V. Geology

     Two of the foundational “proof” areas for evolutionary thinking come in connection with the earth itself: (1) Geology, which involves beliefs about the age of the earth and how its geologic strata were deposited, and (2) Paleontology, which is heavily based on the first and involves the study of past lifeforms buried in the earth’s geologic strata.  The real key to dating fossils is the dating of the rocks that they are found in.  But at the heart of this issue is the question of how the surface of the earth came to be as it is – gradual processes, catastrophes, or both?  How was the earth originally formed?  How old is the earth?  How did the earth’s surface come to be as it is now and how did the various fossil-bearing strata come to be deposited?

Geology - The Paradigm shift

     Up until the French Enlightenment, the Bible supplied the general outline of earth history for Western civilization: God created the earth and several thousand years later devastated it with a catastrophic, year-long flood of water (Genesis 6-8).  The flood destroyed the bulk of plant and animal life on the planet and, logically buried many of the remains in the various layers of sediments that were formed in the continuous tidal/tsunamis that washed across the continents in ever greater depths as the floodwaters increased and then gradually declined and drained off into the ocean basins.  We will come back to reasons for believing that this “flood” occurred, as described in the Bible, later on.

     As discussed in the introduction chapter, the French Enlightenment (1689-1789) had denigrated the Bible and Christian worldview because of its opposition the Catholicism and encouraged European intellectuals to return to the old Greek notions of materialism and naturalism.  19th century Europeans were increasingly encouraged to reject the Biblical timeline and embrace a scenario of unbroken gradualism - non-catastrophic processes operating over immense periods of time.

Thus, if one assumes the passage of immense amounts of time, this will explain the presence of such diverse strata as exist in the earth’s crust.^[1]

The Enlightenment pushed an optimistic “natural progress” scenario as the new paradigm for understanding the past – all that was needed was more specific application of that scenario in various subject areas.  The general impact of the French Enlightenment was to spread the notion of evolutionary progress amongst European intellectuals.

     Perhaps the first move of Enlightenment thinkers to explain away the “Biblical flood” came with the 18th century French scientist, Georges Louis Leclerc (1707-88), who asserted that the earth had slowly cooled from an original molten condition and this would make the earth about 75,000 years old.  Then came James Hutton (1726-1797, right), who devised the principle of “geological uniformitarianism.”  In this, he asserted that the earth’s geology can be explained in terms of observable non-catastrophic processes now at work on and within the Earth operating with general uniformity over immensely long periods of time.  An important element in his thinking was that the apparent timescale and catastrophes described in the Bible were fiction and stood in the way of a “true” explanation of the history of the earth’s surface.  Essentially, Hutton was saying that the earth is changing now as it did in the past ("The Present is the Key to the Past") and, therefore, geology can be explained totally in terms observable everyday, non-catastrophic processes operating over immense periods of time - no catastrophes needed.  He believed that the processes of erosion, deposition, sedimentation, and gradual up-thrusting were cyclical and must have been repeated many times in the Earth's history. Given the enormous spans of time taken by such cycles, Hutton asserted that the age of the Earth must be inconceivably great.  His ideas were presented in papers to the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1775, 1778) and in a two-volume work entitled Theory of the Earth (1795).

       Hutton’s scenario was adopted and popularized by another man, who also called others to begin with the same assumption and think the same way, Charles Lyell (1797-1875, left).  Picking up where Hutton left off, Lyell  wrote a 3-volume work entitled Principles of Geology, advancing the uniformitarian view of long, slow geologic change.  Charles Darwin took this work with him and it was a powerful influence in his mind as he examined the Santa Cruz River and Galapagos Islands on his tour with the Beagle.  Hutton and Lyell's suggestion of uniformitarian geology required immense amounts of time for present forces of gradual erosion and such to produce the current geological features and this provided a timeframe in which “slow and gradual” biological evolution seemed plausible.  Charles Darwin suggested that all life forms had arisen from countless small evolutionary changes in previous simpler forms and this would require lots of time, which Hutton and Lyell's theory seemed to offer.

     How important were Hutton and Lyell’s emphasis on “uniformitarian” concepts for modern geology?  The Encyclopaedia Britannica declares that,

Uniformitarianism is the cornerstone on which the science of geology is erected.^[2]

 Lyell established the idea of evolution as the only reasonable interpretation of geological facts and his elaboration of Hutton's doctrines still constitute the very foundation of geologic science.^[3]

The next question is “how valid is the “uniformitarian” approach to understanding the history of the earth’s surface?”  We will address that shortly.

The Geologic Column

     By the mid-19^th century the fossil-bearing strata of Europe had been grouped into systems arrayed in chronological order. The stratigraphic column, a composite of these systems, was pieced together from exposures in different regions by application of the principles of superposition (defined later) and faunal sequence.  Time believed to have elapsed during the formation of a system became known as a period, and the periods were grouped into eras: the Paleozoic (Cambrian through Permian periods), Mesozoic (Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods), and Cenozoic (Tertiary and Quaternary periods).

     Based on the work of Hutton and Lyell, the "geologic column" was constructed to portray a succession of four major geologic eras, subdivided into eleven periods, which became the accepted framework for understanding earth history.  It was a pieced-together composite of separate European fossil bearing strata systems, based on the assumed truth of Nicolaus Steno's (1669) principle of superposition - where no overturning or injection of igneous rock is present, then strata is assumed to have been deposited sequentially from the bottom upwards (deposited from what?  Was all of the land surface under water?  Why were seas covering the land?).  Some of the divisions were named after geologists or the place where they were working, while the Oligocene was inserted between two other eras after the basic outline was already formed.  The version portrayed in the graphic (right, above) has the Darwinian tree of life superimposed on it to show the crucial relationship of uniformitarian geology to the belief that life gradually emerged and developed over the eons of geologic time.

     One of the key elements in assembling the column was the work of a civil engineer, William Smith, who began using fossils to identify and correlate rock strata in the early 1790’s.  Upon the assumption that biological evolution was firmly established, certain kinds of fossils were associated with particular geologic eras.  Thus, when one could not identify strata by its own inherent geological characteristics (and this was frequent), the existence of certain “index” fossils was thought to identify the strata.  This is called “stratigraphic dating.”

     With the Geologic Column in place as a foundational assumption for “how it happened,” radiometric dating systems were then applied and coordinated with fossil-bearing strata.

 Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.^[4]

 The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geologic column. It is the result of integrating all the world's individual rock sequences into a single sequence. . . . The geologic column and the relative geologic time scale are sufficiently defined to fulfill the use originally envisioned for them--providing a framework within which to tell the story of Earth history.^[5]

Why I Prefer Flood Geology

     My studies have led me to reject uniformitarian geology and embrace the Biblical “flood” model for understanding geology.  The reasons for this decision are as follows: (1) Uniformitarian Geology is another casualty of the Enlightenment’s agenda in which “science” was hijacked to support an a priori anti-Biblical philosophical position rather than objectively interact with the evidence.  (2) The foundations of uniformitarian geology were laid by lawyers turned amateur geologists against the catastrophe models held by professional geologists.  (3) Uniformitarianism began by asserting uniform/ constant/ gradual rates for natural processes extending back into the distant path and ignored the evidences of catastrophic events and variations in the rates for natural processes.  (4) Steno’s principle of superposition does not allow for the observational evidence about horizontal strata formation.  (5) The geologic column does not represent the real general overall structure of geological stratification for the worlds rock systems, for it is found intact and complete very rarely, never in the thicknesses expected, and large areas exist where strata is found in a different order.  (6) Many fossils indicate rapid, catastrophic burial events.  (7) Several lines of evidence suggest that the Biblical scenario (Genesis 1-8) is worth more serious consideration.  We have already seen how studies increasingly raise questions about the validity of radiometric dating.  Let’s now consider each of these assertions further.

(1) The Anti-Biblical Enlightenment Agenda

     It is my conclusion that the French Enlightenment perverted Western thought and instigated a massive re-interpretation of our knowledge along the lines of philosophical materialism and naturalism.  Because of the Enlightenment’s antipathy toward the Biblical view (young earth/ catastrophic flood) their desire was to concoct an opposite alternative (very old earth/peaceful geologic gradualism) and make it sound like “science”!  This intentional opposition to the Genesis model, trying to remove the Biblical worldview from Western civilization, is exactly what Hutton and Lyell set about to do.  In a 1965 article, Stephen Jay Gould admitted that the driving force (and the only real “contribution” of uniformitarianism) behind what Hutton and Lyell were doing was the desire to remove the Biblical catastrophe model and “supernaturalism” from consideration,

The main force of this proposition was to eliminate supernatural explanations of material phenomena; for this uniformity denies divine intervention (the suspension of natural laws) . . . Methodological uniformitarianism was useful only when science was debating the status of the supernatural in its realm.^[6]

In a 1957 journal article, Dorsey Hagar also admitted that this “anti-Biblical Creation” agenda was the central concern of the early uniformitarian thinking in geology (and still is?),

The most important responsibilities of the geologists involve the effect of their findings on the mental and spiritual lives of mankind.  Early geologists fought to free people from the myths of Biblical creation.  Many millions still live in mental bondage controlled by ignorant ranters who accept the Bible as the last word in science. . .^[7]

These are interesting admissions in view of the claim we hear often repeated that evolution is "pure" science, in which objective truth-seekers follow the evidence wherever it leads via the scientific method and refrain from dealing with religious matters or viewpoints.  However, as far back as 1948, I can find secular geologists writing on the problem that uniformitarian dogma has created for those actually trying to do “science” in the area of geology,

Because of the sterility of its concepts, historical geology which includes paleontology and stratigraphy, has become static and unproductive.  Current methods of delimiting intervals in time, which are the fundamental units of historical geology, and of establishing chronology are of dubious validity.  Worse than that, the criteria of correlation-the attempt to equate in time, or synchronize, the geological history of one area with that of another-are logically vulnerable.  The findings of historical geology are suspect because the principles upon which they are based are either inadequate, in which case they should be reformulated, or false, in which case they should be discarded.  Most of us refuse to discard or reformulate, and the result is the present deplorable state of our discipline.^[8]

The “blinders” necessary to embrace uniformitarianism remain in place for the “faithful” amongst the secular academic priesthood - in spite of the obvious impact of volcanic eruptions, major tsunamis, hurricanes, and other examples of catastrophic events.  Every entrenched “priesthood” tends to be somewhat “tradition/orthodoxy” minded.  Like medieval Catholicism, “institutional orthodoxy” demands that all of the “foundational dogmas of the faith” (tradition) be perpetuated and defended, for too many have too much invested to face the evidence and admit that “we were wrong”!  It is much easier to brow-beat the gullible, ignore and dismiss unwelcome evidence, and harass and excommunicate dissidents.

(2) Uniformitarian Geology was created by amateurs

     While evolutionists love to ridicule Creationists as “ignorant” or not qualified to have an opinion on scientific issues whenever they lack advanced degrees in the physical sciences (often even when they do have degrees in science), the bizarre fact is that the major founders of modern evolutionary thought didn’t have such either!  James Hutton was officially trained in law and medicine, not geology.  Charles Lyell was trained in Law.  Charles Darwin’s only college degree was in Divinity (theology), from Christ’s College, Cambridge.  Apparently, lack of official credentials in science is only important if you question evolution.  In fact, it can be demonstrated that one of the major factors leading to the formation and acceptance of the “uniformitarian” view was not overwhelming evidence clearly pointing that way, but the general antipathy towards the Biblical model that came out the French Enlightenment.

     What does stand out is that these “amateurs” differed with some of the trained experts of the time, who were catastrophists for empirical reasons.  Louis Agassiz (1807-73) was beyond question one of the ablest, wisest, and best informed of the biologists of his day and rejected Darwin’s theory as not really corresponding to the real world of nature.  He studied at the universities of Zürich, Heidelberg, and Munich, receiving a Ph.D. at Erlangen and an M.D. at Munich.  He is best remembered for his leading role in the study of glaciation and fossil fishes.  Although the catastrophists who opposed Hutton and Lyell’s “uniformitarian” theory have been painted as doing so because of being scientifically ignorant Bible thumpers, Stephen Jay Gould has denied that this was the case,

In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell.  The geologic record does seem to require catastrophism: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out.  To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence.  The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see.  The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.^[9]

     Lyell & Niagara Falls - A good case in point would be Lyell’s handling of Niagara Falls.  In the early 1800’s, the Falls on the Niagara River were somewhat difficult to get to.  However, as far back as 1829, local residents had reported to the son of an imminent geologist that the falls were receding at an average rate of around three feet per year, with large chunks breaking loose at times.  According to the erosion rate reported by the locals, the falls could be no more than 12,000 years old.  Charles Lyell visited the Falls in 1841, noting the seven miles (35,000 feet) that the Falls had receded during the past from Queenston.  Having observed the 200-300 foot high walls of the gorge and the two major layers of limestone and shale that were being eroded away, Lyell returned to England and announced that (1) the erosion rate was only about one foot per year and, thus (2) the Falls were 35,000 years old.  Of course, such an age ignored the reports of the locals and Lyell neither made his own measurements nor paid any attention to the subsequent documented observations that were recorded for some years afterward.  A 35,000-year-old Falls fit his beliefs better than an age of 12,000 years.  What is really sad is that Lyell’s error was worse than it appears, because the locals were wrong.  The Falls are not receding at an average rate of 3 feet per year – observations from 1842-1927 confirmed that the Falls were eroding at an average rate of 4-5 feet per year and this would suggest an age of no more than 7,000-9,000 years.  Since that sounds even more like a literal Biblical age, it is no wonder that Lyell simply ignored the evidence and, as Gould charged, simply imposed his own imagination on the situation.^[10]

(3) Catastrophes Ignored/Uniform Rates made Dogma

     The late evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould, wrote an article in 1975 in which he lambasted Lyell for doing faulty and heavily biased “science” so that they could eliminate “catastrophes” from geology.  Gould accused Lyell of using his legal training and cunning to sell faulty ideas by setting up and demolishing a “straw-man,” ignoring evidence and substituting his own imagination, and offering a hodge-podge of claims.^[11]  However, in another article, Gould explains what has been at stake in this discussion since Lyell’s time,

Firstly, Lyell strove to replace the paroxysmal theory with a notion of cumulative slow change produced by natural processes operating at relatively constant rates. . . . He thus postulated another, very different, type of uniformity that asserted the invariability of natural laws in space and time as a necessary condition to his contention that reference need only be made to observable processes in explaining past changes. . . . Without assuming this spatial and temporal invariance, we have no basis for extrapolating from the known to the unknown and, therefore, no way of reaching general conclusions from a finite number of observations. . . . Only by assuming the invariance of laws regulating causal sequences can we induce from the effects of modern glaciers that striations in ancient rocks were similarly caused. . . . As a special term, methodological uniformitarianism was useful only when science was debating the status of the supernatural in its realm; for if God intervenes, then laws are not invariant and induction becomes invalid. It was useful for those who, as Lyell, needed a guide to combat what we now consider unscientific notions of divine intervention and the resultant discordance of past and present modes of change.^[12]

You see, anything that invalidates uniform rates for natural processes also invalidates the kind of speculations about the past that evolutionists want to make.  Essentially, evolutionists want to assume rates of change to be constant back into the distant past so that they can date things by observing a current effect (such as the amount of material gone from a canyon) and multiply it by the current rate of erosion from a stream passing through it.  Catastrophic events, not to mention a God who intervenes catastrophically, messes up the naturalistic approach to understanding things and both were eliminated from the picture in the uniformitarian scheme of things.  Even evidence of varying rates for natural processes are unwelcome.  However, evidences for catastrophism and variable rates cannot be ignored forever.

The hurricane, the flood, or the tsunami may do more in an hour or a day than the ordinary processes of nature have achieved in a thousand years.^[13]

     It is obvious that a number of empirical scientists have found themselves “constrained” by uniformitarian dogma - struggling against an ideological straight-jacket that does not fit all of the evidence.

     Edgar B. Heylmun, writing in the Journal of Geological Education, raised solid questions about the validity of uniformitarian geology back in 1971,

It is hereby submitted that most scientists are guilty of an over-zealous interpretation of the doctrine of uniformitarianism. . . . The fact is, the doctrine of uniformitarianism is no more "proved" than some of the early ideas of worldwide cataclysms have been disproved.  Therefore, the rates of surface degradation today may not remotely resemble those in the past history of the earth.  Yet many instructors tell their students that the rates of erosion and sedimentation in the past were essentially the same as those we witness today, because, in their minds, the doctrine of uniformitarianism demands that it be that way.^[14]

     We are taught to think that only “religion” (either Medieval Catholicism or current “Protestant Fundamentalism”) opposes scientific ideas because they challenge the current belief system.  Strangely, for anyone acquainted with the history of science, it is true that “dogmatic orthodoxy” is very prevalent here as well.  A few examples will help illustrate this.

     The “channeled scablands” of the Pacific Northwest were a longtime focus of geologist J. Harlen Bretz.  In 1923, he theorized that this massive area was produced by catastrophic flooding.  Because of the widely-assumed uniformitarian view, which had no room for floods of this magnitude, he and his view were ridiculed for 40 years, but he slowly managed to convince other geologists.^[15]  Sites such a Palouse Falls (right) are a tiny remnant of the kind of waters that once raged through this area and left a much larger geological testimony.  Now, geologists look at this area and wonder why it was so difficult for Bretz’ opponents to see what he was saying.

     Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) was a meteorologist who developed the “plate tectonics” concept in order to explain certain phenomena that he was facing in his work.  However, in the early 1900’s the prevailing geological notion for explaining mountains and such attributed these features to the earth shrinking.  When his views were presented at an international symposium in 1926, the professional geologists ridiculed his theory, accusing him of ignoring facts.  The general opposition of academic geologists to the notion of continents sliding around was such that any sign of openness to Wegener’s ideas could damage one’s scientific reputation.  Eventually, by the 1950-60’s, enough new evidence had accumulated to sway geological thought in the direction of “plate tectonics” and now one’s standing in the geology community would be in jeopardy if you do not embrace Wegener’s ideas.  Even so, Paul Wesson of Cambridge University was able to collect from scientific literature and publish (1972) over seventy arguments against plate tectonics and drifting continents.^[16]

     In 1987, E. G. Nisbet published his work on Archaean geology and began with comments about the stifling effects of uniformitarian dogma upon a real study of the geology of this era,

The interpretation of Archaean rocks is very different from the interpretation of Phanerozoic rocks, and the philosophy of the Archaean geologist is correspondingly different from the philosophy of the Phanerozoic worker. Even the assumption of uniformity - the principle that the workings of the modern earth can be used as a guide to the past - so basic to modern geology - is suspect; the fabric of interpretation of Archaean rocks must be built up again from first principles. [pp. 3-4] . . . It is the business of the Archaean geologist to remain sceptical of the over-rigid application of uniformity, and perhaps to attempt to restore those words to their proper place.  The doctrine of uniformity is most commonly expressed as `The present is the key to the past'. So it is, but this leads to a very restricted interpretation of Hutton's doctrine, an interpretation of which the Archaean geologist must beware. First, there is the problem of the infrequent event - the meteorite impact, the volcanic explosion or the catastrophic flood. These are actualistic events (they happen `today'), but they are rare and are poorly understood. In the Archaean their frequency may have been much greater and the geological consequences correspondingly different. [p. 6] . . . The debate between the catastrophists and the uniformitarians in the 18th and 19th centuries laid the foundations of the modern discipline of geology. In that debate the uniformitarians were victorious, yet in the study of the Archaean the debate still continues. [p. 7] . . . Despite the fact that his tools of observation are uniformitarian, the Archaean geologist must not be frightened to invoke a catastrophe if necessary, [p. 8].^[17]

Why would a geologist (working in what is supposed to be open-minded, objective, evidence-driven "science) need to encourage his colleagues to "not be afraid" of considering including catastrophic elements in their thinking?  This suggests the rigid and dogmatic nature of uniformitarian thinking, against which geologists have had to work ever since Hutton and Lyell's notion became the foundation of geology.  I believe the crucial foundational role played by uniformitarian geology in making more credible the Darwinian biological story has led to its being placed in the “sacred dogma” category, for if it falls, Darwinism is in even more trouble than it already is.  The elimination of catastrophism - specifically the Biblical flood - was rooted more in a philosophical agenda than an honest appraisal of the evidence.

     Rapid Strata & Canyon Formation - The standard uniformitarian view has been that the rivers passing through them slowly eroded features like the Grand Canyon over long periods of time.  However, observations of canyons formed quickly in the aftermath of the Mount St. Helens eruptions have caused some changes in how geologists explain such features.  Since the Washington state event in the early 1980’s, observation has now confirmed large canyons can form quickly from “breached dams” and that hundreds of feet of stratified deposits can be formed by a hot volcanic mudflow in a single day.  We have already mentioned the vast “scablands” of the Pacific Northwest and Bretz' work to demonstrate that these were produced by catastrophic flooding.  Other researchers are suggesting that rapid cliff formation at Colorado National Monument.^[18]  Near the town of Lumpkin, Georgia what was rolling hills and pine forest only 150 years ago has become a nine-fingered canyon system 1300 feet long, 600 feet wide, and 160 feet deep.^[19]  A study by American and Australian geologists, published in 2003, suggested that the vast cliff and canyon systems of the American Southwest were created by a major river, of Amazonian proportions, flowing across the continent.^[20]  The Drumlins (right), smooth oblong parallel hills sometimes over 100 feet in height and found in Ireland and Canada, are increasingly being attributed to major flood waters.^[21]

     Geologist Stephen Austin’s work on the eruption of Mount St. Helens (1980) and after-effects has provided observational evidence for the rapid formation of elaborate canyon systems, as well as up to 600 feet of stratified deposits.  Following the events at Mount St. Helens, there has also been a gradual reconsideration of how the Grand Canyon was formed.

     Variable Glacier & Riverbed movement - Uniformitarian assumptions are also not aided by measurements of the Hubbard Glacier in Alaska, which found it to be moving at various speeds - everywhere from 6 inches to 33/46/112 feet per day!^[22]  Chinese scientists noticed in the late 1970’s that some glaciers in the Tibetan Highlands were moving a quarter of a mile a year (3.5 feet per day).  Mark Twain noted that the Mississippi River had changed its length between Cairo, Illinois and New Orleans from 1215 to 973 miles in 176 years.

       Climate & Sea-Level Variations - Six World War II airplanes (P-38’s) were being ferried to England in 1942, but had to make an emergency landing in Greenland and were left where they landed.  After only fifty years, the planes were found to be under 257 feet of packed snow/ice.^[23]  Just think how deep the snow/ice would theoretically be on the planet if this rate of accumulation were assumed to be uniform and extrapolated back 3.5 billion years!

       In 1986, paleobotanist James Basinger reported finding the stumps of fossilized tree stumps on an island less than 700 miles from the North Pole.  These trees would have stood 150 feet high and lived for 1,000 years.^[24]  Another researcher has found evidence that the state of Missouri was once a lush rainforest.^[25]  Tree stumps, estimated to be 7,000 years old, were discovered in Santa Rosa Sound (Florida Panhandle) and suggest recent sea level changes.^[26]

       Buried cities, which are now below sea level, have been found in widely separated areas, such as Florida^[27] and the Arctic.^[28]  In 1999-2000, Robert Ballard found evidence of ancient human habitation (as many as 50 possible sites) over 300 feet below the present surface of the Black Sea (dwelling, stone tools, ceramic storage vessels) and dated the overwhelming of the site by water c. 5,500 B.C.^[29]  Velikovsky cited^[30] numerous findings of evidence suggesting major changes in sea level in the not so distant past.

       In January 2002, eminent geologist Eldridge Moores asserted that our modern dry continents appeared suddenly on a planet previously 95 percent under water.^[31]  Radar aboard the space shuttle Columbia in November of 1981 disclosed ancient valleys and streambeds in the Sahara desert region and this suggests that the climate of the region changed drastically at some point in the past from grassland to desert.^[32]  Along with the major change in the Sahara from a well-watered savannah to desert, Velikovsky also noted evidence that Arabia was once well-watered, cultivated, and inhabited with settled human populations.^[33]  John Anthony West has noted several hard to dismiss evidences that suggest that the Sphinx has suffered a good bit of water erosion in the distant past.  Rather than long, slow climatic variations, as uniformitarian theories assert, recent core samples from Antarctica reveal that the earth’s climate has never been “stable” and has often seen sudden shifts.^[34]  A report in 1995 asserted that evidence suggested that ancient storms were much more severe (consider the effect on the landscape) than modern hurricanes.^[35]

       The U.S. Department of Energy laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico had on its staff for years a very interesting man.  John Baumgardner is the world’s pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection (volcanoes, earthquakes, plate tectonics) and designed a fascinating program named Terra for studying these phenomena.  Having once been a confirmed evolutionist, he is now a young earth creationist and he designed Terra to see if the Genesis Flood was compatible with the scientific data.^[36]  His "runaway subduction" flood theory is worth consideration, as is the "hydroplate" theory of Dr. Walter Brown.

       Rock Formation - How quickly can rock form?  How long does it take for items to become entombed in rock?  It appears that nature doesn't need nearly as much time to do these things as evolutionists have asserted.  The ship's bell from the wreck (1852) of the wooden sailing ship Isabella Watson has been found half encased in solid rock, in 170 feet of water off the coast of Victoria, Australia.^[37]  In 1975, a man-made clockwork mechanism (right) was found half encased in rock near the south Jetty at Westport, Washington.^[38]  Long stalactites (hanging from cave ceilings) are known to have grown in less than 55 years in a man-made mining tunnel in the lead-zinc mine at Mt. Isa in northwestern Queensland, Australia.^[39]  Similarly, a five-foot high stalagmite has been found in an abandoned gold mine tunnel near Burrendong Dam in central New South Wales, Australia and this formed since 1851.^[40]  "Teepee Fountain" (left) in Thermopolis, Wyoming began in 1903 with a metal pipe stuck into the ground so that mineral-rich water could flow out.  This has all occurred in a century and did not require thousands or millions of years.

       Rapid Island Formation - A huge undersea volcanic eruption off the coast of Iceland in 1963 produced the new island of Surtsey, mentioned in National Geographic magazine,

    . . . in one week's time we witness changes that elsewhere might take decades or even centuries . . . Despite the extreme youth of the growing island, we encounter a landscape so varied that it is almost beyond belief.^[41]

Although eruptions and explosions continued, the transformation of the island into what appeared to be a mature landmass within just a few decades defies popular uniformitarian expectation.  The description by the official Icelandic geologist Sigurdur Thorarinsson in his own book is as follows,

When (geologists) in the spring and summer of 1964 wandered about the island . . . they found it hard to believe that this was an island whose age was still measured in months, not years . . . What elsewhere may take thousands of years may be accomplished (in Iceland) in one century. . . (in) Surtsey. . . the same development may take a few weeks or even a few days.  On Surtsey only a few months sufficed for a landscape to be created which was so varied and mature that it was almost beyond belief . . . wide sandy beaches . . . precipitous crags . . . gravel banks and lagoons, impressive cliffs grayish white from the brine.. . hollows... glens and screes... boulders worn by the surf, some of which were almost round on an abrasion platform cut into the cliffs.^[42]

     Volcanic Eruptions Reshape the landscape - The power of volcanoes to make major, sudden changes in the landscape was demonstrated in the eruption (1980 & following) of Washington State’s Mount St. Helens, in which hundreds of acres of mature forest were leveled, mudflows created hundreds of feet of stratified deposits and later carved major canyon systems through them.  In November, 1985, the volcano known as Nevado del Ruiz erupted in Columbia, killing at least 20,000 people and changing the landscape.^[43]  In the Fall of 1986, a gas cloud (carbon dioxide) suddenly came forth from Lake Nios, sitting within the crater of an extinct volcano in the African nation of Cameroon, and swept over the valley below, killing almost 2,000 people and many animals.^[44]  Catastrophes do occur, cause major changes in the landscape, and can suddenly kill and bury large numbers of lifeforms – uniformitarianism is, at best, a limited principle for understanding earth history.

     Rapid formation of Coal and Oil - While the traditional view of the components and burial/compression formation model for coal and petroleum is probably correct, the major area of disagreement will again be the time-scale involved.  During the "oil embargo" of the 1970's, some university students cooked up some garbage into petroleum in a pretty short amount of time.  More recently, a Wichita company has developed a method of using heat and pressure to turn garbage into a burnable oil in 10-15 minutes.^[45]  A company in Western Australia has developed a method for turning sewage sludge into a diesel grade fuel oil in about 30 minutes.^[46]  Dr. Robert Gentry’s research indicates that many Western North American coalbeds were formed rapidly in the recent past.

(4) Steno’s principle of superposition is inadequate

     The Geologic Column is built upon the assumption that the strata in the earth were formed very slowly and gradually by small amounts of sediments gently settling out from oceans that covered the continents for long periods of time in the distant past.  Thus, sediments are gravity deposited downwards.  While this sounds reasonable, there are a couple of problems with this approach.

     First of all, much of the fossil evidence suggests that a good bit of the sediments that became rocks and contain the fossilized remnants of creatures from the past had to have been deposited rapidly, trapping and quickly burying animals and plants that were alive – the fossils appear to be of animals and plants that were alive, healthy, and intact, showing no signs of predation or disintegration from exposure or dismembering by scavengers after death.  Intact fossils speak of some kind of strata formation that occurred fast enough to cover and fossilize the specimen while it was complete and intact, not the gradual and painfully slow processes of uniformitarian geology!

     Second, there are many polystratic (“many strata”) fossil trees standing upright, with obviously intact bark (as with the palm tree, left) and extending through many feet of strata that could hardly have stood there alive and/or solid enough to remain intact for hundreds of thousands of years while strata gradually accumulated over eons of time.  The common evolutionary escape is that these came from local river floods, but the locations and amount of sediment built up around the trees hardly fits such explanations.

    Third, there is now observational evidence (first by Guy Berthault) that strata can form sideways (right) and rapidly from flows of sediment-bearing water, as well as during mud-flows from volcanic activities.  The thickness and makeup of each level is determined by the speed of the water-flow and the size/weight of the material being transported.

(5) The Geologic Column Raises Questions

     Our previous summary of the Geologic Column noted that this was a “pieced together composite” (and these were the words that the Encyclopaedia Britannica writer used).  As basic as this “column” is to modern geologic (and evolutionary) thinking, you would think that such a standard and foundational reference item would be found intact at least fairly commonly in the world’s rock systems.  With so much evolutionary belief resting on it, you would think that this ordered collection of strata is “normally” what exists in the earth.  The surprising truth is that the geologic column does NOT represent the general overall structure of geological stratification for the worlds rock systems, except in the faith of those embrace the whole scenario.  Actually, it found intact very rarely.  Evolutionary geologists who defend the column’s truthfulness, can still only claim to find all ten geologic systems superposed in the right order on less than 1% of the earth’s surface and then rarely in the relative depths expected.^[47]  Thus, it would seem that we should view the Geologic Column as a hypothetical (and probably mythological) concoction that quickly attained “dogma” status, but does not seem to really represent the normal character of the earth’s surface and strata.

      However, there are rather sizable places on the earth where a different ordering of strata occurs and these are asserted to be “overthrusts” from the assumed “norm” of the Geologic column.  "Missing" layers are usually explained as being the result of extensive erosion, while layers “out of order” are usually explained as "thrust faults" (where some force “pushed” or folded other strata up and over the lower strata.  However, some of the massive formations where the strata is out of order cover a considerable amount of territory and explanations of “thrust-faulting” seem more like an attempt to save the sacred mythological “Geologic Column” than explaining what is found.  The “Lewis Overthrust” in Montana is composed of about 10,000 square miles of Pre-Cambrian rock lying on top of allegedly younger Cretaceous rock.  The “Franklin Overthrust” in Texas has what is believed to be 450 million year old rock on top of 130 million year old rock.  The “Heart Mountain Thrust” in Wyoming has about 2,000 square miles of allegedly 300 million year old rock lying on top of 60 million year old rock.  Similar situations exist in the Swiss Alps, but the explanations of “over-thrusting” often seem to be pretty hard to imagine as what really happened.^[48]  Remember that this “column” was assembled on the basis of uniformitarian assumptions and studies of European geology, not a long-term survey of geology around the world.  An interesting point, I have found it difficult to locate any particular name associated with the “geologic column” – who actually produced this thing?  If anyone ever finds documentation for who assembled the column, please let me know – this mythological creature sort of “appears” and becomes a “sacred standard” for geology with no one claiming or getting credit for assembling it.

     A lingering problem, often ignored or downplayed by evolutionists, is that the Geologic Column and stratigraphic dating system employs a logical fallacy called “circular reasoning” - where “A” is assumed to be true and used to prove “B,” which in turn is cited as a proof for “A.”  Assuming uniformitarian geology to be true, Darwinists determine the age of fossils on the basis of what strata they are found in.  On the other hand, geologists assume Darwinian biological evolution to be true and correlate and date strata on the basis of which fossils are in them.  It is somewhat like a factory setting their “noon whistle” by the radio station, while the radio station sets their clock by the factory’s noon whistle.

The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks.  The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results.  This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism.^[49]

     Evidence accumulating since the early 1990's of numerous dinosaur bones found in North America with un-fossilized soft tissue inside^[50] raises serious questions about them being extinct for 60-70 million years, which is assumed on the basis of radiometric dating and the geologic column!

(6) Fossils suggest rapid/catastrophic burial events

     While we will look at this in more detail and provide documentation in the section titled “Paleontology,” the condition of many fossils suggests a rapid catastrophic burial event rather than some long, drawn-out process whereby strata gradually formed around a dead creature.  The reason for this is obvious – fossilized plants appear to have been captured in a fresh and undamaged condition, leaves still show discernable veins and texture and no evidence of even drying and curling up.  Numerous sea-life fossils appear to be complete and undamaged, no evidence of disturbance by predators or scavengers or even deterioration from a period of exposure to the elements before burial.  Fossilized fish in great numbers appear to have been overwhelmed alive by sediments and buried intact.  Some of these are very near to the surface and were it not for the large radiometric ages assigned to them, you would tend to think they were not buried that long ago.  Along with marine creatures that appear to have been overwhelmed by sediments and buried whole, a number of sites in Europe and North America provide evidence of land animals torn apart and buried together in mass graveyards, as though shredded by catastrophic forces and then washed together and collected in low spots where they were subsequently buried by later tidal action/tsunami activity and/or volcanic ash.

(7) Genesis 1-11 deserves more serious consideration

     Here is the general format of Genesis 1-11.  In the original creation event, the Bible tells us that God created major groups/”kinds” of life and these then reproduced within those “kind” groupings (Gen. 1:20ff).  The earth existed for some time, with plants and animals reproducing and spreading all over the world.  There was a fair amount of giganticism – large living things – amongst the living things of that era (the Nephilim – Gen. 6:4).^[51]  Then, a massive year-long watery catastrophe killed and buried most of the life upon the earth (Gen. 6-8).  Human civilization resumed after the flood in the Middle East, especially in the Tigris-Euphrates river valley (Mesopotamia), later spreading outward and dividing into different language groups (Gen. 10-11).

     Beginning with the Biblical story as the predictive model/paradigm for explaining the data of the natural world, certain things are expected.  (1) Earthly life comes from pre-existing life and does not “spontaneously generate” out of inanimate matter.  The prediction is that human science will never observe or reproduce “Life from non-life” by naturalistic processes alone.  (2) Fossilized early life forms will appear fully-formed and characteristic of their separate kinds, rather than a gradual transformation from a common protozoan trunk.  (3) The flood would have produced a sizeable record of lifeforms that were killed and buried (either fresh and intact or violently torn apart and washed together in mass graveyards) in the sedimentary rocks of the earth, among which will be evidence of lifeforms much larger than anything normally seen today.  Large amounts of lush vegetation might also be washed into collection points, buried, and eventually produce massive oil and coal deposits.  A massive flood, depending on the source of the water, might change sea level considerably and leave evidence of human habitations below current sea level.  (4) Post-flood traditions should portray groups going out in various directions from the Middle East, with those earliest cultures possessing a vivid memory of a great flood, people prior to it living long lives, and ultimately back to some concept of supernatural creation.

     Interestingly, every one of these points seems to agree with what is known about the ancient past.  (1) Molecular biology has found that even single cells are complex and loaded with information, with the “law of bio-genesis” being formulated when scientific studies indicated that life (flies/maggots) does not spontaneously generate out of inanimate matter, but must come from prior life.  “Origin of life” experiments have continually failed to produce “life from non-life.”  (2) Bacteria exist in rocks labeled “Pre-Cambrian” and, then a number of marine phyla (major groups) suddenly appear, fully-formed in the next geologic level, the Cambrian.  This phenomena is called the “Cambrian Explosion” and it looks a lot more like Genesis 1:20ff than Darwinism.  (3) Paleontology has found lots of lifeforms buried in the sedimentary rocks of the earth, marine types tend to be in pristine/complete forms and land animals are often in graveyards of torn-up collections.  In the fossil record, there is evidence of sharks, turtles, birds, beavers, elks, etc. that were much larger than anything seen today, as well as evidence of many lifeforms that did not survive and continue after the burial event.  There are several indications that water once covered the entire earth, with the modern continents emerging suddenly and there is evidence of massive climatic changes in the past, with modern oceans, seas, and lakes covering what once were inhabited and forested areas.  (4) Ancient history goes back to early civilization beginning in the Nile, Tigris-Euphrates, and Indus River valleys, with ancient Sumerian, Akkadian, Baylonian, and Assyrian concepts that, prior to them, there had been a great flood, with people living longer lives before that flood.  The ancient traditions of a number of culture groups in Europe and Meso-America contain evidence of an original migration from the Middle East outward.  Genesis 1-11 was not rejected by 19^th century European intellectuals because the facts were opposed to it, but because they were philosophically committed to Enlightenment naturalism and a rejection of the Biblical scenario (and any evidence favorable to it).

A Ministry of Severn Christian Church (Severn, Maryland)

Unless otherwise noted, all material produced by Charles E. McCoy

All Scripture citations/quotations from the New American Standard Bible

To send a question to Chuck: chuck@severnchristian.org