Big Bang, atoms could not possibly find each other and bond into molecules until after matter formed and began to cool. The formation of water molecules would depend on the right conditions—the Big Bang and the extreme heat are decidedly not suitable, and would only serve to drive the atoms apart.
Most evolutionists believe that the “early” earth began at some point as a ball of condensed molten elements, either as discarded from the sun, or when it miraculously heated up to bind and form the molten core. Despite the impossibility of water molecules forming and surviving such heat, they contend that they already existed within the molten planet. This theory proposes that out of this molten planet, pre-existing water molecules (and it would have to be a lot of them) were released as gas, and became part of the atmosphere, where the water vapor later returned to a cool earth as rain.
It is remarkable that these scientists propose that it was possible for the molten earth to contain water molecules, but that the simpler, more common component of water, oxygen, was not present. But these conditions are so stringent for a reason. Evolutionists must adhere to such unreasonable standards, because if oxygen was available to facilitate the formation of water, then oxygen would have been freely present in the atmosphere. Remember from the section on biology, though, that scientists know that if oxygen was in the atmosphere, then it would have completely prevented the right chemicals from bonding and evolving into life. Evolutionists, therefore, cannot allow for oxygen in the atmosphere, and must believe that the water molecules must have somehow already existed chemically within the heat of a molten planet, and without the benefit of oxygen to form it.
If one chooses to unwaveringly accept this irrational hypothesis, then it is necessary to explain how any water vapor within this ball of molten elements did not break down immediately. If the planet was indeed molten hot when it first congealed, then the water somehow would have had to survive as gas. This is impossible. Again, the water molecule bonds are broken at 2,000 Celsius, and the core of our planet even today has only cooled down to 4,000 Celsius. It is actually only necessary to go 10% into the earth’s crust to reach 2,000 Celsius. The water molecule could never survive in a molten planet, and therefore (if one must have a naturalistic cause) it could have only formed on a cooled planet by combining oxygen and hydrogen in the atmosphere—which is death to evolution. Therefore, it would be impossible to somehow form this abundant water on the planet, but to have no free oxygen in the atmosphere.
Yet, we will take this vein of thought to its final conclusion. Even if we disregard the indisputable fact that the water molecule would have broken down, and allow water vapor to exist, the delicate molecules would still somehow need to remain present in the atmosphere while the planet cooled, so it could eventually turn into liquid water. But because the atmosphere would have been unstable, and because there would be no ozone layer yet for diverting solar radiation, the planet’s gases would remain too hot, and the water vapor would have boiled off (Venus demonstrates this principle). However, the solar radiation alone under the proposed conditions would have certainly been sufficient to break the molecular bonds, decomposing the molecules into hydrogen and that very oxygen that evolutionists are trying to avoid in the first place.
This concept was discussed in the section on biology. Many evolutionists disregard the incomprehensible notion that the water molecule could form and survive under the proposed traumatic conditions, but also recognize that mere solar radiation could split up the same water molecule and form the ozone molecule with the freed oxygen. Clearly, evolutionists recognize that the water molecule is susceptible to destruction, while at the same time it is expected to perform chemical miracles in surviving all of that heat and radiation without ever breaking down and freeing the oxygen until it is convenient to form the ozone.
The scientists who believe that the water molecules could have survived the solar radiation attribute even more miracles to the molecule. They suggest that the water vapor released from the molten earth actually returned to the earth as rain and helped cool the planet’s surface. The simple principles of convection, however, refute this concept. A cool troposphere is required for water vapor to condense and fall back to earth as precipitation. Warm air pushes water vapor up, so the heat from the planet would keep the vapor far from the earth, preventing it from condensing into rain and returning to cool down a hot earth.
A cool troposphere is essential for cloud formation and precipitation, and the hotter the planet, the further away the vapor would have to rise to cool down. It is not possible for water vapor to condense into rain high above the earth and then return to the hot surface under these conditions before it evaporated. The best that one could hope for is a reduction in the heat of the solar radiation from the canopy of water vapor, which would actually serve to trap in the heat of the planet. Hmmm . . .
Because of the destructive forces of such extreme heat and radiation on water’s delicate molecular structure, there is no way for water vapor to have mysteriously come as part of the “early” earth’s chemical package, or be retained by the molten planet until it cooled. Any scenarios that assume that the earth was hot at any time must explain the formation and survival of a delicate molecule under such caustic conditions—and do it without the benefit of free oxygen.
Many other scientists believe the complete opposite of these ideas, asserting that the earth started out essentially as a cold planet. The image that the planet started with a cool crust seems like a more favorable environment for maintaining abundant water. The reality, though, is that at some point all matter in the universe would have had to be hot if it came from the Big Bang, and there is no feasible alternative for the creation of heavy elements without some form of baking process, as in the sun. We must disregard this reality in order to play out the cold planet scenario.
For the earth to begin cold, then, the planet could not have been cast off in a chunk from a sun process, because then it would begin hot. It had to have congealed from already cooled debris. Oxygen and hydrogen would have already combined into water and were present in the debris before the planet formed—a lot of it. Then, somehow the remaining oxygen would have been blown away (assumedly along with all the other gasses not trapped in the debris). Of course, oxygen would have to be trapped in the debris as well if the other gases are, which will be a problem later when all the gasses are freed.
A first problem arises at this point in that the original debris would lack the gravity to hold onto the gases necessary for forming water to begin with. How would bits of debris keep oxygen and hydrogen hanging around until water formed when small planets can’t manage to do it? There is no way to put the moment of water formation on the uncongealed debris, before the planet congealed, and then somehow also get rid of the remaining free oxygen. That would mean that the water formation would have to be removed even further to a situation previous to that. There is not much hope for finding a way to form water without oxygen tagging along.
Even if water had formed on some much larger body, and then that body broke up and carried the water, like comets, into this debris field that will be the earth, then there is still a process that will disrupt that. Somehow, at some point, the planet must heat up again in order to congeal and eventually have a molten core. This process would be all consuming, in that the surface is clearly solid and compact, and a molten state would have been necessary for separating the elements so that the heavier ones, like nickel and iron, sank to the center. This is how we have an active mantle and circulation of material just below the crust. However, this process would necessarily have raised the temperature in all the debris above 2,000 Celsius, destroying the water molecules, and bringing the planet back to square one. Free oxygen.
Realistically, this mass of rock we call earth, at some point, would have had to be molten to allow for a purely naturalistic formation. Proposing that the earth was initially cold doesn’t make it any easier for water to form—it just fast forwards over some difficulties. Evolutionists do not fully follow the natural consequences of their hypothesis, which are only superficially reasonable, but always result in a scientific dead end.
Although evolutionists need the earth’s atmosphere to be void of free oxygen, they dismiss the fact (discussed in the section on biology) that oxygen is the most profuse element on the earth, and has been combined with many other elements. It is clear that oxygen has always been available in order to form these bonds. Substances that contain oxygen in their molecules are found in everything, including the earth’s crust, and could not be infused later from the air. The very granite and basalt rocks that our continents are founded on are silicates, which require abundant oxygen as a chemical component.
Again, even the very biological forms that would be prevented from evolving in an oxygenated atmosphere all contain oxygen as a main component in their amino acids. Moreover, attempts to explain the current abundance of atmospheric oxygen as discussed in the section on biology, presents further problems in the formation of water. Evolutionists must assign the duty of producing this remarkable abundance of atmospheric oxygen to very industrious cyanobacteria and other imagined culprits.
Cyanobacteria, like plants, produce oxygen by releasing it from water when they split the molecules in photosynthesis. Therefore, evolutionists must believe that all the oxygen that was not at first in the atmosphere, became so abundant (and it really is a whole lot) when it was obtained from water through the splitting of each molecule. This means that before plants started to photosynthesize, and release all that oxygen, there must have been even more water than there is now. A lot more.
The Troposphere contains most of the atmospheric oxygen, but not all. It is about nine miles high all around the earth, but the ocean is only about seven miles deep at its very deepest point. Since oxygen makes up about 21% of the atmosphere, imagine how much water would have been necessary originally before the cyanobacteria started converting it? When we also take into account how much oxygen has permeated the entire planet, down into the very rocks, it would have taken even a lot more water for this amount of oxygen to be released.
Whatever evolutionists would like to imagine the initial state of the earth was, there are too many known scientific factors that cannot be worked out in their hot planet/cold planet configurations. If the planet was ever molten, then water molecules could not have formed until after it cooled below 2000 degrees Celsius, which would require a highly oxygenated atmosphere. If the planet began cold, then there is still no explanation for how water molecules formed without oxygen being present at some point. Even so, the planet would still have to become hot to the core, breaking down the bonds of the water molecule, which still releases the oxygen.
Evolutionists consider several options for how so much water was created on the earth not because the options are so good, but because there are so many problems with them. Oxygen is disallowed from the early earth theories not because of evidence, but because the natural laws dictate it in order for scientists to give evolution a chance. The abundance of water on our planet further discredits these scenarios when we try to imagine how much would have necessarily been lost in any of these transformations. Water is the most common substance, or chemical compound on the face of the earth, and oxygen is the most common element on earth—facts that are impossible to explain through these naturalistic theories.
These concepts of a hot planet and a cold planet are so opposing, and yet there is no evidence to support either, or to allow for them within testable scientific principles. Under the hot planet scenario, evolutionists propose that the molten earth sweated the miraculous water vapor, and when the planet cooled, the vapor returned as rain. Under the cold planet scenario, evolutionists propose that the earth’s crust was cool, but somehow there was a hot core. This inner heat expelled all the gases, water, and water vapor, into the atmosphere where it condensed and began to collect in the ocean. Ignoring the obstacles just discussed, these proposals sound quite reasonable on the surface until one begins to ask logical questions.
Whether or not these theories are feasible, evolutionists must follow certain assumptions from this point depending on their view of the formation of water. In fact, this issue is so significant, it influences everything that could possibly follow. After one assumes the earth had initially formed, one of two things should have happened. Either there was little water on the surface of the earth, or the surface was completely covered in water. There is no agreement as to which is true. It depends on whether one believes that the earth started hot, or cold, and therefore whether the water was released from the molten planet to the air, or contained under the surface of the crust. This leads to two completely different perspectives on the initial configuration of the earth, and ultimately should impact how the earth behaved geologically. Unfortunately, because evolutionists do not always play out the logical implications of their theories, most pick and chose which phenomenon occurred regardless of their causational relationship.
Instead of dealing with the details of a cold planet, most evolutionists have invented a “goldilocks” temperature for the initial state of the earth that could not exist. They would like it to have been cold on the crust, and hot in the core, but as already discussed, it would have necessarily all been hot at one point. If we go ahead and simply allow the assumption that this state was possible initially, they theorize that with an essentially cool crust, and a hot core, the water vapor could have been ejected from beneath the surface into the atmosphere through volcanism, and natural seepage.
Here, it collected on the surface, or condensed as rain and returned to the surface of the earth. Since this is intended to be an explanation for how water appeared on the earth, it could not have materialized until this point. This means that, by necessity, the outer crust had already formed and cooled, and the water had surfaced and pooled when the circumstances and temperatures were optimum. The image of water ejected onto a cool crust is the most popular among scientists, despite the fact that it doesn’t fit with the problems mentioned earlier, or the projections that follow.
The problem with believing that the water was ejected from volcanoes, and other vents in a cool crust, is that this means that the crust was already formed, so the major continents and continental plates would already have to be established. Theoretically, in this case, the water would have slowly filled in around the rocks. With the majority of the continental plates already formed, tectonic activity would have already been building mountains along with the necessarily active volcanoes.
The number and size of the volcanoes required to expel the amount of water that now exists on the planet, indicates a great deal of mountain building would have been part of the scenario. The water filling in around the mountains and continental protrusions would have caused ocean basins to form with the growing weight. Additionally, the space left beneath the crust as the water was vacated, would facilitate the depressions that could hold and contain the water. Once the water was essentially expelled from the earth’s crust, any future rise in the water levels is extremely difficult to explain through this theory since the mountains would have already been built up.
Geologists frequently must defer to the invasion of vast, “ancient” seas on continents in order to explain geological and fossil evidence, but under this scenario, there is no justification for these drastic changes in the sea level. Evolutionists believe, based on fossil evidence, that this early time was when the sea level was at its highest. However, once the original sea level was established under this scenario, there would be no cause for the ocean to again rise and then fall numerous times, and invade continents numerous times over hundreds of millions of years.
Because of these limitations, water expelled from the already formed crust of the planet is not the preferred conception of the early earth. Evolutionists need the continental crust to move all around the world, and up and down, and to be flooded, and drained numerous times in order to have an opportunity to explain the fossil and geological evidence without conceding to a worldwide flood. For this reason, it is necessary for continents to come and go, and to crush together and separate under evolutionary schemes. This is not the sort of thing, though, that happens so erratically if the crust is already cool before the water is expelled from beneath the surface.
However, evolutionists cannot have the water come from volcanoes unless there are volcanoes protruding from the crust, and water cannot pool on the surface of the earth unless it is cool enough so that the water doesn’t evaporate. If the crust is already cool when the water is expelled, and the water collects on the surface of essentially established topography, then the subsequent erratic desirable geological movements necessary are unjustifiable. Because of all this, the other model is more fitting for the movements evolutionists would like to impose on the continental crust.
Now we must go back to the optional explanation for the presence of so much water on the earth. Here we will assume that the earth was initially a molten ball, and that all the water molecules somehow already existed intact within the molten ball. In this case, the belief is that the water vapor was emitted from the molten ball and it was mysteriously retained in the hot atmosphere until the earth began cooling. Eventually, the crust would have to cool enough so that whatever water had miraculously remained could condense into clouds and fall back to the earth, and so the water could stabilize on the surface.
However, because the water vapor would have been ejected prior to cooling, and the surface would be cooling before and during precipitation, volcanic and mountainous formations would not have necessarily formed on the earth. Under these circumstances, the surface of the earth would likely be a relatively smooth sphere with very little geological formations yet at all. Without mountains, valleys, and oceanic basins on the earth, based on the tremendous amount of water, the surface of the earth could be completely covered by water once it returned to the earth. More on this will be discussed later.
Under this scenario, the resulting geographical features would deepen and rise gradually through tectonic and volcanic activity as the hot mantle continued to be fluid beneath the surface and adjust to further cooling. The continental build up would be slow, and mountains, valleys, and oceanic basins would take time to form through this process. This would allow for the evolutionists’ preferred vision of the early earth, and its plastic continental crust. On such an earth, the continental plates could be undefined and in constant metamorphosis, supposedly allowing for the complex movements of continents that are proposed by many evolutionists.
There is certainly some scientific rationality to this idea that the earth’s crust could undergo changes as the molten mantle beneath continued to move in a convection style effect. But this bit of rationality ventures beyond our scientific experience, and subtly crosses into unsubstantiated mayhem. As the continents built up, and depressions in the crust began to form ocean basins, uniformitarians believe that these continents would be free to converge and divide, split and fuse continuously in bizarre and unimaginable movements by mere geological whim.
Additionally, this initial geologically featureless configuration also allows for the continents to gradually rise out of the water through continued volcanic and tectonic activity. By beginning featureless, the earth’s crust is able to rise and form continents haphazardly, and evolutionists use this gradual buildup of continents to power their ever transforming world landscape. This image of a pliant crust for our budding planet is precisely the one that most uniformitarians acquiesce to in order to explain so much of the fossil and geological evidence throughout the earth.
Evolutionists believe that this flexible model will allow for the necessary presence, recession, and influx of continental ancient seas in order to explain the abundance of marine fossils all over the world. Although most evolutionists prefer to imagine the early earth spewing the water vapor out from a cool crust, as in the last scenario, they necessarily need to believe that the geographical features arose in this fashion with the water covering the earth entirely. Without this scenario, there is no way to justify the emerging (and submerging?) pre-formed continents and their erratic movements through long, non-catastrophic geological activity. And without these erratic movements, there is no rationalization for the geological and fossil evidence that will be discussed later.
The major issue, however, that evolutionists must consider is specifically, again, the phenomenon of abundant fossilized sea life. The only reasonable explanation for how these marine fossils cover the face of the whole earth is to agree that the whole earth was once entirely covered by water. But again, when scientists suggest this, one may wonder why this does not confirm the Flood. In order to avoid this fact, scientists must insist that these fossils are the remains of life from the “early” earth, when they believe the continents were first emerging from under water. If these creatures had evolved and were deposited while the earth’s continents had not yet fully emerged from the water, then they believe this explains how they were fossilized throughout the world on what now forms the continents of dry land.
One important problem with believing that the earth was completely covered by water before the first leap into life is that life could not possibly invent itself in the hostile environment of the deep, open seas. It is statistically impossible for even two delicate amino acids to form from all the necessary chemicals and then run into each other in the open sea before they were destroyed under such conditions, so a complex protein would certainly never form, and so on. One cannot have the earth completely covered by water, and contend that life formed in these adverse conditions when we still cannot do it in the safety of a petri dish.
Even if evolutionists contend that life formed after a very long time, after land first began to arise somewhere, there would need to be a pocket shelter from a turbulent sea in order for all those amino acids to get together before they were destroyed. This would be tricky, though, because, as discussed earlier, any bourgeoning life, would certainly be destroyed by the bombardment of the sun’s radioactivity, being so close to the surface, without the benefit of an ozone yet.
Currently, evolutionists are considering how rocks and clay minerals could have been the birthing-place of life rather than water. This concept, however, would pose these obvious difficulties: 1) extreme exposure to solar radiation 2) limited mobility for amino acid assembly. 3) no innate connection to the ocean where the rest of life supposedly evolved. One would do well to keep in mind that the emergence of a new theory best serves to expose the mystery of evolution rather than the certainty of it. The reason for a new theory is because of the problems inherent with life evolving from chemicals. There are just as many obstacles whether life tries to evolve on land or in the sea.
Another challenge to evolving in the vast ocean is that most of the life forms from the remarkably diverse (yet stable) worldwide Cambrian explosion are relatively shallow water creatures, and could not tolerate deep-sea conditions. The Cambrian system is believed to be the first stage of evolutionary development, and evidence of this incredible abundance is left in the rocks of all the continents.
Most of these species required relatively shallow conditions to survive, from cyanobacteria to snails, and all the species that depend on them. These fossils cover every continent, and are found anywhere from the center to the edge. Therefore, evolutionists are forced to imagine impossible scenarios about precisely how much land was exposed to offer protection, on every part of every future continent, despite the fact that the whole of each continent is covered by these early marine fossils.
The typical depiction of this early time proposes that islands of the crust began protruding above sea level at numerous places throughout the earth as volcanoes built up over hotspots, or tectonic activity uplifted the bedrock. These baby continents then gradually began to move and submerge at will all over the earth. Supposedly, as these land-masses became more exposed, the Precambrian microbes, and then the worldwide Cambrian explosion of species theoretically occurred simultaneously as demonstrated in the abundant fossils, throughout the entire world.
Since Cambrian life lives almost entirely in shallow water, we must ask, therefore, if the ultimate impossibility occurred. Scientists must suppose essentially one of two unlikely scenarios for the spread of life throughout the planet under these harsh conditions. One is that the delicate microbes of new life managed to cross the turbulent seas and spread everywhere (deep seas, no ozone), and fill the planet with oxygen. Then whatever of these lucky contestants was first to move up would rapidly evolve into the whole spectrum of the Cambrian system in one part of the world. From there it had to spread again over the turbulent seas throughout the world, and so on for each stage, yet giving the impression that life occurred simultaneously worldwide.
The alternative is, incomprehensibly, that evolution miraculously gave birth to life several times, and followed the same developmental pattern at different locations all over the world, producing the exact same abundant species in the shadow of every emerging continent. Again, evolutionists are not able to feasibly work out the details of implausible conditions that they are dictating. These assumptions are not based on fact, or even the best interpretation of evidence, but on necessity in order to allow for evolution. The only fact we know is that the world was completely covered by water and life, and that marine fossils prove it.
Evolutionists would like to limit these deposits to the Cambrian system, when the water would have been its highest, and it would be most reasonable for such deposits to be worldwide, but they cannot. In fact, fossilized marine life throughout all the subsequent “geologic systems” (Silurian, Devonian, Permian, Cretaceous. . .) is prevalent on every continent, telling us that science cannot possibly limit these deposits to the “early” stages of the earth. Evolutionists’ basic knowledge of many marine systems is based on these fossils found on what is now dry land, in the middle of continents worldwide. This preservation of sea life throughout all supposed evolutionary stages is why uniformitarians must invoke the frequent, and inexplicable invasion of “ancient seas.” More on this will be discussed under the uniformitarians section.
Evolutionists use this very abundance of marine life to aid in assigning geological periods and establish evolutionary progress, but no one questions how paradoxical it is that even the sediments that are assigned to the evolution of land animals is still marked by abundant marine life—no matter where the site is—dinosaurs and clamshells buried together. The worldwide preservation of marine fossils throughout all supposed geological eras still only confirms one fact—that the world was once under water. The need for a pliant early earth, and the need for continents and ancient seas to come and go is so that evolutionists may explain the inexplicable. Upon close examination, though, we can see that even their own concepts conflict with other pieces of the puzzle.
Altogether, there are too many difficulties with these conditions to believe that they were likely inducements to life. Even so, to believe that the earth began as a molten ball, scientists must still overlook the impossibility of water molecules pre-existing in this fiery planet. They must also disregard the impossibility of the molecules surviving under these conditions in order for the water to return to the earth in such enormous quantities. Beyond these obstructions, this model must have precedence over the cold crust model if evolutionists hope to explain subsequent geological, and fossil evidence. However, simply having a flexible model does not necessarily lead to self-explanatory geological activity.
Uniformitarian geologists impose such incredible
acrobatics on the earth’s crust, that they amount to a geological free-for
all—chaos and unexplainable movements being the rule. At any given point in this scheme, part of
In order to explain various geological phenomena, uniformitarians have mapped the different stages of continental “progression” based on their interpretations of the evidence. Though these theories may vary among geologists, they outline the essential movements believed necessary to explain the geological evidence. Evolutionists who rely on these movements must hold to the concept already discussed, that the molten bedrock of the earth’s crust began nearly completely underwater, and that geological activity was responsible for the emerging continents and their paths.
These theories rely on continuous continental alterations using concepts such as, “uplift,” “rift,” “convergence,” “divergence,” which they impose liberally on the earth’s crust in a confusing ballet of geological motion, unlike the simple and unilateral activity zones proposed for plate tectonic movements today. The forces of this arbitrary activity bring the same continents together, that they would later turn and rend apart. This theory raises them, then lowers them, and has them gallivanting all over the globe to the most astonishing choreography without any accountability as to the cause.
Although plate tectonics is used as the vehicle force behind all these movements, under this scheme the presumed direction of movements fluctuates and even reverses constantly, negating any possible legitimate geological tendencies. Uniformitarians believe that these movements and the build up of continents eventually converged to form the super continent of Pangaea. The formation and then separation of this continent is timed to coincide with the evolutionary perception of when certain worldwide explosions of terrestrial species occurred. This scheme facilitates explanations of a worldwide simultaneous explosion of plants and animals without having them travel across oceans and throughout all the continents to accomplish it.
After about 100 million years, this incredible continent supposedly broke up again into the opposite direction by the very forces that had initially brought it together. Then the fragments would have fractured along new boundaries, and zipped apart in all directions at about than an inch a year before the new continents finally came to the positions they are in now. There is no authoritative evidence to substantiate this nomadic model in a way that excludes other scientific interpretations, including Flood evidence. The assumptions about the erratic restlessness of the continents lack credibility because they are based on an attempt to explain difficult fossil evidence, not because they are the natural conclusions drawn from undeniable evidence or comparable observations of today’s geological movements. It is simply the only way to maintain the evolutionary theory in the face of the pervading facts.
In addition to explaining sedimentation and other fossil evidence, uniformitarians believe the rise and shift of continents can allow for magnificent swings in climate that seem to have occurred in different parts of the world. These climatic fluctuations are evoked with little causational relationship to known phenomenon, and are clearly based on conjecture and preconceived ideas of evolutionary timelines rather than on geological evidence. A great deal of speculation is used in assessing not only the position of the continents at various times, but how these positions (though hypothetical) and geological activities would result in certain climatic effects.
This flexible system is manipulated at will to explain remarkable phenomenon such as extinctions, a perceived Ice Age in Africa, tropical forests in the Arctic, deserts in North America, and other evidence of atypical vegetation, animal life, and geological phenomena throughout the world. The reader can decide the feasibility of such pliant interpretations, and whether or not the evidence justifies it, by researching these theoretical movements. Many textbooks and encyclopedias on science and nature (including the Atlas of Life on Earth by Barnes and Noble, 2001) offer maps that plot these proposed continental changes from the “earliest” stages. Any further discussion that would address this topic in minutia would be both productive and enlightening, but again, another book.
Altogether, necessity is indeed the mother of invention, and the conditions of the early earth as envisioned by evolutionists lead further down the path of rationalization and away from the reality of scientific fact. Each concept runs into another scientific contradiction, and all these theories are proposed without substantiating proof that excludes other interpretations. The objective of this investigation was to point out the fallacies and assumptions that are embraced by evolutionists in order to justify their theories. They separate discussions about the geography of the earth, from the chemistry of the earth, from the physics of the earth, from the biology of the earth, and frequently ignore their interdependence. But we cannot—they are too interwoven.
Evolutionists impose an initial state on the earth without regard for the necessary details in chemically accounting for the abundance of water. They ignore the irrationality of the existence of water molecules without the presence of oxygen, and then evoke enough oxygen from the cyanobacteria to fill every part of the planet and form the ozone. The sudden explosion of marine life worldwide, as recorded in the rocks and sediments on every continent, obligates evolutionists to construct their implausible crustal movement theories around the evidence instead of in line with the true facts and observation.
Additionally, the result of evolutionary scenarios concerning the “early” earth are a faith-based scheme fantastically orchestrated on whim in order to keep evolution from being nullified by geological difficulties. The following topics will not discuss the intolerably numerous and complex continental movements as proposed by uniformitarians. One would have to address each and every movement and attempt to align them with the actual geological evidence in order to properly demonstrate the unnecessary and capricious nature proposed through an initially molten earth and its mobile crust.
The concept of Pangaea will be discussed later, but the main difficulty concerning this theory is not in Pangaea itself, but in the randomness of continental movements proposed from the onset of the “early earth.” The uniformitarian concept of this unpredictable activity still cannot reasonably account for all the geological evidence. Instead of clarifying the relationship between theory and evidence, this subjective geological activity has become a generic defense for difficult issues, even when the explanations themselves cannot be justified.
Under this scheme, “ancient” seas are free to come and go, land rises, and lowers, converges and divides, the climate is drastically altered, continents are renovated, and anything is possible as long as it is not a worldwide flood. From the formation of water to the formation of the continents, the “truth” about the “early” earth depends on one’s perspective and aim. Overall, there are too many conflicts to call any of these scenarios a fact—if the facts could be determined by the evidence, there would not be such differing views. In fact, the evidence itself is the problem. These theories about the creation of water, and the configuration of the earth all conflict with actual evidence and testable science.
This very same geological evidence, though, is easily understood under the Creation/ Flood model. God created the earth, water included, just as it is. Though some water indeed was evidently stored underground, it is this breakup of the ground and release of water (undeniably much in the same manner as proposed feasible by “cool crust” uniformitarians) which brought the Flood and the death we now observe in so much sediment and fossil evidence.
Nothing scientific disputes the Creation model for the formation of the planet. On the contrary, all the elements of the Flood are elements acknowledged in the evolutionary geologists’ theories, just in a different order. While the specific theory of the continent of Pangaea is not eliminated by the Bible, all the cosmological and geological proposals that lead to Pangaea through uniformitarian schemes are scientifically arbitrary. If Pangaea existed, it was created that way, and then was torn apart in the processes related to the Flood, which will be discussed later.
Here is the geologist’s dilemma. There is no incontrovertible proof of the ages of rocks or of ash and lava flows, or of any geological episode not recorded by humans. The fossils are used to date the rocks in the geologic column, but the rocks and strata in the geologic column are rarely if ever used to date the fossils--only confirm. No geologist is able to irrefutably date rock strata with radiometric dating methods without relying on presumed dates from fossils based on assumptions about the evolutionary timeline.
This means that if a biologist thinks it would take 100 million years for a fish to turn into an amphibian, and a paleontologist finds an amphibian fossil, then that fossil is dated the corresponding age. Then the paleontologist tells the geologist where that sediment layer is in the geologic column according to the assumed evolutionary order of life, and the geologist ensures that the dates derived from the corresponding rock coincide with the paleontologist’s assumption of age. Vary rarely will the geologist’s final assessment contradict the assumptions of the paleontologist because when an undeniable disparity arises, the paleontologist has the final say in the assignment of the date. In this way, geologists generally rely on the paleontologist for an idea of the rock’s age to begin with if (and there usually are) there are fossils associated with the layer.
This is best summarized by Derek Ager
(interesting name), professor of Geology at
. . . fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. . . . As for having all the credit passed to the physicists and the measurement of isotopic decay, the blood boils! Certainly such studies give dates in terms of millions of years, with huge margins of error. . . . I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.
Most people assume that geologists can pinpoint the age of rocks with relative accuracy. They don’t realize that people have not been around long enough to really know what rocks and various topography would look like after millions of years. People have this idea that rocks have some intrinsic discernable date on them, and are further convinced of the fallacy of evolution. Geologists depend heavily on the use of the highly limited radiometric dating, which as stated, is not self evident, but relies on the preconceptions about age in local fossils for verification.
Radiometric dating is so inconsistent that evolutionists themselves must regularly reject the dates they yield. Most detrimentally, as we will see, when these tests have been run on artifacts from known geological episodes, radiometric tests have failed in excess of hundreds of thousands to more than a billion years too old. The equation for radiometric dating requires an unquestionable presumption of hundreds of millions of years in order to interpret the reading to begin with. However, there is no verifiable technique for validating the accuracy of these assessments other than by the fossils, which in turn receive their ages from a presumption about an evolutionary timescale.
The method of radiometric dating in itself is flawed. Geologists use the principle of radioactive decay in rocks and ash exposed to the earth’s surface to date how long ago they came out of the earth (generally through volcanism). The problem is that although it is possible to measure present isotope ratios in mineral bearing rocks, there is no way of knowing what the initial ratios were in order to calculate the age of a rock. Dates based on this method must begin with a preconceived age in order to calculate the initial ratios, then use those ratios to calculate the age. This method essentially calculates the remaining percentage of radioactive nuclide when the initial amount at the time of surfacing is unknown. The only way to arrive at an answer is to make an assumption about what it started with, without any way of verifying it.
More alarmingly is that this method is applied despite the fact that radioactive decay in rocks is assumed to take hundreds of millions to billions of years to reach half-life. Uranium-lead is estimated to reach half life in about 700 million years, potassium-argon in about 1.25 billion years, and rubidium-strontium in about 49 billion years. This means, as scientists openly acknowledge, that the potassium-argon dating method is “useful” for dating qualified rocks beginning at one million years ago and older. The Uranium-lead dating method is “useful” for dating rocks at 100 million years and older, and the Rubidium-strontium test is useful for dates beginning at 1 billion years and older.
Based on their own data, it would not be possible to date the age of the earth by any radioisotope method if indeed it is only about 10,000 years old. In fact, it would have to be at least 100 million years old to obtain any type of interpretable reading. This is like counting the lifespan of a flea in millennia. If one insists upon answering a question within an unanswerable context, the answer will not be correct. Scientists have already decided how old the earth is. Radioisotope dating is a façade without a framework to anchor it.
In reality, this dating method cannot be corroborated since no one has actually ever lived a million years to verify it. Unlike carbon 14 dating, which decays at a much faster, more measurable rate, radiometric dating relies on decay that is so slow, the method is not genuinely verifiable within our lifespan, even if it is properly applied. We are unable to factor in every possible variable that could affect these levels. Moreover, the three most common methods used are uranium-lead, potassium-argon, and rubidium-strontium, which assume that one actually decays into the other. However, it is not possible to accurately factor what degree these “decayed” element exists independently as contaminants. Like many other evolutionary assumptions, radiometric dating is not verifiable, yet evolutionists propose that it is infallible evidence.
What a lay person like myself wonders is, if each element (argon, potassium, uranium, lead . . .) presents a different level or rate of decay, and as it would happen, rocks sometimes get all mixed up, how can anyone really believe that their radiation isn’t effecting each other? Aren’t they assuming that there was none of the supposed “decayed” versions or elements (lead, argon) at the initial formation of the earth? Additionally, one would assume, just like anything else, the circumstances of the extrusion would also affect the rates of decay. As my Mom put it “Hey, if I take a teaspoon of ice cream and a scoop of ice cream, they are not going to melt at the same rate because one has more cold stored up.” I think you have a valid point Mom.
It is fair to say that no one knows exactly how various circumstances would affect such rates. No one can say for sure what factors even compel elements to decay, so we cannot presume to know what factors can influence their rates and ratios. The amount of the sample, catastrophic circumstances, extrusion under water, massive extrusion quickly, slowly, a hot environment, cold environment. . . obviously any of these factors could affect the decay rate. Regardless of whether or not these factors would have an effect, we are still left with the conflict that the method presumes long ages in its equation.
What is so interesting about this method is that it relies entirely on the recognition that decay in rocks is inevitable and assumes it has been happening for hundreds of millions of years after the formation of the earth. As an aside, this very reliance on rock decay as a dating method exploits and corroborates the undeniable fact that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, the law of increasing entropy, is an active force. This confirms that evolutionists really do recognize entropy would have always been in operation even before evolution would have started. In the minds of evolutionists, it must be possible for entropy to be fundamental while the reverse of entropy would also have been acting, even dominating, in order for evolution to prevail. These are contradictory forces, needing separate universes in order to operate simultaneously. Regardless, the method is still dramatically inaccurate.
Perhaps the most condemning indictment against radiometric dating is its reliable unreliability. Geologists generally usually use more than one method wherever dating any site, and these three methods almost always offer vastly differing dates for the same site. One must wonder how a scientist decides which of these dates to accept when the three can vary by hundreds of millions to even a billion years difference among them? This makes radiometric dating completely unverifiable because not only do the testing methods not even confirm each other, but they cannot even accurately date known events.
Geologists have performed numerous radioisotope
dating tests on geological features whose dates are known, such as Mt.
Any scientist, evolutionist or Creationist, should agree that this is a dubious method, which is believed only to accurately date unknown episodes, but exceeds the dates of known episodes by millions of years. Errant calculations have even been excused as referring not to the extruded rock that was tested, but to what was already calculated for the mantle itself. This would not be helpful at all for dating the age of an exposed rock ever.
By all common sense, this cannot be considered a reliable dating method. It is an oxymoron to continue to use a scientific dating method as verification of evolution when it itself cannot even verify the known facts, and it is a non-falsifiable measurement. If you ask a geologist about this inaccuracy, they will tell you it is complicated, and you don't understand. There are many more dramatic instances of inaccurate dating, and reassignment of dates because of conflicts. Despite the truth, society’s ill-founded faith in radiometric dating is so established, that most people concede to the mystique of this geological illusion, and assume that it is a demigod of fact.
Alternative dating methods are no better. As mentioned in the fossil section, carbon 14 dating (radiocarbon dating), which is used on organic matter, can only be measured reasonably accurately within about 5,700 years of the death of the organic matter. The sample becomes too degraded after that for a trustworthy assessment. Evolutionists know that anything over “50,000” years should yield no measurable carbon 14. In light of this, an embarrassing fact is that there is a measurable presence of carbon14 in all coal deposits—a complete contradiction to the millions of years attributed to coal formation.
In fact, a new method, Atomic Mass Spectrometry (AMS) has found a quarter of one percent of modern levels of Carbon 14 to be remaining in coal samples dated by evolutionists to be 100 million years old. At 100 million years old, there should not even be one atom of Carbon 14 remaining. This percentage of Carbon 14 found in coal is much closer to a deposition about the time of the Flood, taking into account the effects that such a massive catastrophe would have on all Carbon levels.
This remaining quarter of a percent of carbon 14 would also make “ancient” coal deposits, which are deep under thick layers of “millions of years” of sediment, tens of millions of years more recent than the supposed evolution of mammals and humans attributed to the top layer. Wood has even been found in “Upper Permian” rock that still contained measurable amounts of carbon 14, when it should have been 250 million years old.
Even the samples less than 5,700 years old are not always reliably dated. Every test depends on several assumptions, which cannot be unquestionably verified. Scientists must assume that carbon 14 always degrades at a consistent rate regardless of external circumstances, and that the ratio between carbon 14 and carbon 12 also remains perfectly consistent. These assumptions disregard any possible fluctuations due to catastrophe, or different atmospheric or environmental conditions in the unrecorded past.
Moreover, dates older than 5,700 years rely on
further evolutionary assumptions for verification. Evolutionists have tested the living
bristlecone pine which they believe to be about 5,000 years old (not too much
older than what Creationists would accept), and have used it to calibrate their
tests on older samples. However,
scientists admit that since the tree is still alive, they have to apply a
theoretical curve to account for continued life, so this test is not a standard
carbon 14 verification. They have also tested wood
However, since this date can be projected to a degree by some written records, and is within the acceptable range of relative accuracy of 5,700 years, this is not good evidence that the method is reliable beyond that time. Other similar attempts to calibrate this process to much older dates rely exclusively on evolutionary assumptions of when that civilization existed. In other words, they would use the assumed date of the civilization to calibrate the carbon 14 test, and that same carbon 14 test would then be calibrated to confirm the date of the civilization.
The crux of the Creationist argument is based on the fact that not only has the use of Carbon 14 testing overstretched its plausibly reliable application far beyond the 5,700 years, but even on known artifacts, wrong dates have been assessed. There are many examples of unacceptable dates in all directions, demonstrating that there are simply too many factors that we may never fully comprehend that can influence sample levels, readings and interpretations. There are examples of recently dead animals testing at thousands of years old, and that famous “100 million year old” oil dating at only 50,000 years old (supposedly about the time of Neanderthals). These dates are blatantly inaccurate regardless of which side you are on.
When evolutionists themselves derive these unacceptable dates, they are quick to deploy a litany of reasons for the errors. They confess that contamination was to blame, in both directions. Some have blamed too old dates of recently dead animals on a contamination of “old carbon,” which increased the ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 14, giving the older date. Given evolutionists’ quick excuse of inaccuracies, other factors that could affect Creationist predictions should be equally considered.
Since fossil evidence indicates that the pre-Flood world was temperate, and lush, there could easily have been a higher ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 14 before the Flood. Additionally, post-Flood carbon 14 may decay faster due to less protection from solar radiation after the rain canopy collapsed. Given so much evidence supports a global Flood event, the post-Flood world would unquestionably have disrupted carbon levels of both types of carbon, affecting every prediction. Moreover, all carbon levels would be catastrophically affected, from increased levels of decay (evident in the vast oil and natural gas resources) to vast carbon outflow from volcanic activity. This would undeniable be a world of catastrophe in which every prediction would be haphazard, while uniformitarian presumptions must incorporate steady, non-catastrophic carbon levels that would not fluctuate because that is their entire premise for dismissing catastrophe to begin with.
Evolutionists, however randomly apply their rationalizations to suit the situation, and don’t see this as reason to reduce the stock they put in carbon dating. Sometimes they reason that radiation emitted from surrounding rocks or environment can affect carbon levels. However, this presumption is not afforded to Creationists concerning their predictions. Evolutionists even claimed in one instance that water which flowed through carbonate rock effected carbon levels of a sample. Does this mean that if limestone is around, it could affect organisms buried in or living nearby that Creationists might point out? No, because contamination, adjustments to expectations, and contributing factors in general are only allowable for the “real” scientific model, but for the Creationists, they are just excuses.
Many, many inaccuracies are available as an indication of how easily this dating process can be disrupted. The obvious problem becomes, which dates will be accepted? Anthropologist Robert E. Lee stated in his article in the Anthropological Journal of Canada in 1981:
The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious . . . It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted.
From the Creationist point of view, the tool of Carbon 14 dating is interesting, but not reliable, even though it frequently confirms Creationist models. They know that in the pre-Flood world, the atmosphere, the carbon levels, and the radiation levels that create Carbon 14 out of common nitrogen, all of these factors absolutely would have been different. These factors would have a profound effect on the initial Carbon 12 to Carbon 14 levels, as well as the rate of decay. Additionally, the catastrophe itself would bring innumerable factors that we are not capable of calculating or testing beyond speculation.
Creationists see that these factors are reflected in the carbon readings of today, but since the calibration would be based on assumptions about the Flood, just as evolutionists use the readings to justify their assumptions, they prefer to rely on other, testable factors as evidence.
The Creation scientist will find there are numerous and reliable dating methods that favor a young earth. There are scores of interesting trivia to confirm the Creation model, all of which can be methodically verified. For instance, the evidence in space tells us that things are decaying too quickly to be billions of years old. All our observations about rates of heat loss in celestial bodies, the breakdown in matter, like comets and Saturn’s rings, and the slowing rate of earth’s rotation tell us that the universe cannot be more than thousands of years old. Those who try to explain why these observations do not confirm even millions of years old, let alone billions, will resort to imposing potential factors for which there is no evidence.
Even the dust in space has been measured to gather on the moon at an approximate rate of 2.7 inches per million years, but there is only about a half an inch on its surface now. If we assume that the moon was squeaky clean when it formed, it still couldn’t be more than 200 thousand years old, but not billions. In fact, scientists were so sure that there would be several feet of dust, that they designed the Apollo lunar landing gear with a type of snowshoe for landing in the thick dust, and made the ladder 18 inches short from the ground, forcing the astronauts to jump.
On the earth, we observe many curiosities even
in the natural sciences. For example, the oldest
living organism is a bristlecone pine in southern
Why is it that all these things, which can be gauged and tested with reasonable accuracy, don’t date into at least the tens of thousands of years? Is it because the flood was only about 4,000 years ago? Why is it that the oceans contain only about 3.6% salt? If there was absolutely no salt in them to begin with, the current rate of deposition of salt minerals from the land into the sea (where it is left after evaporation) is estimated at about 5,000 years or less of deposition. How does a scientist account for long ages within this kind of scientific evidence?
Another example is that at current rates of erosion, the continents would erode flat in about 14 million years from now. Even when we take into account uplift of the continents, this fact contradicts the existence of fossil layers hundreds of millions of years old, that are still above sea level. We must assume that the same erosive processes were acting in the past, yet instead of being eroded away, they supposedly only built higher and higher. This poses two problems. The erosion of mountains do contribute to the sediment layers, but even the current mountains would erode flat in 14 million years, therefore fossil layers exposed today that are many times older than that should have already been stripped away long ago. Since the very fossils we have been privy to today are supposed to be up to several hundred million years old, how did all those layers avoid the erosion that is so prevalent today?
The only way this is possible is if there was no erosion for the first several hundred million years while all the subsequent fossil layers were added on top (by water deposition, of course, so this no-erosion thing will be tricky). This is not realistic, though, and doesn’t fit with the uniformitarian model of steady processes. The only real possible explanation for so many layers to be deposited by water, but for the water to cause no erosion to the current layers, is if the sediment deposition happened all at one time, instead of numerous times, or continuously over hundreds of millions of years. This, of course would be by Flood.
It would actually work out better for geologists
if they conceded to this because of all the mountains, like the
Perhaps more telling statistically is our ability to verify the age of humanity. Many people are aware that there is a lack of written language known to date older than 5,000 years. Though scientists may ignore the significance of this statistic, the estimated population growth rate itself is not disputed among scientists. Today, the earth contains about 6 billion people. As recently as 1985, the world contained 5 billion people—a rapid development in about 20 years, but the trend continues. In 1977 there were 4 billion people, in 1962 there were 3 billion, and in 1930 there were 2 billion. It took only 70 years to triple the population of the earth. A mere 200 years ago, there were only 1 billion people in 1800, a blink in the evolutionary eye. There were only about ¼ of a billion people at the time of Christ. It had taken just 2,000 years for the population to grow by nearly 25 times.
If we take these known estimated populations, and continue to calculate back, we very quickly run out of people. Just 1,000 years before Christ, even if there had been only a ½ percent growth per year, the world could not have contained much more than 2 million people. Since Christ, the average worldwide growth rate has been over one percent per year, and presently it is at about 1.4 percent with the poorest countries having the highest growth rate. This rate of increase would lower the earlier population even more. Evolutionists tell us that modern humans evolved over a hundred thousand years ago. The population growth rate, however, puts the start of humanity at just over 4,000 years ago, about the time of the Flood.
Population growth rates are so reliable because they are testable, and there is a long history of growth rates that can be verified by unquestionable mathematical calculations. Scientists can take known population estimations, compare them to estimations from another time, and easily calculate the yearly growth rate. Even if extremely high mortality rates, and extremely low reproductive rates are generously factored in, it would be ridiculous to double this estimation to 8,000 years ago—yet this exaggerated figure utterly rebuts evolutionary timelines.
We have 2,000 years of reliable population estimations in order to calculate steady rates, and there are certain reasonable limits to how low this rate can be. The ratio of human survival rates to death rates, even in extremely harsh conditions, has never been witnessed in human history to hold steady at zero growth. There has always been growth. For evolutionary timelines to be true, humans would have needed to hold to no detectable growth for over 190,000 years.
Hominid development would have required a large ancestral base, and therefore would have developed from a large, widespread population, with numerous simultaneous and consecutive “almost fully human” generations. Otherwise this unprecedented revolution in the animal world would have emerged through evolution at near extinction rates. Then this weak and endangered (yet astonishingly remarkable) new creature suddenly got a foothold just a few thousand years ago at a time in civilization that evolutionists consider as recent as yesterday. This is exactly what the undeniable evidence presents based on these undisputable population growth rates.
In order for scientists to justify something as dramatic as human evolution in light of this reliable evidence, they need to assume that there must have been a strong evolving human population that thrived and dominated for over 200,000 years up until just a few thousand years ago. Then, to explain the low population growth data, they would need to invoke a catastrophic event that wiped out all but a few thousand “fully modern” humans. Such a concession, of course, removes any possible corroboration for evolution, since there is no traceable evolutionary link through such a constricted barrier.
Once a catastrophe is necessary to explain the current low population, the evolutionary premise loses a scientific advantage over the model that simply asserts the human population is young. There really is no other way to explain this insufficient human population except through a catastrophe, and having no evidence of one other than the Flood, every other assertion is speculation. Even the found remains of humans confirm this, as the earth should be filled with graves and bones, but there is a notable lack of such confirmation that this number of people ever lived. If evolving humans have been living and dying for hundreds of thousands of years, one might reasonably ask where all the bones are.
Most remarkably, scientists working in another area, genetic “mutation” rates have come to the same conclusion about the world’s population. People around the world are so genetically similar, that it is impossible that humans had evolved all over the world for hundreds of thousands of years. Because their data on mutational differences indicate such a close common ancestry, and limited “mutational,” or genetic differences, scientists must assume that modern humans came from a recent stock of humans, contradicting evolutionary assumptions.
A program on the Discovery Channel introduces
this dilemma while talking about the destructive power of volcanoes. The
These “mutation” rates are then applied to the genetic differences between populations, and calculations are made about how long it would have taken for them to diverge. Again, since there is no evidence that different characteristics are the result of mutations, then these differences come from built-in genetic variations. Because of this, evolutionists project an excessive amount of time on the progress of civilization to allow for these mysterious mutations to occur. Even allowing the evolutionists’ assumption, though, their own calculations still arrive at a shockingly recent the population growth.
Although Creation scientists would call these differences genetic variation rather than mutation, the remarkable genetic similarities worldwide confirms a recent population growth since the Flood. Whether one calls this data “mutations” or “variations,” it so undeniably indicates a recent descent from common ancestors, that scientists must invent an explanation. In the program, they suggested that there must have been a massive population reduction on the scale of near extinction. Again, one might suggest that a worldwide Flood could accomplish such a thing. Evidence like this overwhelmingly demonstrates the credibility of the Creation/Flood model.
In addition to these bits of trivia, there are also numerous geological dating methods that validate the Creation model. Unfortunately, for both sides of the debate, there are scores of methods that have attempted to gauge the age of the earth, but they all rely on assumptions that cannot be verified. This is why all the different chronometers (aside from radioisotope dating) date the earth the full spectrum between 100 years (influx of iron into oceans via rivers) and 500,000,000 years old (influx of magma from crust to form mantle) or more. All of these scores of estimates are based on assumptions about steady rates of measurement gathered within a few generations of scientists.
Since evolutionists always assume that current rates have been the same since the past, and Creationists believe the evidence supports sudden Creation and planet maturity along with a worldwide cataclysm, some of these methods may never be verified to everyone’s satisfaction. There are simply too many factors that we are not knowledgeable enough to account for, and too many disagreements on all sides. But the point is, considering the assertions evolutionists make, if very few of these methods agree, then how can geologists arbitrarily decide which ones they will accept? There is no sure way to verify the earth’s age.
All the uniformitarian assessments assume millions of years for evolution, but the evidence does not require that interpretation. When something is a fact, it means that there is no reliable refuting evidence, or possible alternative interpretation. The rate evidence, such as the population growth is, reliable and verifiable, and indisputable. But while the information just discussed is compelling, the geological record itself also provides competent, reliable evidence that not only completely allows for the Creation/Flood model, it is typically best understood through the Creation/Flood model. Our actual observations and collective historical experiences make the most sense under a young earth Creation/ Flood scenario when we consider what we know about observed catastrophes, rock formation, hydraulic erosion, and even fossil anomalies. All of these phenomena support the Creation model.
A last example is taking what should be an evolutionists’ weapon of evidence, that actually reveals how indisputably young the earth’s history is. Let’s call them, un-fossils. As discussed earlier, there are a growing number of examples of fossil specimens that should be tens of thousands to millions of years old that show no signs of the long years of decay they should have undergone. Millions of year old bacteria have been cultured to life. Carbon 14 has been found in all samples of coal and fossil fuels despite supposedly being millions of years older than it could possibly survive. Similarly, DNA has been extracted and analyzed from “Neanderthal” bones. Since carbon 14 would not even last 50,000 years, certainly uncorrupted DNA from Neanderthals of about the same age should never survive.
More telling than this is the remarkable discovery of red blood cells found in T. Rex bone. This is impossible if dinosaurs died millions of years ago. This fact defies the whole foundation of evolution, and is further proof that the more scientific research that is done, the more evidence points to the Creation model. We are grateful for those intrepid scientific explorers.
Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer has engaged in some unusual work with fossils. She is the first paleontologist to examine fossil bone fragments under the microscope, and has found heme (the protein of hemoglobin) and red blood cells in several specimens. The latest was from a femur of a T. Rex found encased in massive amounts of sandstone in Montana in 2000 by researchers from the Museum of the Rockies. Since the large femur was broken in the process of transporting the specimen, the museum sent fragments to Schweitzer for her research.
This specimen appeared so well preserved that blood vessels and blood cells are evident, intact with several nuclei, as well as actual soft tissue. Despite supposedly being 68 million years old, the bone wasn’t even fully fossilized with mineral, and the tissue actually became elastic after hydration, indicating the lack of degradation of these proteins.
The May 2006 article in Smithsonian entitled “Dinosaur Shocker!” quotes fellow paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr. as stating the obvious on page 55. “Schweitzer’s work is showing us we really don’t understand decay.” Well you certainly don’t understand something. Until now, no one even thought blood cells and tissues could be preserved by fossilization even 10,000 years, let alone 68 million years. Since such an short window of time would completely discredit evolution, real science must acquiesce again.
Despite claiming to be a Christian, Schweitzer is frustrated by Creationists pointing out how impossible this preservation of blood cells and soft tissue is. She says “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” It is not necessary to manipulate data when the researchers themselves are astonished by their findings. It speaks for itself. Although perhaps there are still some mysteries about the extent that organic material can be kept viable under these circumstances, this fossil is certainly a poor example to promote the concept that T.Rex was killed 68 million years ago. The fossil simply cannot be that old.
Even after being sealed off from organisms and oxygen, this does not keep the tissue and the cells from chemically degrading or turning to stone. Moreover, the protein collagen has been indicated in the samples, which is particularly telling since it should completely degrade in less than 30,000 years. The only explanation uniformly offered by researchers for this amazing preservation is that it must have fallen into some sort of preserving chemical solution in its burial. Clearly, scientists recognize how extraordinary these findings are, they simply refuse to consider the implications. Instead, the discovery goes a long way to substantiate the Creationist timeline of death by The Flood just thousands of years ago.
The author of the article, Helen Fields, goes on to illustrate the exact assertion of this book—that scientists who adhere to the evolutionist perspective will completely ignore blatant contrary evidence. She explains Schweitzer’s thoughts on pg 55:
For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks for is faith, not evidence. . . “I think that God designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
God has given us all this really cool evidence that the Bible is true, and the people who could verify it are committed to a science that makes it illegal to recognize God. Wow. Science. The feasibility of evolution is completely intertwined with their timeline of millions of years. Regardless how scientists would like to guard the evidence, it continues to substantiate the Creation/Flood timeline.
As discussed in the introductory chapter, the most crucial aspect of the Creation model, the one that typically receives derision, is that of the Biblical account of the worldwide catastrophic flood. Despite the perceived fantastical aspects, the geological evidence for the Flood is so remarkable that it is bewildering how blatantly geological hypotheses ignore the possibility. In attempting to solve the mysterious and catastrophic global extinction of the dinosaurs, scientists have entertained theories of the bizarre, including asteroid or meteor impacts, draught, disease, earthquakes, radiation, massive volcanic activity, and even dinosaur blindness, but never a worldwide flood.
Is this because there is no evidence for a flood? No, there is infinitely more evidence for a worldwide flood than for any of the other theories. This is especially true when we realize that we only know about the existence of dinosaurs at all because they were entombed in water borne sediments as fossils, which will be discussed more.
In trying to solve the mystery of dinosaur
extinction, scientists have only recently entertained the possibility of a
flood in any form, generally as localized floods, or coastal floods caused by a
meteor impacting the ocean. This
reluctant admission is a result of logical conclusions drawn from the
geological evidence of tremendous and sudden depositions of waterborne
sediments. The theory considers the
evidence of regional massive sedimentation and geographical features in the
These scientists propose that the waves could
have reached as far as 700 feet inland for surrounding coastal areas. Some argument is made over the validity of
the so-called impact crater, but there is agreement about the undeniable
evidence of regional flooding. According
to these researchers, massive sedimentary deposits are apparent on the coasts
of all surrounding regions, particularly noted by these scientists in
Scientists, seeing the potential of this explanation for the demise of dinosaurs, are willing to concede that these massive sedimentary depositions are indicative of rapid verses gradual deposition. They site that these deposits contain no evidence of animal boroughs or root intrusions typical to lengthy passage of time in between gradual depositions. Scientific supporters of this theory contend that such a flood disaster could have global effects, and rightly so, but how could a single tidal wave wipe out dinosaurs in every part of the earth (but left all other kinds of animals) regardless of their proximity to the coast?
Most scientists recognize that this theory cannot adequately account for the extinction of the dinosaur, but acknowledge the evidence given. Even in this limited scope, however, they are reluctantly giving credence to a worldwide flood because one must assume that if the evidence reflects one kind of flood, it could reflect another. The implication that dinosaurs could have been catastrophically killed by flood, also confirms that the evidence shows that they were buried in sediments.
Instead of focusing on the flood evidence, though, the majority of the evolutionists place their faith in the atmospheric effects of a possible meteor, or asteroid impact. As children, most of us were taught that the dinosaurs were eradicated when one or numerous asteroids struck the earth raising a huge cloud of dust that covered the earth, choking the atmosphere. This dust is supposed to have blocked out the sun, which theoretically brought a draught, killing all the vegetation. There was a very popular animation that illustrated this theory, which made the public education circuits, and depicted this dark and violent world of dinosaurs. Since then, there have been several revisions to the same event, but the essence is the same.
The popularity of this theory persists due to the discovery of a band of rock that has a high iridium content located between the supposed “Cretaceous” and “Tertiary” systems (or the K-T boundary, which is considered the dinosaur/ mammal boundary). Iridium is rare, and known to be found abundantly only in outer space, or under the surface of the earth. Scientists believe that the presence of this iridium layer supports the asteroid theory for the demise of dinosaurs. Scientists also know that this spike in iridium could be caused by worldwide cataclysmic volcanic activity. Evolutionists often consider volcanic activity in their scenarios as an alternative explanation because a great layer of volcanic ash would produce this worldwide spike even more effectively than simply clouds of dust scattered by one or more asteroids.
Massive volcanism, however, is part of the Creation scenario, and corroborates the anticipated factors of the Flood account. Scientists point to the worldwide layer of ash-like iridium spike, and also consider the possibility that massive volcanism may have occurred in the past, which subsequently blocked the sun, and disrupted the climate with added moisture and ash. When they do this, they are pointing to evidence of the cataclysm associated with the Biblical Flood.
According to the Flood account, volcanic activity in the oceans and on land discharged a great deal of the subterranean water as part of inducing the Flood. The geological turmoil caused by the Flood perpetuated the upheaval. This volcanism continued as part of the mountain building process that assuaged the Flood waters off of the land. There are only two possibilities for explaining this iridium layer: asteroids and volcanoes. One validates the Creation model, and the other, as we will see, doesn’t fit the evidence.
When examining the demise of the dinosaurs, there are several difficult issues that scientists must account for in their theories. These issues are so problematic that evolutionists are forced to create complicated and unsupported scenarios in trying to explain them. Yet these same difficulties for the evolution model are simply resolved when we view the facts from the context of a worldwide flood. Scientists that will not accept the Flood evidence must explain what kind of catastrophe would eradicate the dinosaurs of all sizes and ecological niches, and yet other types of life would have had to obviously survive even until now. If this disaster wiped out the dinosaurs, it should have wiped out all terrestrial animal life, yet clearly it did not.
Though they had different body types than mammals, the dinosaurs were vastly diverse, ranging from gigantic to very small, carnivores, herbivores, scavengers, as well as insectivores. There were even the dinosaur type sea creatures like the plesiosaur. Supposedly, none of these survived, though mammals would have depended on the same types of environments that they did. As discussed in the section on mammals, most evolutionists profess that the mammal population at this time was limited to basically the shrew, and perhaps other small mammals until the dinosaurs were wiped out. In the event of proposed dramatic atmospheric disturbances (such as meteors or asteroids raising clouds of dust), evolutionists suggest that these small mammals, waiting in the wings to take over the world, managed to hide underground until the danger passed.
If this were the case, however, it is certain that the death of the dinosaurs through this means would take many months. How did only these sensitive mammals survive no more than a few feet below ground with their environment, air, and normal food and water supplies thoroughly corrupted, while the most dominant and versatile creatures to ever live, big and small, perished in this earth shattering disaster? If it were possible to survive at all, why didn’t scavenger dinosaurs survive off of all that carrion until the conditions changed, the way animals underground would have to survive until things changed?
It is as if evolutionists are comparing short-term disaster events, such as fires or local floods, with what would be a very long term global disaster. Mice have been known to survive short-term limited disasters, but even mice drown on a sinking ship. Being a few feet underground does not protect one from an epic, atmospheric disaster for long. Evolutionists seem quite comfortable with dictating the timing and survival of mammals. According to many records, we know that dinosaurs and a great diversity of mammals actually did coexist in the Cretaceous, making the dictates of what and when mammals survived and evolved a thin line of subjective distinction.
The survival of mammals is only slightly baffling compared to another survival tale. This scenario cannot explain how gracious and delicate birds inexplicably survived in the same environment that killed all the dinosaurs. The fully formed Archaeopteryx (as discussed) has been designated by evolutionists as part of the Jurassic system—supposedly before the grand appearance of “true” mammals, but while dinosaurs were at their strongest. The “true” bird must have been close behind.
The fossil site already mentioned in
This early establishment of “true” birds raises two problems. First, since birds supposedly began to evolve while dinosaurs were at their peak, then the disaster itself later could not have provided the environmental or survival impetus to evolve. The second problem is that birds are even more vulnerable to atmospheric changes than the whole range of dinosaurs would be (canary in a coal mine?). They live in the air and trees, and could never have survived a disaster that wiped out all the resourceful dinosaurs worldwide. If this were possible, why did not the array of flying reptiles survive?
Any such worldwide disaster would have far reaching consequences that would affect the whole spectrum of life. Additionally, there would need to be the necessary recovery time for the air to clear, the hydraulic cycle to pick up again, and the plants to begin to grow. If dinosaurs, the most resourceful animals, could not survive anywhere in the world because of the disaster, how could anything survive? It would have to wait a long time to breathe and eat, and drink in safety in order to thrive. Scientists cannot reconcile the fossil and geological evidence with a feasible theory for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs that is consistent with the evolutionary model.
Even many evolutionists acknowledge that there are difficulties with the traditional extinction scenario. Instead of a cataclysmic cause, the Atlas of Life on Earth proposes on page 229 a possible gradual extinction of the dinosaurs through an unexplained temperature drop. Of course, this wouldn’t explain how they got buried in all that sediment, but that will be discussed later. The Atlas kindly lays out the figures for extinction rates of different animals during this event by comparing fossils of life that existed at the time of the extinctions to today’s life. Evolutionists have long maintained the impression that there was little more than the shrew that needed to survive the catastrophe, but this book flatly acknowledges the clear evidence that there was a wide range of all life that the fossil record captures at this exact time of supposed transition.
This concession makes theories about the dinosaur extinction even more strained, as a much more diverse group of animals across the board would have had to weather the disaster that brought all dinosaurs to an end. According to their interpretation of the evidence, there have been some surprise survivors of this extinction based on comparing what fossils are found at this perceived Cretaceous/Tertiary (K-T) boundary, and what is known to survive today. Therefore, according to the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record, all of these categories are represented to the extent that their post “K-T extinction” survival can be compared. Among the survivors are birds (of course), crocodilians, all amphibians, 95% of lizards and snakes, 85% of the placental mammals, and only 25% of the marsupials. Since evolutionists can take great liberties as to when fossils are assigned in the timeline, the evidence must unavoidably demonstrate this arbitrary “mass extinction” managed to zero in on all dinosaurs (regardless of size).
Just as interesting is the assessment that about 70% or more of marine species also became extinct at this time although only about 15% of fish specifically went extinct. This further complicates a sufficient cause of the mass extinctions if a worldwide sediment-bearing Flood is excluded as a possibility since burial, not ecological or environmental, best explains their deaths since these species tend to be floor dwelling, or low-mobility species, while the majority of fish survived. Strangely, though these statistics argue that only 25% of birds survived, the chart about bird development two pages later explains: “By the end of the Cretaceous, the birds had evolved into the major groups known today.” That means that birds were fully developed before the massive dinosaur extinction that closed the “Cretaceous,” and therefore could not have been the event that spurred their evolution. In fact, birds would have been very strongly developed for a supposed 25% extinction rate to have hindered their speciation so little.
This chart demonstrates the hypocrisy of the extinction/progression scenario:
Despite the fact that evolutionists use the dinosaur extinction as the impetus for ushering in a new era of birds and mammals, all of these animals not only lived contemporaneous with dinosaurs without the help of extinction, but they apparently survived what only the dinosaurs could not. There is no opportunistic relationship implied in the fossils, which simply confirm that there was a great disaster that killed massive amounts of animals, and destroyed ecosystems as well, evidenced in the vast entombed remains. Once again, the fossil record only demonstrates what had died and was buried, not all that has lived. It is the same today. We can dig up a graveyard from the old west, and get an idea about the types of people that lived in that town, but there is also a lot of room for misinterpretation depending on what we dig up. One could easily assume that mostly old people lived there, or only really sick people lived there. If there had been a measles epidemic, one might think that it had been a town made up of only small children, or if one digs up the jailhouse cemetery, one would think people had weak necks back then because so many of them were broken. This is how it is to interpret the fossil record. All we know is what died, and what was buried. We only really know what survived by what still lives today.
Perhaps if evolutionists did not confine their conclusions to fit their evolutionary expectations, they would discover that a great variety of animals lived at the same time prior to the extinction, and the reason they cannot explain why some survived while others did not is because the rocks only tell one story—what died. They do not tell when they died, or how long between, or even a particularly accurate order.
The only real geological evidence for the extinction of the dinosaur is that something buried all these dead animals, including the mammals and birds in adjoining layers. We know this happened for a fact because that is what a fossil is. Nothing more can be derived from this fact other than that these species were buried, and quickly, because their preservation in the rocks is the only evidence that they existed at all. The true scientific query should be why were they all buried?
When evolutionists go looking for evidentiary support, their entire model is based on the order of species found fossilized in the rock strata. Scientists contend that, here the sedimentary rocks have preserved the story of evolution. Fossils beginning at the lowest level are supposed to represent a sampling of the early, simple micro-biotic life, moving up to simple sea life, toward more complex sea life, to lowland life, to more complex terrestrial life, to dinosaurs, to mammals and birds, to the life represented today and man. They call this the geologic column, and in the evolutionist’s mind, it is the perfect picture of life’s progress from the sea to land and up from there. The fossils, they believe, are the key.
The problem is that this geologic column is not complete anywhere, and is frequently uncooperative. According to the uniformitarian model, if the column were complete, the span of 600 million years of life would require 130 miles of sedimentary rock to record it in. The worldwide sedimentary layer does not generally exceed seven miles depth in any one place. This leaves the uniformitarian scientist the responsibility of deciding which of the 600 million years are actually represented in the maximum 5% of the supposed strata available. This subjective dating method, though pliant in the geologist’s speculative imagination, still frequently does not fall in line with evolutionary expectations.
Quite often, as mentioned before, species are actually found out of order. Not slightly out of order, but dramatically. As mentioned in the fossil section, frequently, uniform rock formations will bear two species that are believed to be sequential, at the same level or in reverse evolutionary order. In these dramatic instances, there is no visible break in the laying down of the sediment, and no apparent physical explanation for the fossils to be laid down in inverse evolutionary order.
Such inexplicable evidence mortally wounds the concept of evolutionary ascent from lower forms, making scenarios unimaginable. Again, this phenomenon is so common that geologists employ a plethora of incredible approaches to explain them, many of which do not fit the on site evidence, and seem to the mind mechanically impossible. They impose sedimentary shifts and intrusions of newer sediments, and even a sort of flip flop of layers regardless of the uniform appearance of sediments. Rather than take the record for what it presents, these scientists explain why the evidence does not fit their expectations.
The geological presentation of the fossil record does not need to be explained to validate the Creation/Flood model, and the Bible was written long before anyone knew how to gather such evidence and manipulate the account to fit it. When the Bible was written, people probably didn’t bother to study the sedimentary layers and fossils, yet this new scientific research confirms the Bible. On the other hand, it is the inconsistency of these fossils and sedimentary layers that cause today’s evolutionists to readjust their theories.
The very evidence at the heart of evolution doesn’t actually prove evolution at all. The different strata that evolutionists would like to use to demonstrate the stages of evolution also correspond to the preservation of different ecological zones if they were to be somewhat mixed and frozen in time in the Flood (factoring in the sorting action of water on different bodies). This is what evolutionists term the “geologic column,” but this evolutionary timeline is more harmful than helpful to the paleontologist, and it is not even the best, supportable, interpretation.
What we find from the lowest rocks to the highest rocks in this “geologic column,” are these fossil snapshots preserving fully formed and ecologically established species. No transitions, and no explanations. Predictably, the sediment sometimes preserves a wide variety of fossilized life natural to a general ecological zone. The “column” does not sufficiently demonstrate every stage of evolutionary development, but the evolutionist’s perception of this ascent from the sea is actually consistent with living ecological zones.
This obvious parallel interpretation is evident beginning with the lowest section in the evolutionists’ column, which contains sedentary mud dwelling micro-biotic life and worms and such. The next section up bursts into more complex sedentary life (trilobites, sponges and clams), to soft bodied low propulsion life (like jellyfish and nautiloids). Then more mobile life is preserved as the strata goes higher from the base, revealing vertebrate fish, then up to amphibians, and then to reptiles, then mammals and birds.
Not surprisingly, life today is organized in generally the same manner: the lowest being simple life in the mud on the sea floor (called the benthos) or in lake bottoms, to complex vertebrates, from bottom dwelling fish to more surface fish (called the nekton), up the shoreline to amphibians, into drier zones, reptiles, smaller mammals, up to larger mammals depending on the local topography. The fossilized plant and tree life are often grouped in similar zones as well. This demonstrates that fossils preserved life according to its regional relationship, and according to the different biomes like tropical forests, coniferous forests, temperate forests, deciduous forests, and grasslands. Perhaps one reason the geologic column is incomplete in any given area is because not all kinds of life live in the same ecological zone.
Each era on the evolutionists’ geological column can reasonably be correlated to these ecological biomes. The benthos correlates to the Pre-Camrian/ Cambrian/ Ordovician eras. The nekton correlates to the more mobile Silurian/ Devonian/ Mississippian eras. The grasslands and swamps correlate to the Pennsylvanian/ Permian eras. The conifer and tropical forests correlate to the Triassic/ Jurassic eras. The deciduous and temperate forests correlate to the Cretaceous/ Tertiary/ Quaternary eras. The actual fossil record itself does not perfectly reflect this evolutionary concept of geologic systems, but it is what evolutionists have agreed the fossils demonstrate in general. In reality, the conditions appear to be more turbid than paleontologists like to admit, but the evolutionists’ concept of a geologic column correlates so well to natural biomes, that it gives a great deal of credence to the Flood model. The Flood model would expect that many regional species would be buried together, along with a lot of lingering marine life that had been swept inland.
If one were to imagine a catastrophic flood today, one would expect to see essentially this same pattern buried within the sediment. Some fossils would be created during the Flood, and some as the Flood stood, and some as the Flood receded and left new deposits. This would lead to multiple marine fossil layers. Additionally, sorting would be natural in these different zones among creatures with a wide range of mobility.
The larger animals and the more mobile animals, and air breathing marine animals (turtles, whales) would escape longer from the steadily rising waters. Birds could perch in trees, avoiding drowning longer. More significantly, animals that floated best would end up dropping into the sediments later. This is exactly what is reflected in the supposed geologic column, allowing for any amount of intermingling and sorting by the physical properties of the plants and animals, as expected in a flood. Many animals, including humans, could cling to vegetation, or float extensively, exposing them to ordinary decay, and leave no trace.
Interestingly, scientists confirm this “picture” of ecological zones frozen in time. Many books on how to find and identify fossils will discuss the conflicting mix of evidence at any site through this encapsulation of ecological zones. Snails and horsetails have no business in the same strata if snails only represent the Cambrian era, and Horsetails only represent the Pennsylvanian, supposedly being separated by millions of years. The fossil hunter, though, recognizes their ecological relationship and will discuss the sites based on the expectations of certain zones and the fossils they are likely to produce such as marine, wetland, tropical, forest, and so on.
It is clear to them what kind of environment is represented by the sediments and the site, and appropriately characterizes it. They do not seem to consider that another site, hundreds of miles away, which also lay in the same strata, reveals a completely different fauna. Although related strata is generally recognized as the same period, new explanations for the burial of those fossils may need to be conjured if it is not environmentally reasonable.
In one region of the strata, marine fossils are found, and in another, large terrestrial fossils are found. The same sediments cover them both, but they do not acknowledge that both sites capture ecological zones more rationally than geological periods. Rather than realize that all fossil sites are subject to ecological zones, regardless of where they lie in the strata, they still typically characterize the age of a site based on key fossils that they believe indicate a particular period of evolution.
When we read the descriptions of certain evolutionary time periods, like the Jurassic, or the Cretaceous, we are told about their climate and vegetation as if they were distinct to those times. The Triassic is borderline wetland and tropical, marked by ferns and horsetails, and conifers along with other similar moist-climate vegetation. The Jurassic is considered fully tropical with ferns, tropical conifers, and similar biota. The Cretaceous is marked by the dramatic appearance of angiosperms (flowering plants and trees) deciduous trees, and a slightly drier climate.
Finding each of these fossils is very important to evolutionists because they believe that they mark major epochs and shifts in evolution. But because evolutionists wrap all their ideas up with their sense of when things existed, they are ignoring the obvious difficulties with this limited perspective. Since fossilized flora and fauna must obviously reflect an entire ecological zone, it isn’t really possible to designate it to a specific time period. The majority of ecological zones today are marked by specific biota, therefore one would understand that the same applied in the past. But since evolutionists are married to the timeline, every flower indicates the Cretaceous, but a fern can indicate almost any time.
Moreover, many species seem to appear in a geologic system, never to be heard from again. Evolutionists acknowledge mass extinctions at every geological age. From the Cambrian to the Cretaceous, animals have been showing up in the sediment of their supposed geologic system, but not in “later” sediments. While evolutionists are constantly trying to explain the source of these numerous extinctions, creationists offer a simple explanation.
Instead of recording geologic ages, the sediments are essentially recording a peak at the ecological zones that the animals lived in when they were killed. Although, again, the sediments do intermix (which paleontologists avoid acknowledging), any discernable pattern of extinction is more simply understood by the Flood concept. Everything was buried at once, and some things never made a comeback. There will be more on this at the end of the book.
When evolutionists see the kinds of fossils that fit one of these eras, they place that stratum in that pre-conceived period. If it had the right tropical markers, it would be placed in the Jurassic, along with its approximately 60 million year span and all the evolutionary ideas that are wrapped up in this timeline. Today, when we find the same types of vegetation ascribed to the Jurassic (which of course we have lots of) we do not call it an evolutionary era, and limit the vegetation to a particular time in evolution. This would be ridiculous because these conditions still exist. Why do evolutionists apply this reasoning to the past then? Along with the zonal vegetation also typically come specific animals and insects. You don’t find bears in the swamp, or frogs in the desert very often.
These same zones are found thriving all over the
world today, with considerable intermingling, but they have nothing to do with
evolution. This is why the evidence for
the geologic column is so uncooperative for the evolutionists. There are many anomalies within the strata
that confound the evolutionary schemes, but make sense in ecological
schemes. This is also why evolutionists
perceive a layer of sediments to represent one geologic system in one part of
It should not be possible for the same level of strata to demonstrate different evolutionary time periods. Systems like the Devonian should not be exposed while the Triassic is still exposed, and with no detectable difference in the levels of strata. This only makes sense if they are different ecological zones. Additionally, there is a great deal of fossil sea life throughout all the levels. This is a baffling intrusion into terrestrial regions under evolution, but the phenomenon is easily explained by their influx due to high flood waters, and receding water deposits.
Because the strata are dated based on these faulty assumptions about the fossils they contain, the whole geologic system is wide open to errors in judgment and manipulation according to evolutionary expectations. When annelids (worms) are found at the same site as ferns, evolutionists do not say that the worms are from the Cambrian period and the ferns are from the Mississippian. Clearly they existed at the same time.
But what about the times that only the worms are found, and no ferns? Then the geologists would be guessing at the time period and, by their own timescale, have more than a 200 million year time period to play with. If this can happen within one ecological zone, what evidence is there that all of these fossil discoveries cannot be from the same time just like today’s ecological zones exist all at once? The paleontologists are deciding what system is being uncovered based on previous assumptions made by other paleontologists about when species evolved and lived.
Without any way of verifying if these assumptions are correct, evolutionists rely on their so-called “index” fossils to help them assign an age to a site. Dependence on this system has lead to many inconsistencies. One convincing example is in ammonite cephalopods. Paleontologists use these squid creatures (like the Cambrian level Nautiloid, and the living form, the nautilus) as index fossils. Index fossils are fossils that evolutionists believe lived during specific geologic systems, and when they see them, they automatically date the whole site according to that pre-determined system. This, of course is again, circular reasoning because this determination causes evolutionists to be closed to the possibility that the species could have lived later than expected, or earlier than expected.
In the case of ammonites, this is a fatal
problem because the age specific relationship to each species does not hold up
under what is termed “condensed beds.”
This is the evolutionist term for too many unique species from different
geologic systems, or times, appearing in the same strata. The existence of the term demonstrates the
frequency of the problem. “Condensed
beds” should only happen under the uniformitarian scheme, never. That is, not ever. “Condensed beds” mean that millions of years
that are supposed to happen between species, did not. There are numerous examples of this occurrence in
ammonites, including sites in the
What is more ridiculous is that these marine
index fossils often appear fossilized in strata simultaneously with terrestrial
index fossils, which naturally would have lived on dry land. Permian floras, or plants, which live on
dry land appear in
The close regional occurrence of marine and terrestrial inhabitants around the world is ridiculous. Evolutionists cannot reasonably impose so many influxes and retreats of the sea just because of this evidence. But they do. These two ecological environments could not exist at the same time, or even in close relationship to each other, yet this is exactly the type of unreasonable interpretation evolutionists must impose to hang onto their theory. (Studies in Flood Geology, pgs 144-148, figures20, 21, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34).
Evolutionists limit all future finds of a region to their preconceived conclusions drawn from index finds, even when subsequent finds discredit their assumptions. This is why the time periods of strata are frequently adjusted by paleontologists to fit evolutionary expectations, and the numerous anomalies of extinct species found out of place are typically ignored. Once evolutionists decided what the evolutionary progress was, each species is relegated to its assigned geologic system without any evidence to confirm that the system has any meaning.
The geologic column, which is supposed to represent the progress of life from the bottom of the sea, reflects known ecological zones so well that one wonders why it is readily accepted as evidence for evolution rather than the Flood. If the need for distinct geological time periods were not necessary for evolution, one would naturally conclude that these numerous and differing sites are representatives of the same kinds of varying ecological zones we still have today intruded upon by flood effects, and not sequences in evolution.
Regardless of when evolutionists believe the fossils were deposited, logically the sediments would record ecological zones of some form. If one detects these zones at all, it could both mean the evolutionists’ timeline, or it could mean natural zones like we find today. The problem for evolutionists is that the fossils frequently record evidence that is inappropriate for the evolutionary scheme. The evidence completely substantiates expectations of the Flood model, though, making this a better interpretation.
Although the fossil record frequently suggests ecological zones, there is also this intermingling of zones (or eras), and (like the previous example) the jumbling of marine life with terrestrial life, characteristic of catastrophic deposition. This is impossible within the uniformitarian model. Once a geologic system has been buried, something from two systems later, or from a different environment should not appear in that same, unblemished strata because it would already have been compacted by millions of years of succeeding systems. These anomalies are frequently found around the world, which refute the evolution model outright, and affirm that torrential water is the best catalyst for this worldwide fossilization.
The Flood explains this intermingling of specimens, which would otherwise be from different evolutionary time periods or environments. As mentioned in the earlier section, it is not unusual to find bits of twigs, leaves, pollen, wood, bark and seeds from “late” system plants and trees buried among the “earliest” deposits, including the Cambrian, when they could not possibly have evolved yet. This is exactly the sort of debris we might expect to find if we dug into the strata of a mudslide that could preserve fossil specimens.
There are also fossil deposits that are not
explainable without a catastrophic flood.
One notorious example is the 1½ foot wide coal seam in Yallourn in
Most people do not understand what a powerful testimony the mere existence of fossils is for a worldwide flood. Scientists know that the creation of fossils in sediment rocks is unique, and only occurs when an animal or plant is suddenly covered by water borne sediment before it can decay or be consumed. Some scientists try to contrive the circumstances of these conditions, saying that the soft tissues of the specimens dissolve first, and then some time later the specimen’s hard parts become buried. However, when scavengers and decay destroy the soft tissue, the bones typically become disarticulated, making them easily separated—especially with smaller animals and animals in the water.
Additionally, the bones must still be buried by sediments at some point in order to preserve them and allow for mineral intrusion. Attempting to dictate when the waterborne sediments cover the specimen reveals the threat that these requirements pose to uniformitarian concepts and the foundation of evolution. The bones should have already been disarticulated by decay and scavengers after just a few weeks had passed, so burial would still need to quickly follow in order to explain the abundance of intact specimens. The uniformitarian dictates of these situations are unable to convincingly draw attention away from Flood evidence.
So many fossilized animals are preserved whole as if they were in the immediate state of death. Evolutionists recognize this and must contrive strained sudden, local flood scenarios to explain them. Otherwise, if the animal had been dead for any length of time when the water came, the sudden rush of water and sediments necessary for fossilization would disarticulate the body even more. When the fossil bones are found disarticulated, they are frequently associated with mass graves, and jumbled up with fossils inappropriate to the environment, like marine fossils, as we will discuss with Dinosaur National Monument.
The uniformitarian scenarios for fossilization don’t adequately account for two typical characteristics. The first phenomenon is seen in the preservation of hundreds of thousands of delicate plants and soft tissues, including fine details that alter soon after death. These specimens absolutely have to be buried suddenly and either immediately after death, or actually causing the death of the organism.
The other phenomenon is that frequently no vegetation is preserved with a massive burial where there should have been a great deal. For instance, sites where abundant dinosaur fossils are found often yield little or no vegetation to demonstrate the environment or circumstances of their demise. Both scenarios make sense when assessed under the turbulent conditions of the global Flood, where the sudden rush of water could either instantly bury specimens, (as in the case of the entombed dinosaur nests, eggs and all) or lift them up into the torrent to be deposited in the sediments later according to the hydraulic affects.
One article in the December, 1998 National Geographic credits a massive collection of entombed dinosaur eggs and nests directly to flooding, which was evident. The indications are undeniable, as there is no other explanation for nearly a square mile of these treasures to be jam-packed in 16 feet of silt. Rather than giving a nod to The Flood, the article assumes that the thousands of shells that they found in the Rio Colorado formation of Argentina, were set in a floodplain. According to the author on page 38, the flood “. . . made it possible for the soft tissues to fossilize before decaying, an extremely rare occurrence.” Not that rare in the fossil world.
Fossils do not testify to a slow build up of sediments over millions of years since fossils are only found in these rapid sedimentary deposits. The burial is so rapid, that escape trails have been found for bivalves and other such animals, proving that they were still alive (briefly) as the sediments piled upon them. Fossil conditions are so unique, that very little of today’s life forms will be preserved, and those that are, will in all likelihood be under catastrophic circumstances. Common sense tells us that any specimen left uncovered for more than a day or two will start to lose its form, and soon fall victim to scavengers, insects, and decay from the sun or water. Only vast, rapid deposits of sediments can explain the enormous amounts of fossilized life, from large mammals and gigantic dinosaurs down to small insects and delicate plants.
Paleontologists get very creative in trying to explain these impossible preservations. On page 242 The Nature Company Guides Rocks and Fossils demonstrates their prognosticating abilities concerning the remarkable preservation of hundreds of soft bodied organisms in the Burgess Shale:
The reason so many different types of delicate organisms were preserved seems to be that the area was originally in very deep water just beyond the continental shelf. Animals living on the shelf would occasionally be swept over the edge and settle into the soft, fine grained mud at the bottom where the water was too deep for scavenging animals to destroy their delicate bodies.
This explanation requires many factors that
cannot be deduced from the evidence. The
proposition that this location was once a vast chasm that stretched even beyond
the reach of light, is not reflected in the inland environment of this present day 7,000 foot
In addition to this mountainous, inland area once being in the depths of an ocean rift, this drop-off was supposed to be so deep that no life existed there to consume the hundreds of creatures that fell there. Even in the ocean today, life is so abundant for this purpose of consuming dead material that many deep sea animals, like sea urchins, shrimp, and isopods, living over 2 miles deep, feast on the manna of such fallen prey. Many other animals like spider crabs, eels, angler fish and other fish live off of this deep sea ecosystem as well. This chasm, therefore, would have to reach more than two miles below sea level before such delicacies would go untouched—this place which is now a mountain range of course.
Though there is no geological evidence (aside from the fossil sea life) indicating how such a formation could exist at this location, complicated and unmerited scenarios like this are commonplace from evolutionists in order to account for these mysterious fossils that could never be preserved under present day conditions. Because decomposition destroys bodies so quickly, long periods of slow uniformitarian geological time cannot explain all this miraculous preservation. Instead of recognizing the evidence of a rapid, sediment bearing flood, these scientists frequently propose such impossible scenarios, that even the now high mountainous region near the middle of the continent was once under a deep sea, and somehow this is not recognized as further evidence for a flood.
Moreover, such contrived situations propose that these delicate fossils formed under a small, incidental covering of sediment—while still underwater, which is unfeasible. As long as the encasing mud or sand is still wet, destruction is eminent. Only a tremendous amount of sediments can provide enough pressure to squeeze out the water and oxygen, and infuse the specimen with minerals. Because of this, if anything is buried through proposed uniformitarian “normal” processes under water, and it is covered by only a light load of sediments, and if that specimen also remains underwater for any length of time, it will not be preserved. This is especially true for the noted delicate tissues of specimens such as in the Burgess Shale. The water must be drained or squeezed out in order to keep the specimen from disintegrating and disarticulating, and to preserve its form so precisely. Ordinary circumstances do not accomplish this.
When we look at fossils, we see them packed in
all this sediment. We might be fooled
into believing how natural it is for sea life to be embedded in mud, (though,
again, they are not actually preserved this way today) but fossils are
certainly not limited to just sea life. All fossilized terrestrial life is encased in sediments as well. Within the uniformitarian scheme, this leaves
some issues. On one hand, uniformitarian
scientists will say that the vast layers of sediment were laid by ancient seas,
like that found in the
Instead, these scientists are forced to say, “Here was an ancient sea, and after it retreated, all these terrestrial animals came here and died, and drown in a river, or got buried in local floods, or covered in a landslide (no hills in sight), and sometimes the ancient seas returned, and this happened numerous times over thousands of square miles.” The evidence, in reality, indicates one massive episode. Only an immense, sediment-bearing flood could quickly cover all these specimens so thoroughly in order to encase them and preserve them, and these thick, uniform sedimentary layers demonstrates this.
Additionally, these very same sediments not only cover, but are a part of the uplifted mountains, including the great Rockies and Himalayas, and the mountains of every continent in the world. The whole world follows this same pattern of deep sedimentation, abundant marine and terrestrial fossil deposits, and fossil covered mountains. Despite this worldwide phenomenon, fossils are rarely produced through today’s geological processes, and these are always catastrophic. Logically something cataclysmic happened to create them.
There are many sites around the world that
demonstrate the fallibility of evolutionary timelines and scenarios. One does not have to be a paleontologist to
have access to “secret” finds and mysteries.
The fossil books that have been mentioned here are generous to give
these details that conflict with reason.
One might not realize that Archaeopteryx and many other terrestrial animals
have been fossilized in limestone, of all things, in the Solnhofen site in
So lizards, terrestrial plants, dinosaurs and all kinds of things that don’t belong in the water, mysteriously dropped into the middle of this very large “lagoon.” And although there were all these fossilized fish that clearly once lived there, supposedly the floor of the lagoon specifically could not support life. This condition is imposed on the site to explain how all these creatures fell in the water and were fossilized instead of eaten and destroyed. Such a contrived scenario doesn’t hold up because the fish would have gladly eaten these clumsy creatures. The evidence otherwise indicates that only a catastrophe could kill so much life in one place, and then bury it quite effectively.
It actually takes very little research on the
web, as well, to find such incredible fossil sites. A quick look under the topic of fossil whales
yielded three interesting finds. Yahoo!
News published a story on
The having both a fossil of a modern whale and terrestrial species from the same era preserved at this location forces one of these three elements to give way. This time evolutionists had to admit that this whale “Suggests that almost modern-looking whales lived considerably further back in time than scientists realized.” This puts even a tighter squeeze on the already fast-track whale evolution. However, it was better to allow that “true” whales existed earlier than thought possible than to concede that whales did not evolve, but were buried in the Flood along with all the other life preserved in the sediments.
There was also a “very large whale” found in
1999 according to the Australian Associated Press. It was discovered in the middle of a park in
Another search online (touregypt.net) actually
found an adventure company in
Although paleontologists would not agree, this evidence is actually better evidence for the Flood. There is a great mix of eras, flora and fauna and marine with terrestrial fossils in the same general region, and in related strata. These specimens supposedly could not live in the same system or locality, and they crowd the evolutionary timeline with complications. These circumstances require complex scenarios to be devised and timed.
The website for the region lists a wide range of fossil mammals from all different geologic eras including numerous ungulates of all kinds, an “early” hyena, extinct elephants, insectivores, marsupials, primates, and bats. Many of these mammals would occur very late in evolution, such as bats and primates, but some were quite early, like the creodonts (“primitive” hyena). However, this same region has also yielded sea cows and, of all things, the 80 foot long Basilosaurus, which as you recall are thought to be primitive whales. Now depending on what you believe, Basilosaurus either evolved from the Mesonyx (a wolf) or artiodactyls like a sheep or hippo.
The controversy here is that Basilosaurus would
have evolved from the very types of mammals that are already been buried in the
region. Then the sea that brought
Basilosaurus inland (called the
Strangely, though, the fossil mammals of this area could just as easily have lived after the Basilosuarus was buried there because they are all considered part of the Eocene epoch. Evolutionary wise, they existed at the same time. Their own timeline doesn’t even dictate this interpretation of the sequence. Not only this, but the designation of “early” forms given to these mammals is arbitrary since bats still exist, primates still exist, insectivores still exist, rodents still exist, and many of these forms of ungulates still exist. The designation of primitive is only necessary for removing time conflicts with whale evolution and the invasion of the sea.
Another mystery is presented by the perfect preservation of these enormous marine animals. Paleontologists are perplexed over how the serpentine Basilosaurus, up to 80 feet long, came to be fossilized in such necessarily shallow water. If the water was deep so far inland, then it would have had to be deep across the continent, which conflicts with the scheme. If the “whales” were beached, then they would have been torn apart by predators and the tides and elements, and never would have been preserved wholly the way they are. Since leaves have been found also fossilized with Basilosaurus (not indicative of a salt-marine environment), either Basilosaurus hauled itself up a river, or it was buried in a cataclysm. The interpretation that best fits the evidence is that these fossils of every kind were buried in a flood high enough to completely encase the enormous animals, and the terrestrial animals, at the same time in tons of sediments.
In addition to this mix of oceanic creatures in
the same region as land animals, the rocks that these fossils are found in tell another story as
well. Geologists are careful to date and
characterize these sedimentary deposits, but, as we will discuss in the section
on sediments, the
type of deposits that are laid indicate what type of depositional environment
produced them. The land surrounding the
These sediments shift so unpredictably, that
geologists often find themselves having to explain why one type is on top of
another with a confusing schedule of influxing and receding seas. The circumstances that cause of these deposits
range from fast water deposition to deep sea deposition in the same proximity,
which overlap in alternating layers. One
could more logically conclude that all this strata had instead been left by the
different stages of a single catastrophic Flood, rather than by capricious
The frequency of large fossil deposits found all around the world are a powerful indictment of uniformitarianism. These virtual graveyards of diversity are powerful evidence against evolution and uniformitarianism, and are indicative of what would necessarily be enormous water borne burial incidents. In addition to the testimony of missing transitional evidence, these large collections of fossils in one area evoke impossible scenarios about their mass preservation in fossil form.
In fact, these and other similar finds reveal hundreds of different animals so close together in their deaths that it appears as if they were swept into a pile. Paleontologists readily concede to the fact of these frequent mass burials, but are unable to explain them through the evolutionary model without imposing speculative conditions not provided by the evidence. This type of fossil evidence does, however, perfectly fit the kind of evidence Creation scientists (any scientist) would expect to find as the result of a great flood.
There is a tremendous mammalian fossil site
Moreover, they are remarkably well preserved. Hair, skin, stomach contents, and the whole outline of bodies are all easily perceived. The incredible amount of perfectly preserved fossils belies current uniformitarian scenarios. But never fear. Under the pressure of evolutionary expectations, a means will be devised. According to paleontologists, these fossils were created when they fell into this deep lake so full of mud that it could not support the life that would normally destroy them.
This is a familiar theme. Though this German site is reminiscent of the Solnhofen site, these incomparable circumstances are assigned to all similar finds. Never mind (again) how terrestrial mammals got into the middle of the lake before drowning and floating, and got buried with all the others that suffered the same fate. This lake must have been a death trap. Or, the more natural interpretation could be that they were all suddenly buried under a massive load of mud from a flood.
There are many such remarkable sites that defy
rational explanation. Some are simply
too large to dismiss. There are numerous, large Jurassic fossils found in the great Morrison formation
located from the
Some of the greatest and largest examples of dinosaurs have been uncovered here, of more than 70 different species. Additionally, a great deal of “Mesozoic” life (much more “recent”) was also preserved, seemingly out of step with the rest of the dinosaur dominated period that is represented, including “small mammals.” This incredible display of specimens is such a diverse mix of life, evolutionists are stretched to formulate the exact type of environment that would preserve the variety of fossils from marine life to giant dinosaurs and small mammals, both from the dinosaur and the mammalian age, in the same relative strata.
Uniformitarians must assume that this plain had already been uplifted to some degree, to allow for the land to be high enough to support terrestrial evolution. This conflicts, however, with the overwhelming indications of abundant water. Therefore, in order to account for the profusion of marine life, the area is given the full spectrum of marshes, rivers, floodplain, and left over ancient seas. In this, they are hoping that, as the water rose, receded, bogged, evaporated, flooded, and dried, there would be an opportunity to bury all those gigantic dinosaurs.
This complex scenario does not provide the type of water intrusion that could bury these large creatures. The location and uplift of the region do not allow for a sudden intrusion of another vast ancient sea. This is a great deal of criteria for uniformitarians to account for. The simple answer is that a single flood buried all of the life that lived in that plain, mingled with marine life that was swept up in the waters, and that the subsequent uplift of the mountains drained the land.
Fossils are often found in clusters, sometimes piles. These fossil collections are common, and typically when one fossil is found, that area reveals abundant fossils encased in large beds of uniform sedimentary deposits. This is so well known that paleontologists rely on these remarkable collections of fossils when they go fossil hunting, but ignore how unnatural such abundant preservations are—a sure testament to a watery cataclysm.
There are numerous examples of fossil graveyards such as in Agate springs Nebraska, the 1907 site in Tanzania, Africa, the Karroo Beds (also in Africa) containing perhaps 800 billion vertebrates, and there are incredible sites of collected fossilized fish, such as those of Fossil Butte National Monument in Wyoming. Ordinary circumstances can’t explain how hundreds of fish could be buried in immediate association with death, but are clear signs of a catastrophe.
A mass grave of fossilized Centrosaurus has been
There is also a large site in
This site, as well as sites in the Gobi desert, Mongolia, frequently capture not only nests of un-hatched dinosaur eggs, but in one case, even the 10 foot long mother was reportedly still crouched over them at the moment of entombment. What a grand and sudden flood that must have been. The Flaming Cliffs region offers dozens of astonishing fossil finds. According to page 237 of A Guide to Dinosaurs, one Protoceratops was found buried in an upright position, and a Veloceraptor and a Protoceratops were found interlocked.
The explanation for such unusual finds is that “The site seems to have preserved the animals like snapshots in time as huge sand and dust storms buried them rapidly, without warning.” The evidence does not actually support this kind of fossilization by dust storm, but that is the easiest explanation for evolutionists. One wonders what would attract these two dinosaurs so far away from water and vegetation into a dessert of such enormous amounts of loose sand that they could not simply crawl out of the pile. This doesn’t seem to nag at evolutionists though. Moreover, water still was necessary to create rock out of the deposit. This and scores of other examples, that apparently occurred simultaneously around the world, actually tell the story of a worldwide sudden water catastrophe.
Another famous example of massive burial is
A large portion of the deposits is exposed in
hundreds of feet of sandstone as seen in “the wall” in the Quarry Visitors’
That would be quite a powerful (noted flood conditions) river to drown and actually move and pile up hundreds of tons of dinosaurs. One may wonder how so many dinosaurs were unaware that they could not swim and were overtaken by the meandering, yet powerful (flood condition) river. Instead of accepting this restricted combination of conflicting phenomena, we can recognize that the great collection of giant carcasses strongly emulate the large train cars and trucks piled up as debris after powerful catastrophic flood events we have actually witnessed with our own eyes. Catastrophe, when considering these massive graveyards, is hard to escape.
Other places in the Morrison Formation offer a
different sedimentary medium, requiring further evolutionary gymnastics. Incredibly, the bones in these locations are
entombed in huge volumes of volcanic ash and mud, (like the deposits that will be described in
Another example of massive burial, briefly
mentioned previously, is
The park has uncovered at least 36 different dinosaur species, 250 of which were completely articulated skeletons. This again establishes the rapid burial of all these giants since they would have decayed and disarticulated from scavengers if exposed for more than a few weeks. All together 300 different fossil species of plants and animals have been recorded from this “late Cretaceous” site. The list includes 84 species of fish, frogs salamanders, turtles, lizards, crocodiles, pterosaurs, and—yes, incredibly—mammals and birds. (a Guide to Dinosaurs, pages 220-221).
These types of burials are not uncommon among fossils, but highly uncommon in the natural world. Even the language of evolutionists cannot omit the obvious evidence for the Flood, so it is redesigned into a more acceptable package. The book Rocks and Fossils makes this concession on page 145:
The dinosaur graveyard at Dinosaur National Monument, in Utah, is in sandstone that accumulated during several flood events.
Here, scientists concede to the need for floods as the catalyst, and they recognize that the site is a giant graveyard. While evolutionists are constantly shifting explanations and water deposition environments to account for the thousands of square miles of sediments and their fossils, Creation/ Flood scientists see the evidence plainly. All these elements are evidence of a catastrophe. Even within the evolutionists’ own interpretation, there is no tangible objection against the Flood.
These examples (among the hundreds of other types of mass burials around the world) are logically explained by the cataclysm of the Flood, but are irrationally viewed by evolutionists as hundreds of non-extraordinary large local flood and burial events. Uniformitarians refuse to acknowledge the unlikelihood of the coincidental formation of hundreds of mass gravesites of animals great and small of all kinds, buried about the same time throughout the world. Instead, they gloss over the tremendous events that could have allowed such remarkable burials of the largest land animals to ever exist, as if they were ordinary occurrences today.
Again, the nature of fossil preservation is that each
specimen must have been completely buried in life, or immediately upon death,
or else the exposed portions would have deteriorated and would not have been
preserved. It is imperative to acknowledge this in order
to understand what all these incredible fossils mean. When was the last time you heard of an
elephant involved in a fossilization accident, and yet elephants are much smaller
than many of the dinosaurs and whales that have been discovered. Large-scale burials of animals and plants are
commonly found around the world, like the tree found in
Even the layers of deposition betray the long ages assumed by evolutionists when large specimens are found embedded across the strata of more than one supposed time period (called polystratic fossils by evolutionists). This means that a specimen (whether an animal, tree or giant coal seam) crosses either a visible line in the sediment, that scientists had used to establish the different geologic eras, or into the range of fossils assigned to a different era. This is impossible if the sedimentary lines and their fossils represent the passage of millions of years during a shift in the environment.
Creationist Ken Ham has frequently pointed to
the example of the fossil trees discovered in
One famous example is that of the upright
whale. This fossilized baleen whale was discovered in
Whether or not it was buried upright, the enormity of this fossil directly discredits assumptions about gradual burial, and forces uniformitarians to acknowledge that only a catastrophe could lay down all that pure diatomic sediment around a gigantic whale before the body decayed and was disbursed. Every scientist knows that it would take hundreds to thousands of years to lay down that type of sediment millimeter by millimeter, but it would certainly not be possible to perfectly preserve the whole whale uncorrupted, and in proper form that period of time. One evolutionist was willing to argue the absurd when he learned that some scientists were suggesting that a catastrophe “on the scale of the Genesis Flood” was the best explanation for the evidence. Scientist Harvey Oleny hung doggedly onto his assumptions rather than accept the obvious as he wrote in his letter to the editor of Chemical and Engineering News in 1977, vol 55:
Everybody knows that diatomaceous earth beds are built up slowly over millions of years as diatom skeletons slowly settle out on the ocean floor. The baleen whale simply stood on its tail for 100,000 years, its skeleton decomposing, while the diatomaceaous snow covered its frame millimeter by millimeter. Certainly you wouldn’t expect intelligent and informed establishment scientists of this modern age to revert to the outmoded views of our forefathers just to explain such finds!
Even if the whale was in a horizontal position when it was buried, a catastrophe would be necessary in order to deposit such an enormous amount of diatoms. It would take at least a 15 foot deposit all over the ocean floor in order to cover the whale and preserve it. Despite the abundant conflicting evidence, evolutionists ignore the fact that under these conditions, a specimen could never be preserved after being exposed for thousands to millions of years while all the sediment from the next era accumulates around the exposed portion. Numerous adjustments to theories and geological events are required to fit the evidence into the evolutionary scheme, making it a tiring and fickle process lacking the integrity required for scientific study.
Another fact for the Creation model is simply the profusion of tremendously deep sedimentary layers that cover over ¾ of the earth’s land area (volcanic rock extrusions into these layers account for a good portion of the rest). As touched on earlier, sediments are generally little grains of sand, mud, limestone or similar water borne deposits. These can be collected and deposited by water, and then dried into hard rock formations. Scientists know that only water could have deposited these sediments that have formed rocks and fossils. Though some scientists contend that desert sediments can form rocks, even in circumstances of continued, undisturbed deposition, water would still be needed to cement the particles. Geologists agree that almost all sediments were originally deposited and eroded by water, even if subsequent wind erosion takes place.
Because water is necessary for eroding, bearing and depositing sediments that would form rocks and fossils, this means, logically, that every place where sedimentary rock has been deposited, there also had to be at least that much water present in order to transport it there. The majority of the world is covered by these solid, often continuous plateaus of sedimentary rock up to seven miles thick, spreading for hundreds of miles in all directions.
The fact that similar layers occur globally speaks to their relationship in a worldwide event. In most cases, the sediments of these deposits could not have even been supplied by the erosion of local mountains. The vastness of the sediments would require archaic mountain ranges of unrealistic height as their original source. This will be discussed more in depth later. Geologists are aware of the difficulty that all these formations present to a model that avoids catastrophism.
Because the evidence indisputably indicates the presence of abundant water worldwide, scientists must invent hundreds of “ancient seas” and “swamps” to explain it all. The improbability of all these formations occurring separately is further enhanced by the scientists’ disregard that these bodies of water would have obviously to be immense. Yet they do not consider the feasibility of a worldwide flood. The erratic processes that they envision in explaining all these formations are not happening now, and there is nothing to substantiate that these schemes are the legitimate application of the evidence rather than a worldwide flood.
Evolution scientists agree that these sediments were deposited by water, and that these sediments cover the entire earth up to seven miles thick, yet they still contend that there is no evidence for the Flood. Although they do not argue that water was not the cause of these formations, the question really seems to be how one desires to characterize the water that brought all this sediment. Considering the worldwide profusion and thickness of these sediments, it is difficult to argue against the Flood from the point of “lack of substantial evidence.” Although this is what uniformitarian geologists contend, the sedimentary evidence clearly points to a massive, dramatic influx of water erosion and transportation.
Uniformitarian scenarios also seem to leave out
the necessary cause and source of these sediments as well. Part of what forces these scenarios into
difficult corners is the immensity of each of these deposits all over the
world. One example is the large chalk formations that
have been made famous in
Many other sediment rock layers, like shale, were formed from small grained mud deposits, which typically filter down and settle in still water. They are the lighter grains that float longer, and frequently are the last of the transported grains to settle when the water slows down. These deposits, sometimes mudstone, or slate, or in metamorphic forms, are found abundantly around the world exposed in locations such as deserts, or at the base of folded mountains.
However, a great deal of the rock is comprised of much courser grains, like sandstone and conglomerate. As mentioned before, sandstone is a clear indication of rapid moving water because the larger grain size requires swift moving water for their original erosion, transportation, and deposition (and then post-deposition erosion). Sand sized grains are common in deltas, or anywhere that the water suddenly slows, or spreads out and becomes shallow to allow deposition. The world is covered with enormous deposits of sandstone, one of the most common sedimentary rocks on every continent.
We can verify the type of water environment that transports these sediments even within the stretch of one river. Many rivers that have their source in the mountains display most of these environments. Here, the runoff from rain or melted snow typically has a fierce and powerful start because of gravity from the mountainous height. A river that begins in the mountains will cause a lot of erosion. First, the soil is carried away, and then smaller grains of sand, and then the rocks themselves begin to erode and break into smaller rocks and grains.
Typically, where the fastest current in the river is, the bed of the river will be covered with very large rocks and boulders, sharp, and jagged, and very little smaller grained sediments. At this stage, the water is moving so powerfully, it will transport smaller rocks much further, while the larger rocks only travel short distances with the current’s bursts of power. As the river spreads out, the water depth cannot support the rocks, and they begin to get caught and deposit on the river bed. Some of these rocks, which have tumbled further, may be more rounded. A good indication of the power of a moving body of water is the size of the rounded rocks it transported because they were brought further.
As the water begins to slow its descent, and as a shoreline develops and the river course meanders, larger grained sand particles will be deposited. Typically, the main course of the river will still be rapid enough to maintain an erosive channel, but a mixed sandy beach may develop through the fluctuations of the height of the river. As the river’s descent slows further, and becomes less powerful, larger grained mud will deposit, and erosion will decrease. Slow moving rivers are often murky because their course is eroding the bed of soil, but mud deposition is still occurring on the shores. Of course, rapid water, or flash floods are murky because they are stripping the soil afresh.
A lack of current, or receding water levels are necessary for mud deposition, as currents would keep these light grains aloft. Rivers that terminate in lakes will typically deposit a great deal of mud. Lakes that have an outlet may maintain enough of a current to affect the amount of mud deposition, while lakes that have only a small, or no outlet will likely build up more mud as the water is standing long enough to allow the lightest grains to filter down and settle. So mud is indicative of standing water, receding water, and the shoreline where the water can deposit the light grains.
Calcite deposits, such as chalk or limestone,
typically occur in warm, calm water environments, and generally require salt
water. Geologists, for a time, have argued that the
immense limestone deposits in the
Limestone has been noted to catalyze chemically in circumstances that combine warm water temperatures with the appropriate levels of carbonate. While some limestone deposits are clearly accumulated by the shells from living organisms, many of these large deposits are composed of mud-like grains that are notably lacking in organic shell remains. The uniform deposits of organic calcites could easily accumulate rapidly through the catastrophic deaths of millions of organisms. However, this lack of shells in massive layers of such pure strata is a better indication of a rapid deposition as the result of chemical processes rather than gradual deposition, over eons, which would be contaminated with other environmental deposits.
The Flood is the only feasible mechanism to explain how all
these different environments occurred and left their deposits in such massive
of the sediments just discussed are found covering the earth in unfathomable
quantities. Every exposed surface of the
earth that has not been eroded away has hundreds to thousands of feet of one or
more of these sedimentary rock layers overlaying the basement rock. Most of the time, two or more of them blend
from one to the other, as seen in the
Again, the Flood is the most fitting source of these enormous layers of uniform depositions around the world. It is not simply that mud and limestone and sandstone layers cover the earth, but unmistakable evidence of flooding is contained in these deposits. These layers are not only comprised of small particles, but frequently bands of deposits contain both the unweathered and tumbled conglomerate, which indicates deposition by torrential and rapidly moving water. The term conglomerate refers to sedimentary formations that contain larger sized rocks and boulders that were carried with the sediment during deposition.
Geologists concede that massive amounts of fast moving water are required to transport large, heavy rocks along with the smaller, lighter grains. This means that every level of moving water was present, beginning with rapid powerful torrents to break down and transport these large rocks. But the cracks between these rocks were not just filled in later with the smaller grains, they were actually transported and mixed in with the smaller grains, like a slurry, which can only occur in powerful flood conditions.
These conglomerate layers cover hundreds of
square miles, proving the extent of the flood waters. Such formations are widespread and easily spotted
in exposed environments like rocky desserts such as the Olgas of Australia, and
As touched on earlier, there is an additional problem for uniformitarians with the abundance of sediments. The worldwide sandstone deposits are so immense that it would require unrealistically high mountains on every continent in order to provide these sediments for regional deposition. The sandstone sediments for these vast formations had to erode from some original rock source, and uniformatarians would like to point to large, ancient mountains, as in this comment in Atlas of Life on Earth, pg 132:
To account for the volume of sediment, there was even a suggestion that a vast continent, now submerged, existed in the region of the Atlantic Ocean. Geologists have often tried to calculate the height of the Acadian-Caledonian range by measuring the volume of Old Red Sandstone derived from them, and have reached unrealistic conclusions.
Geologists have invented these mountains, and a continent referred to as the Old Red Sandstone continent just because of the need for them, which one might propose is circular reasoning. The name of the continent alone should be a tip off to the difficulty uniformitarians have in explaining such tremendous sandstone deposits, so they simply made a continent out of it to get rid of the problem. This is not the only place where explanation is needed.
Such enormous source mountains would have to exist at several locations in the “old world” to account for all the sediment that would have eroded and become deposited across the continents and ocean floor. These incredible mountains would be unlike any we have today. More importantly, this concept does not fit the uniformitarian need for low continents continually flooded by ancient seas. Neither is there any evidence of these continents and mountains except for the need for them. Geologists wouldn’t need a local source of sandstone for each continent if they simply acknowledged that a worldwide flood would cover all the continents and land at once with an eroding power sufficient to redistribute the existing rock and new volcanic rock to account for all the sedimentary deposits.
Additionally, sandstone is made up of mostly quartz, which is a
crystal that only forms when melted rock slowly cools underground.
This specific condition means that these
supposedly oldest of mountains, and their sandstone product, could not have
emerged directly from the watery world that uniformitarians envision of the
early earth. Mountains that rise out of
the sea come from underwater extrusions, which produce basaltic flows, and
contain no quartz, such as with the
Uniformitarians generally propose that the continents gradually rose out of the sea, but these new continents would have to be basaltic, and would not produce quarts. Therefore, based on the evidence, it is not possible for so much sandstone to be produced in accordance with the early stages of uniformitarian geology. There is no evidence that lava extruded underwater could produce such an abundance of the quartz that we find in all these massive sandstone deposits.
Instead, a more complex series of stages would be necessary for building the mountains in order to form quartz. The newly formed continents would have to undergo additional transformations, or be subject to additional processes in order to satisfy the scientific requirements of how quartz is formed. Since these deposits are admittedly ancient, and the source mountains would undeniably have been much more ancient, uniformitarian timelines (and certainly discussions) don’t account for this additional phase. Creationists, naturally, are able to trust that the earth was created in a mature state with a wide variety of geological facets. The Flood only eroded this original state, and whatever volcanic extrusions preceded the Flood. The Flood best explains the erosion, and unique deposition of sediments around the world.
The widespread existence of conglomerate is apparently quite a mystery for geologists. This phenomenon is so common around the world, and yet so difficult to explain outside of Flood geology, that it has spawned a bizarre theory by a group of intrepid geologists, lead by Paul Hoffman. This theory demands discussion, if only to show how desperate evolutionists are to explain the geological evidence. The 2003 book Snow Ball Earth, written by Gabrielle Walker, illuminates this concept with story telling detail, and is available through the Discovery Channel and other bookstores.
Although this theory is intended to address a geological puzzle, it also tries to incorporate an explanation of the mysterious Cambrian Explosion, as discussed in the section on fossils. These geologists recognize what a quandary it is to explain this sudden evolution of the incredible scope of complex life after single celled life supposedly languished for thousands of millions of years. This problem was in the back of Hoffman’s mind as he began his worldwide geological exploration.
Hoffman discovered in his geological
expeditions, cathartically, that many sediment deposits defy uniformitarian
explanation (hello). The phenomenon he
observed on several trips had been noted by other geologists as well throughout
the world in regions like
It is even more difficult to explain the additional phenomenon that a great many of these rocks are of a different character than those of the immediate locale. How could these rocks be deposited so far removed from the original source? It would seem logical that recognizing this dilemma would be the first step in acknowledging the clear evidence for the power of a massive worldwide flood. Instead, like all evolutionists, Hoffman and his fellow believers devised an alternate theory that could salvage the basic uniformitarian scheme. Their theory, however offbeat from the rest of geology, is that the world at one time was utterly encased in a ball of snow, top to bottom, without any mechanism for such a catastrophe. What an amazing conclusion.
This snowball supposedly began at some point millions of years before the Cambrian explosion, as the poles incomprehensibly began to freeze toward the middle until even the equator was frozen. Theoretically during the time of this deep freeze, glaciers covered the earth, ripping up rocks, and carrying them to new locations, where they were dropped as the glaciers melted. Such large deposits are called “dropstones” because they were not dragged across the landscape, but dropped from floating glaciers.
To these geologists, the evidence indicates dropstone deposition because the stones are out of place from the local topography. They also appear to have dropped into the soft sediments and became enveloped as if the sediments were wet at the time of the deposition of the larger rocks. All the locations that this team observed had these characteristics. They believe that after the glaciers ripped up the stones, they floated on the “ancient sea” (there it is again), until the stones dropped into the soft sediments, creating the characteristic dent beneath them.
Remarkably, they believe that it was this Snowball Earth that triggered was supposedly the Cambrian explosion 600 million years ago. The little single celled organisms that survived the deep freeze were apparently inspired to do greater things, and this relief from the oppression of ice, capriciously instigated the greatest leap in evolution (to that point). One wonders how such unfounded speculation can come from reasonable scientists, when the obvious solution fits this same evidence.
A massive flood would also rip out giant boulders and other stones, sweeping them through the raging water with a mix of sediments, and leave them in these soft deposits. Then the receding water would erode the sediments and expose the anomalous boulders. In fact, the current would even help form this characteristic “dropstone” dent in the sediments, the way a receding wave digs out the sand from under our feet at the beach. All of these characteristics, from giant boulders, to smaller rocks, to whole sedimentary layers of conglomerate, are signs of water deposition. Not only is the anomaly of the Cambrian explosion a problem for evolutionists, but so is this sedimentary evidence. Both can be reasonably explained by the Flood, which has a scientific, and a historical basis. The Snowball Earth does not.
The author admits that this is a controversial view. In fact, it seems that the closed-minded uniformitarian community has struck again. While creationists find the theory amusing, it at least carries the acknowledgement that these noteworthy sediments commonly occur worldwide. They clearly are not explainable through the uniformitarian scheme, and the characteristics of these locations are so similar, that they apparently have a worldwide correlation. In fact, uniformitarians simply have no genuine explanation for these abundant occurrences.
One may wonder if this snowball team had considered Noah’s Flood as a possible explanation for these distinctly water formed features. According to the book, however, it was not, and without any scientific justification. The author tells us on page 146, that the “father of geology,” James Hutton, recognized this same evidence, and used it to help formulate his own hypothesis about the history of the world. He thought the evidence clearly demonstrated that the earth was at one time covered entirely by water, leaving this mix of sedimentary deposits. The author of the book goes on to say, “This biblical interpretation has been swept aside for a more rational approach.” Apparently the Snowball Earth is just such an approach. Of course, the foolishness of this assertion is evident in that the Snowball earth would still require a worldwide “ancient sea” for the glaciers to float on.
There are also many conflicts between the Snowball Earth and the uniformitarian scheme, which cause problems for evolutionists. Timescales and assumptions for the two theories do not fit together. Because the Snowball earth theory floods the world before the Cambrian, it requires the African and the European continents to become connected hundreds of millions of years too early to account for the evidence. This disrupts everything uniformitarian from the breakup of Pangea, to when the continents were flooded by ancient seas, as well as the explanation of fossil formation and species disbursal in light of the adjusted timescale. The presence of fossils from “later” geological ages in the same area as these “pre-Cambrian” glacial deposits, forces one of these evolutionary interpretations to be incorrect.
Uniformitarians would not like this obscure
theory because it lifts up the skirt of geology, and publicly exposes
non-uniformitarian evidence. Despite the
Snowball Earth’s careful avoidance of the Flood, the evidence that has forced
these geologists to formulate such a drastic explanation is actually evidence
that validates the Flood. Pages 52-53
begin to describe Nambia, which is one of the typical sites these researchers
have noted for being full of uniformitarian contradictions. The evidence here
of these large boulders embedded in small grained gray siltstone, is what first
convinces Hoffman that they had been deposited by icebergs—in the middle of
Everywhere Paul went in Nambia, he spotted signs of ancient ice. He would be hiking up a gully and suddenly he would see a huge white bolder embedded in gray silt stone . . . The bolder, a “dropstone” must have fallen from a melting berg up on the sea surface. . .
As Paul looked more closely, he would see a medley of rocks appearing in the siltstones, all shapes and sizes, and colors; fractured and rounded, pink, brown, tan, white and gray, granite basement, quartzite, and carbonate. This mad jumble had somehow become bound up in the fine gray silt. Like the boulder, these rocks were interlopers. Something had gathered them up from the mountains and gullies throughout Nambia.
Would it be too fantastic to propose that water had been the catalyst of this tremendous gathering?
Moreover, the theory proposes conflicts with
other geological factors that can absolutely be determined about these
sites. Another geologist, Brian Harland,
had initially begun to toy with the theory when faced with certain evidence in
the Svalband archipelago north of
Because these sediments had to be deposited in warm seas, Harland is confused by the interrupting layer of mud and conglomerate. This is the same type of layering that would be noted at the other sites, containing the same conglomerate mix. Despite the fact that a pre-Cambrian warm sea carbonate formation would have to immediately precede and follow the contrasting glacial environment of a Snowball Earth, this is the conclusion Harland draws from the evidence. Even in light of such clear contradiction, the snowball theory is the most palatable explanation within the limited options of a uniformitarian earth.
It was Harland’s conclusions that first spawned Hoffman to put it to use in his similarly inexplicable observations. Together, they do not accept the more logical deduction that all of the deposits (limestone, mud and conglomerate) were made in a worldwide sea that was characterized by alternating episodes of both calm and turbulence. This of course would be fitting since these researchers already recognize that there was once an ancient sea over each of these sites.
The geological evidence used to propose the Snowball Earth not only conflicts with logic and experience, but with the only theory that offers a reference point for evolution. When faced with evidence that shatters the uniformitarian timeline, these scientists refuse to step back and re-examine their stand. Instead, they concede to the more radical proposition that at some point these tropical seas were suddenly disrupted by catastrophic glaciers. One must assume it is because the alternative is unthinkable.
Overall, this peculiar hypothesis is another example of the typical evolutionary avoidance behavior. It goes out into the mix of theories, and whether or not it makes sense geologically, or disrupts the rest of the evolution timeline, it is another option that props up evolution. In reality, it helps very little in explaining all the features of the earth in uniformitarian terms because of its proposed early occurrence. It must fit into this early period because nothing could have survived a worldwide deep freeze had it happened later. Additionally, the types of “later” fossils demonstrate that the world had been temperate for the duration of life that existed up until the very recent Ice Age.
No corroborative evidence has been offered to substantiate the required stages of this theory. This strange hypothesis proposes that the earth was initially warm enough to spawn the abundant single-celled organisms, but then it inexplicably froze, only to defrost again and warm up so thoroughly that it stimulated the broad ranged Cambrian explosion. Most significantly for this section, it could not possibly explain the sedimentary features we observe today. Uniformitarians need many more things to happen to the world after the pre-Cambrian, over hundreds of millions of years, which would have certainly altered, and likely erased, the ancient Snowball Earth topography in the process. The world’s features are too tortured under the uniformitarian scheme for this presently exposed surface layer to be the result of the basement, pre-Cambrian deposition. This topography is on top of many layers of geology, and one wonders how an evolution geologist would not have recognized this.
According to evolutionists, the layered sediment formations found covering the earth are gradually laid down over eons through “various” deposition processes. As discussed earlier, the principle uniformitarian vehicle for these sediments is the gentle influx and retreat of calm, ancient seas. Each layer represents a different era of time, and a shift in strata is believed to indicate when the sea retreated, and up to millions of years later, returned. As discussed earlier, geologists find it handy to assume that in the “early” stages of the earth, the majority of the “new planet” was initially underwater. The slow build up of continents would seem to provide the best opportunity for these ancient seas to linger and periodically re-flood the landscape. There are many difficulties with these assumptions, though, as an explanation for much of the worldwide sedimentary deposits.
This book has already discussed how vital it is to uniformitarians for these seas to be on standby, ready to invade the continents. The clear evidence of the marine fossils preserved worldwide in miles of sediments requires an explanation. Since this evidence proves that the world was under water, and that marine animals were buried in sediments that now cover the continents, scientists are saddled with unmistakable confirmation of the Flood. Rather than recognizing this, however, they have rewritten the obvious interpretation, and created the Cambrian system to suit evolution.
The Cambrian system is handy because it uses the abundant marine fossils to propose how life initially began on a watery planet, and soon evolved to fill the vast seas. From here, the ocean levels must have risen and fallen numerous times in order to strand the bodies of these animals on land, encased in sediments. The misrepresentation in the evolutionist scheme is that the existence of these fossils on land is seen as confirmation of evolution, when they have nothing to do with evolution. Evolution does not benefit from the complex scenarios necessary to explain the location of this evidence. The rising and falling seas only serve to explain the strangely abundant marine fossils that cover every continent. The presumably erratic geological activity would have no effect or influence on any evolutionary process.
The Cambrian is not the only system represented in the fossils. Once again, we must recognize that all of the fossils from every geological “system” that are now deposited on dry land were once formed underwater. This means that although fossils seem to be the only evidence to indicate there is indeed a mysterious history of life and death on the planet, they themselves require a complex explanation within the uniformitarians scheme—one that has no material effect on whether evolution occurred at all or not. Aside from the injection of random fossilization “accidents” from swollen rivers and “local” flooding, the majority of the fossils from every “system” are explained by uniformitarians through the fluctuation of these “ancient seas.” But can these erratic seas be justified geologically?
When we assume that all the marine fossil-bearing land (essentially all land) was under water initially, the steady processes that we observe today cannot enlighten us about how all the continents repeatedly emerged and then submerged to the whims of “ancient seas.” The amount of water on this planet has remained the same. Uniformitarians propose that one factor is a cycle of numerous Ice Ages in the past that repeatedly froze and released the water, which affected the sea levels. They also propose that as glaciers melted, the land became more buoyant and raised up, which caused the water to drain.
There is certainly clear evidence of at least one giant submersion, and one great Ice Age. But uniformitarians use this evidence to invoke whatever number of Ice Ages are necessary to explain sedimentary deposits in any given area.
These Ice Age schemes, however, are bogged down with the complexity of their explanations, and the actual evidence breaks these theories down under scrutiny. Nevertheless, even Uniformitarians must recognize that Ice Ages cannot explain every rise and drop in sea level because the concept does not correspond with the types of life fossilized at those times. In fact, all fossilized life prior to the recent Ice Age indicates a temperate climate, which eliminates legitimate claims about Ice Epochs contributing to any fossil evidence prior to the supposed appearance of mammals. And without a justifiable cause to explain every supposed continental flooding, then the uniformitarian basis of fossilization around the world is illegitimate.
Explaining continental flooding is a
particularly evident problem when considering the massive build up of these
layers. There are many obvious examples
of sediment deposits that are layered much higher than sea level, such as in
It is clear that while the sediment layers would have been getting higher, the level of the land would have to be dropping lower in order to allow for the next level to be added. It would have to be like those spring-loaded plate racks that restaurants use. In order for the next plate to fit on top, the other plates must go down. The layers on the continents have the same problem. The uniformitarian explanation could not be justified by the rise and fall of the seas alone, but must require the continents themselves to rise and fall, and in increasingly more dramatic increments in order to account for the depth of thousands of feet, of fossiliferous deposits to accumulate, and then eventually be fully uplifted above sea level.
After considering the issues with the repeated influx and retreat of ancient seas, there are further difficulties with explaining the massive, worldwide sedimentary deposits through eons of geological capriciousness. There should be evidentiary indications that these different deposition layers were laid over the course of millions of years. However, there is remarkably no evidence to substantiate that any two of these adjoining sedimentary layers are so different in age. Millions of years are supposedly represented at these lines or shifts in strata where the lower layer of sediment was no longer under water before the next layer was brought in by another ancient sea. Despite the eons of time, these layers, worldwide, lack the expected signs that they were exposed to the surface for any apparent period of time.
Indications that a layer was ever exposed to the surface should be preserved at this boundary in the strata where the two ages. Examples of such signs of exposure should be evident in water erosion (little grooves for drainage), accumulation of soil formation, animal burrows, plant material, and root invasion. All these things would leave their scars in the layers, but instead these eras meet almost meticulously, without the characteristic water eroded grooves and signs in between them that so prominently mar the surface of today’s exposed sediments.
It is difficult to explain how geologically long, steady periods could produce such uniform water born sediment formations, without any recognizable breaks in continuity supposedly through eons of inescapably constant erosion. Instead, we see massive deposits of uniform sediments that have been eroded and shaped post deposition.
When we go to the sandstone cliffs at the beach, there is typically a large plateau of sediment overlooking the ocean, with huge erosion zones and gullies, where drainage and rivers have carved into it. Clearly, water has been working on these deposits, leaving its scar. But when we look at the different lines of strata below the top layer, we see that there is no wearing away where these layers meet, although they supposedly accumulated over millions of years. How is it that today erosion can carve through all the sedimentary layers, but there is no erosion between sedimentary layers if each layer was actually exposed to the surface for hundreds of thousands to millions of years?
Sedimentary formations around the world typically have huge era gaps in their strata. Geologists don’t know what time period they are working in until they find fossils to tell them. Hundreds of millions of years are defined not by the apparent age of the layers, but purely by the fossils they contain. A road cutout may reveal fossils on the lower level from the Ordovician system, and three feet above that the fossils may supposedly be from the Tertiary, and yet you would never be able to discern with your eyes that the lower rock was about 400 million years older.
You would probably barely detect a subtle line of color change, and that would be where the geologist claims that the sediments were supposedly exposed to the surface for 400 million years, but it took an expert to explain that to you because you would never know it. Though there is sometimes a shift in the strata from limestone to shale or sandstone, often there is nothing more than this little line at best to indicate the shift. In some cases uniformitarians rely on erosion by the intruding sea to explain the levelness of strata contact, but this evidence that the layers were ever exposed is never found. It is as if the new invasion could fastidiously remove all erosive and depositional signs of millions of years of exposure, but leave the uniform sediments only. Frequently, (as discussed before) one can even locate something embedded across the line, making the millions of years of exposure fantastic.
A global flood, however, is perfectly consistent with the evidence of these formations—so perfect, one wonders at the scientists who would deny the possibility outright. We can easily grasp through our own common sense and experience, how a great flood could have caused such spectacular sedimentary formations. One can visualize a present day sea cliff, with the sandstone rising uniformly for hundreds of feet, with very little variation in the lines of the strata.
Imagine a flood, higher than that, stretching all the way back across the continent. Deposits showering down through the water would lay down the strata in the direction of the current. Each layer would be laid across the land according to the stages of the Flood leaving abundant alternating sediments like sandstone, mudstone, and limestone, which sometimes blend together at the boundary. Then imagine the effects of the water draining into the sea, depositing more sediment (as seen in river deltas), and then carving away the sediment into valleys and cliffs through sheet, and river, and shoreline erosion.
seaside cliffs around the world are also strong confirmation of the Flood
model. Many beaches have these cliffs of
sandstone (or limestone in
Since late Cretaceous/early Tertiary fossils are
laid into these very same sediments in the
If any uplift had already occurred, then how
were these sediments laid from the west coast, over the
The complex schedule of events required to
account for all the sedimentary and fossil evidence is only promoted in order
to maintain the evolutionary timescale.
When we examine each factor in detail, from the cliffs of
The obvious conclusion, again, is that the continents were entirely covered by water. The water killed every terrestrial creature and covered the continents with fossils and various sediments. The majority of the mountains arose after the sediments were deposited, which drained the land. Various sediments record the various stages of deposition. The deposits demonstrate the various stages of the Flood through the depositions left from the initial deluge, the erosion, the standing water, the rising mountains, the drainage and deposition of eroded materials toward the sea, and continued incidents of uplift, deposition and drainage as the planet settled geologically. Sediment deposits at the sea were some of the latest as the last of the land was drained.
The Ice Age that was triggered by the catastrophe (to be discussed later), caused the highly active hydraulic cycle to bind up much of the water in polar ice caps, keeping the ocean at a level lower than today. As the temperatures evened out, the Ice Age ended, and the ice caps began to melt. The water that was released began to gradually raise the ocean level, chipping away at the coastal deposits, which formed cliffs in many sediments around the world.
In vast, coastal carbonate deposits, such as in
Uniformitarians claim that these chalk cliffs
were deposited when the ocean was higher, but this tiny island has recorded a
lot of fossils and geological features in its small space. An unfathomable history of geological turmoil
would be required in order to deposit all of the fossil eras that are found in
Wouldn’t all that flooding have cut
Because of the overwhelming presence
of sediments and fossil sea life in every part of the world, paleontologists
are forced to summon their “ancient seas” or “swamps” at will regardless of the
logistics. It is astonishing to hear the
frequency with which these large bodies of water are invoked. It is widely known that even the tallest mountains of the
There is no geological evidence against the hypothesis of a worldwide flood, yet scientists refuse to consider it because of its implications. Although the planet Mars does not presently have any measurable amounts of water on its surface, scientists have been quite certain until recently that certain formations indicate it once had been covered by vast amounts of water. Interestingly, though, the earth, which has a surface water ratio of 70%, supposedly could not have once been covered by a flood, despite all of the geological and fossil evidence. In the face of renowned scientific skepticism, the following topic discusses common geological formations found throughout the earth, which are best explained by a catastrophic flood.
Rosh Hanikra Evidence