FYI.  This material may be of interest to some folks.  Shows that measuring
time for geology on earth and in the solar system is not easy to do.  Recent
reports of martian meteorite dating is at the end of the message, Mars
surface age is now a problem-----Rod

Geology
1. Oard, M.J, A tropical reptile in the 'Cretaceous' Arctic: paleofauna
challenge to uniformitarianism, CEN TJ 14(2):9-10, 2000.  Report of a
champsosaur fossil uncovered far north of the Arctic Circle.  Evolutionists
cannot invoke plate tectonics to reconcile and increased CO2 models also
fail.

2. Snelling, A.A. Ph.D. Conflicting 'ages' of Tertiary basalt and contained
fossilised wood, Crinum, Central Queensland, Australia, CEN TJ 14(2):99-122,
2000.  This is a very detailed report on conflicts found in dating
fossilized wood using C14 and various other radiometric methods for basalt.
The basalt flow based upon its geologic column position must be at least 30
x 10^6 years old and the average K-Ar model ages yielded 47.5 x 10^6 years
old basalt while the C14 date showed only 37,500 years BP.  Also a Pb-Pb
isotopic linear array gave an age 5.07 +/- 0.27 x 10^9 years old.

3. See RATE Group to Release Book, ICR Acts & Facts 29(8):1-2,2000.  2
working models under review.  Accelerated radioactive decay mostly during
days 2-3 of the creation week and also inheritance of age during Noah's
Flood.  More work needs to be done on chondritic meteorites.
Also see Snelling, A.A. Ph.D., Polonium Radiohalos: Still 'A Very Tiny
Mystery', ICR Impact 326, p. i-iv.  This report brings out the fact that
some samples of minerals contain large concentrations of 218Po radiohalos
per cm^3, making it difficult or impossible to explain on the basis of some
type of secondary fluid-transport hypothesis.  It looks like the radiohalos
formed in situ suggesting rapid formation process for the igneous rock and
minerals involved.
4. ICR reported on some recent creation geology efforts.  Two papers were
presented on October 28 to the
Geological Society of America Convention in Denver.  One paper reported on
nautiloid fossils found in the Redwall Limestone throughout Grand Canyon.
It looks like perhaps 1 billion may be deposited there.  "According to the
creationist researchers who discovered the fossil deposit, the deposit
represents a canyon-length mass kill of marine cephalopods on the ocean
floor followed by very rapid burial in carbonate sediment.  The geologists
suspect that the mass kill was caused by hot toxic water that had spread
over a huge area." [1]

5. The second paper reported on "Gigantic, redeposited fragments of an
ancient ocean floor have been located within sedimentary strata in the
Mojave Desert of southeastern California...The redeposited fragments (called
'megaclasts') occur within the Kingston Peak Formation of the Kingston Range
northeast of Baker, California...Evidently, a large area of ocean floor at
the margin of the continent was caught up in the gigantic submarine
landslide into a deep ocean basin.  Creationists geologists have been
finding a wide variety of sedimentary evidence that argues for submarine
catastrophic processes.  The Biblical Flood provide the only viable
explanation for many of these diverse sedimentary deposits.  Creationists
are beginning to imagine the colossal size, area, and power of the
sedimentary and tectonic events that signal the Flood's activity in the
southwestern United States." [2]
6. For some good and short notes see John D. Morris, Ph.D., "The Polystrate
Trees and Coal Seams of Joggins Fossil Cliffs", ICR Impact No. 316, October
1999.  This has some very good material on rapid sedimentation rates in
earth history along with evidence for rapid coal formation mixed with marine
sediments from the ocean.  Clear evidence that Noah's Flood was global in
extent, not local.  Also see John D. Morris, Ph.D., "What Happened to Land
Plants During the Flood?", Acts & Facts, October 1999, Vol. 28, No. 10, p.
d.  More information on the burial processes of plants operating during
Noah's Flood and the relation to petrified wood and coal deposit formation
found in the fossil record.  Much geologic evidence exists today that
contradicts the view of Charles Lyell in the 1830s-1840s that was used to
promote Charles Darwin thinking about origins in biology.  ICR is
documenting data that supports rapid and abrupt sedimentation rates and
strata formation as well as evidence for slower processes and explaining
both with the same Flood model.

References
1.	"CREATIONIST RESEARCH REPORTED AT GEOLOGISTS' CONVENTION", Acts &
Facts, December 1999, Vol. 28, No. 12, p. 9-10.
2.	Ibid., p. 10.

Solar system data

From: Roderick Bernitt
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000
To: Frank Sherwin, ICR; Tas Walker, AIG
Subject: Europa and Triton-still giving evolutionists timescale problems
FYI.  Europa surface age '...probably between 30 and 100 Myr'.

Triton surface age '...0.1-0.3 Gyr ago (indicating Triton was still active
after some 90% to 98% of the age of the solar system), and perhaps even more
recently.'
----Rod
Begin NASA ADS access 08/31/00
http://adswww.harvard.edu
ADS Astronomy Abstract Service
Title: Magnetospheric Ion Sputtering: The Case of Europa and its Surface Age
Authors: Ip, Wing-Huen.; Kopp, A.; Williams, D. J.; McEntire, R. W.; Mauk,
B. H.
Journal: Advances in Space Research, Volume 26, Issue 10, p. 1649-1652.
(AdSpR Homepage)
Publication Date: 00/2000 Origin: ELSEVIER
Abstract Copyright: © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Bibliographic Code: 2000AdSpR..26.1649I
Abstract
Recent estimates of the ion sputtering rates at Europa's surface are
reviewed. The atmospheric mass loss rate may range' between 13.7 kg s-1 and
137 kg s-1, and the surface erosion rates between 5.6 m/100 Myr and 56 m/100
Myr - with a median value of about 14 m/100 Myr. From a comparison with the
preliminary results of the crater frequency distribution of Europa, it is
estimated that the surface of Europa could be geologically very young with
an age of probably between 30 and 100 Myr.

ADS Astronomy Abstract Service
Title:Triton's Surface Age and Impactor Population Revisited in Light of
Kuiper Belt Fluxes: Evidence for Small Kuiper Belt Objects and Recent
Geological Activity
 Authors: Stern, S. Alan; McKinnon, William B.
  Journal: The Astronomical Journal, Volume 119, Issue 2, pp. 945-952. (AJ
Homepage)
 Publication Date: 02/2000
 Origin: UCP
  Abstract Copyright: (c) 2000: The American Astronomical Society
 Bibliographic Code: 2000AJ....119..945S
                                            Abstract
Neptune's largest satellite, Triton, is one of the most fascinating and
enigmatic bodies in the solar system. Among its numerous interesting traits,
Triton appears to have far fewer craters than would be expected if its
surface were primordial. Here we combine the best available crater count
data for Triton with improved estimates of impact rates by including the
Kuiper belt as a source of impactors. We find that the population of
impactors creating the smallest observed craters on Triton must be
subkilometer in scale and that this small-impactor population can be best
fitted by a differential power-law size index near -3.
Such results provide interesting, indirect probes of the unseen small body
population of the Kuiper belt. Based on the modern, Kuiper belt and Oort
cloud impactor flux estimates, we also recalculate estimated ages for
several regions of Triton's surface imaged by Voyager 2, and find that
Triton was probably quite geologically active on a timescale no greater than
0.1-0.3 Gyr ago (indicating Triton was still active after some 90% to 98% of
the age of the solar system), and perhaps even more recently.
This activity must surpass that explainable by the surface geysers seen by
Voyager 2 by many orders of magnitude. The time-averaged volumetric
resurfacing rate on Triton implied by these results, 0.01 km3 yr-1 or more,
is likely second only to Io and Europa in the outer solar system, and is
within an order of magnitude of estimates for Venus and for the Earth's
intraplate zones. This finding indicates that Triton likely remains a highly
geologically active world at present, some 4.5 Gyr after its formation. We
briefly speculate on how such a situation might obtain.
This report on martin meteorites has been edited by Rod

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/martian_meteorite_000830.html

09/05/00 access

New Clues About Martian Meteorites Baffle Scientists
By Greg Clark
Staff Writer
posted: 08:10 pm ET
30 August 2000

CHICAGO-Analysis of new Martian meteorites is confounding planetary
scientists with clues that simply don't add up.
Rather than clearing up existing questions about the Red Planet, results
from the new meteorites seem to be opening up a Pandora's box of questions
about Mars. Evidence from the rocks doesn't seem compatible with one of the
most trusted scientific conclusions about the planet: that the vast majority
of the Martian surface is billions of years old.
The puzzle came into sharp focus here this week at the annual meeting of the
Meteoritical Society, as scientists announced their findings from three
recently discovered Mars rocks.
The Los Angeles meteorite, which was discovered last fall by a Los Angeles
rock hunter, was revealed to be only 175 million years old-contemporary in
geologic terms. It is a volcanic rock that crystallized from magma near the
Martian surface. Larry Nyquist and a research team at NASA's Johnson Space
Center and Lockheed Martin in Houston determined the age by measuring the
state of certain weakly radioactive isotopes within the meteorite.
New meteorites seem to be opening up a Pandora's box of questions about
Mars...
If the vast majority of Mars' surface is billions of years old, then it
seems reasonable to expect that a similarly large proportion of meteorites
from the planet would reflect this age.

"We're starting to wonder why we aren't seeing many older meteorites," said
Lars Borg, a planetary geochemist who specializes in dating meteorites at
the University of New Mexico's Institute of Meteoritics.

The simplest explanation, Borg said, is that all the 180 million-year-old
Martian meteorites originate from the same Martian location. The seven
similar rocks may have been ejected at one time by a catastrophic asteroid
impact: the asteroid just happened to slam into one of the rare areas of
young volcanic rock on an otherwise old Mars.

A tidy explanation, Borg said, if it didn't conflict with information about
the length of time that each of the meteorite samples spent in space.

Work by several other researchers shows that explaining the origin of these
rocks is not so easy. This is work involves the cosmic-ray-exposure age of
the meteorites. That is a measure of how long the rocks spent in transit
between Mars and Earth...

Scientists can then measure the strength of those radionuclides to find out
how long those radioactive products have been decaying. That tells them how
long the rocks have been on Earth, protected from the damage of cosmic rays.
Adding together the time that a meteorite has been on Earth and the time it
spent in space, reveals just how long ago rocks were thrown off Mars.
Kunihiko Nishiizumi is a cosmo-chemist who specializes in cosmic-ray studies
at the University of California at Berkeley. He has calculated that the
seven young Shergotites found on Earth came from four different impact
events that ejected material from Mars. In total, the 16 Martian meteorites
came from no less than nine different ejection events, he said.

Because they left Mars at four different times, there is no way that all the
young rocks came from one place on Mars, Nishiizumi said.

"I think that the most important thing that is coming out of the combined
cosmic-ray-exposure ages and the crystallization ages of these meteorites is
that we may be missing something fundamental about Mars," said David
Mittlefehldt, a geochemist and meteorite expert at Lockheed Martin in
Houston, Texas.

In 1993, Mittlefehldt proved that the Allan Hills 84001 meteorite was of
Martian origin. Previously it had been misidentified as part of an asteroid.

The age of the Martian surface has been calculated by examining the number
of craters on Mars, Mittlefehldt explained. The oldest surfaces would have
been exposed to meteorite impacts from space for the longest time, and thus
would have the most craters on them. Young surfaces would be relatively free
of craters.

Using the current understanding of crater density, a maximum of 15 percent
of the Martian surface could be as young as 175 million years old,
Mittlefehldt said. Even getting that high of a percentage is really
stretching the model, he said. It simply doesn't make sense that half the
meteorites from Mars and half the big impact events that sent them to Earth
just happened to hit the 15 percent of the surface that is young, he said.

What that means is that Mars may be much younger than most scientists have
thought, he said. The accepted models for how fast craters build up on Mars
could be entirely wrong, which would throw into question a whole host of
conclusions about Martian surface history.

A final answer to the question could be many years away, though. Clues from
meteorites alone don't seem to be settling the debate. "If anything, I think
the problem may be getting worse instead of better," Mittlefehldt said.

"We're only going to sort that out by getting sample returns from Mars," he
said. On this point, Nishiizumi, Borg and the others agree. The need to send
a spacecraft to the planet to bring back fresh samples from known locations
is one proposal about which there is no debate.

< Back  1 2 3

©2000 SPACE.com, inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
You can read our privacy statement

Rod,
"FYI.  This material may be of interest to some folks.  Shows
that measuring time for geology on earth and in the solar system
is not easy to do."

and just what does that determine about the age of the earth or
the universe?  Perhaps it means that criticisms that sound
good to laymen are not.  How much trouble have you taken to
see that what you have passed on is worthy of being passed on,
or if it is the equivalent of gossip?

Again, a couple of the interesting things you put in
(remarkable how they were the non-YEC items) are
"problems".  What kind of problems, exactly?

It is difficult to determine the age of the *surfaces* of
Mars and Triton.  That's a surprise to everybody who
doesn't know that we haven't put geologists on Mars or
Triton.

Tracy P. Hamilton

Hi Marc,

> Apparently inspired Biblical answers are not satisfactory enough
for you anymore. Have ye not read the inspired record of Genesis 7:21-
23? If every man was "destroyed from the earth" and "only Noah and
those who were with him in the ark remained alive," from who else
would the human population living today descend from? The question
has a most satisfactory answer - why don't you accept the inspired
testimony that only eight souls were saved from the flood?

I don't deny that all people descended from Noah and his children.
However, I leave the question open because there is not a need to
make this a matter of argument.

> The acceptance of human wisdom has clouded our judgments to where
we cannot see the simple truths of God's revelation. This is indeed a
serious problem today - eyes that will not see, and ears that will
not hear what God has revealed to man in His word.

These matters are not simple.  If they were simple then no argument
would be needed.

Thanks,

David

Tracy,

> It is difficult to determine the age of the *surfaces* of
> Mars and Triton.  That's a surprise to everybody who
> doesn't know that we haven't put geologists on Mars or
> Triton.


Well said.  People should keep the mysteries of the Universe in
perspective.  The reason why we know less about other planets is
because they are not available for direct investigation.  The reason
why we know a lot about the Earth is because scientists have explored
the oceans and the continents searching for clues about its history.
These scientific efforts have succeeded in revealing the history of
the Earth, and that history is billions of years old rather than
thousands of years old.

Thanks,

David Mathews

Hi, Marc.

I appreciate many of the comments in your 9/1/00 post. At the same
time I must state that I believe you are not fully appreciating the
seriousness of the fact of the antiquity of the universe and the
earth.

I understand the concerns regarding exegesis and eisegesis. In
quoting Davis A. Young, this is precisely the point he was making and
that I was also emphasizing. I'm glad that you reiterated the
concerns, because in doing this I see that we agree on Davis A.
Young's primary point that "Maybe...the deficiency lies in our
fallible theological theories rather than in God's creation."

I know that, of course, you claim that "exegesis" of the Bible
requires a young universe and young earth (on the order of 10,000
years), and that any different interpretation is "eisegesis." What I
have pointed out, again by way of my quote of Davis A. Young, is "the
fact that our understanding of the biblical text is also filtered
through theoretical frameworks. All one needs to do is to look at the
profession of biblical studies to realize how value-laden and
subjective is that discipline! Exegesis and theology are as strongly
affected by the approach one takes as is science. There is more
consensus among geologists about the proper interpretation of rocks
than there is about the proper interpretation of the Bible among
theologians and biblical scholars, even among those guided by the
Holy Spirit."

The thousands of professional geologists and astronomers are quite
agreed that the universe and earth are ancient. Yes, there are a very
small handful of YEC "holdouts" with geology training, but their
opinion is obviously and explicitly controlled by their adherence to
a literalistic interpretation of Genesis and not by scientific
considerations (while conversely you cannot find a single young earth
geologist who is not explicitly biased by his religious beliefs). And
in regard to astronomy, I am not aware of even a single professional
astronomer in the entire world who argues that the universe is
ancient.

When it comes to the real world itself. Who is practicing "eisegesis"
rather than "exegesis." It is extremely obvious that young earth
creationists practice blatant "eisegesis" on this score.

You write, "When we observe the natural realm, we can see the glory,
handiwork, power, and divinity of the Creator. Beyond these things
the natural realm alone cannot take us." This is clearly hyperbole,
and the sentiment behind it is demonstrably false. Medicine,
meteorology, and physics, among other areas of science, tell us very
much about the real world. Your coffee maker, toaster, stove, and
oven (conventional and microwave) are all products of our objective
examination of the real world. Medical treatments, doppler radar, and
satellite observations are products of science, not biblical
interpretation. This point is obvious, and it demonstrates the
obvious fallacy of any viewpoint that spring from the idea that we
can't learn anything for certain about the real world.

You also state, "There are too many variables and assumptions
involved in human calculations and conclusions about the ancient past
to be anything close to reliable." Please tell me what the "variables
and assumptions" are regarding SN1987A occuring about 168,000 years
ago that renders that observation unreliable. I have been asking this
question of young earth creationists for several years, and I have
yet to receive an answer that does not directly contradict the real
world itself.

You write, "We can take the testimony of scripture...as the truth
without the need to change, add, update, revise, or manipulate it in
any way to fit modern theories or supposed conclusions."

I can easily disprove this with one simple historical example: Who
learned that geocentrism was wrong, theologians or astronomers, and
when did theologians seek to modify biblical hermeneutics on the
issue, before the truth about the real world was discovered through
scientific examination or after?

Finally, and perhaps not so incidentally, I proved an example
of "eisegesis" in connection with the "Open Letter" itself when I
showed the author's obvious misuse of the language in Psalm 33. There
are many more details to be explored on this matter of the creation
account and biblical hermeneutics.

Regards,
Todd

Todd:

Your statement was:

And in regard to astronomy, I am not aware of even a single professional
astronomer in the entire world who argues that the universe is
ancient.

 ... I assume you meant to say "who argues that the universe is not
ancient."

Or did I miss something?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 1:25 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Addressed to David Mathews

Hi, Marc.

[snip]

The thousands of professional geologists and astronomers are quite
agreed that the universe and earth are ancient. Yes, there are a very
small handful of YEC "holdouts" with geology training, but their
opinion is obviously and explicitly controlled by their adherence to
a literalistic interpretation of Genesis and not by scientific
considerations (while conversely you cannot find a single young earth
geologist who is not explicitly biased by his religious beliefs). And
in regard to astronomy, I am not aware of even a single professional
astronomer in the entire world who argues that the universe is
ancient.

[snip]

Hello Todd,

Thank you for responding. Let me consider some points you made...

You said...
..The thousands of professional geologists and astronomers are quite
agreed that the universe and earth are ancient. <<

So? A majority does not make it right, especially when they are working off
naturalistic-based studies that do not consider the supernatural activity of
the Creator. They do not consider all the information available on the
subject. That is why science cannot correctly answer questions of origin and
antiquity -- they subtract God and His activity out of the equation.

You said...
>>You write, "When we observe the natural realm, we can see the glory,
handiwork, power, and divinity of the Creator. Beyond these things
the natural realm alone cannot take us." This is clearly hyperbole,
and the sentiment behind it is demonstrably false. Medicine,
meteorology, and physics, among other areas of science, tell us very
much about the real world. <<

You missed my point by a mile, but maybe I did not make myself as clear as I
should have. The natural realm alone cannot take us beyond these matters to
describe to us the work of the Creator in creation. We can see from nature
that a superior, divine intelligence is responsible for all that we see, but
the natural realm cannot tell us how or when that Creator did the creating.
That information is only known and understood by faith (Heb. 11:3). The
record of Gen.1-2 gives us information that nature can not give us. For the
details as to how God created all things we must give a "thus saith the
Lord." Of course, science has done many wonderful things in so many areas of
study. It has its proper role, but as to origins and antiquity, we must hear
God's revelation and consider His activity.

You said...
>>Please tell me what the "variables
and assumptions" are regarding SN1987A occuring about 168,000 years
ago that renders that observation unreliable. I have been asking this
question of young earth creationists for several years, and I have
yet to receive an answer that does not directly contradict the real
world itself.<<

This "real world" of today is projected into the past on the assumption of
uniformitarianism. That is how you get a date of 168,000 years. If nature is
all that there is, I would agree with this assumption about the ancient past.
But nature is ruled by a Creator that created it supernaturally and has
intervened at various times for various purposes. Rates, measures, clock
times, etc are good for the times that they are observed. But projecting that
into the past on the assumption that all things continue the same from the
very beginning does not always follow when you affirm something more than
just simple naturalism. A God who created and has manipulated nature at His
will certainly gives excellent reason to question the validity such
assumptions, leaving us with the faith that is based on His word about
origins and antiquity. So, as to SN1987A occuring about 168,000 years ago,
uniformitarian assumptions that undergird this conclusion are not assumed by
everyone. My faith is based on the testimony of scripture, which is much more
sure than any assumption of human wisdom used in our own fallible
observations and conclusions.

You wrote...
You write, "We can take the testimony of scripture...as the truth
without the need to change, add, update, revise, or manipulate it in
any way to fit modern theories or supposed conclusions."
I can easily disprove this with one simple historical example: Who
learned that geocentrism was wrong, theologians or astronomers, and
when did theologians seek to modify biblical hermeneutics on the
issue, before the truth about the real world was discovered through
scientific examination or after?<<

Todd, just when and how did they change, add, update, revise, or manipulate
the testimony of Scripture when geocentrism was disproven? The scripture
never taught geocentrism, man did. Faulty theories of man will always fall by
the wayside, whether theological or scientific. Now explain how this affects
the historical record of creation in Gen.1-2. It teaches universal truth to
men of every age about the who, how, and timing of creation. Can we not
understand the truth based on the testimony of the text itself? What more can
we understand about this matter than what the Israelites at Mt Sinia
understood about it in Exodus 20:11? The truth is the same for us today as it
was for them way back then in the "ignorant, pre-scientific" days.

As to Psalm 33, when does something described poetically necessarily become
non-literal? Cannot literal, historical events be described in poetic
language?

Thanks for your time,
Marc Gibson

Hi, Tom.

ROTFL!!! What a bad typing omission! I submit to your 30 lashes!

Regards,
Todd


--- Tom Couchman wrote:
> Todd:
>
> Your statement was:
>
> And in regard to astronomy, I am not aware of even a single
> professional astronomer in the entire world who argues that the
> universe is ancient.
>
>  ... I assume you meant to say "who argues that the universe is not
> ancient."
>
> Or did I miss something?

Anyone who believes in an old earth must also accept as factual the
existence of the geologic column.  Young earth creationists have been
presenting evidence for many years now that the geologic column is not
factual.  Evolutionists in biology must accept the geologic column as
factual otherwise their story of origins and the age of the earth falls
apart----Rod
"It does not engender confidence in the reality of the geological column
when it is absent 99% of the time...Finally, the geological column is a
hypothetical concept that can always be rescued by special pleading."
GEOLOGIC COLUMN -
"There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the
Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned.  However, this does not mean
that the geological column is real.  Firstly, the presence or absence of all
ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile,
even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8-16% or less) of the
total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column.  Without question, most
of the column is missing in the field.  Secondly, those locations where it
has been possible to assign all ten periods represent less than 0.4% of the
earth's surface, or 1% if the ocean basins are excluded.  Obviously it is
the exception, rather than the rule, to be able to assign all of the ten
Phanerozoic periods to the sedimentary pile in any one location on the
earth.  It does not engender confidence in the reality of the geological
column when it is absent 99% of the time...Finally, the geological column is
a hypothetical concept that can always be rescued by special pleading.  A
number of standard explanations are used to account for missing geological
periods, including erosion and non-deposition...There is no escaping the
fact that the Phanerozoic geologic column remains essentially non-existent.
It should be obvious, to all but the most biased observers, that it is the
anti-creationists who misrepresent the geologic facts.  The geologic column
does not exist to any substantive extent, and scientific creationists are
correct to point this out." [1]
"The ten strata systems that geologists use (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian,
Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and
Tertiary) compose the 'standard geologic column' and are claimed by many to
contain the major proof of evolutionary theory.  Several erroneous notions
have been attached to the geologic column.  The following are the ten most
common misconceptions." [2]
"Misconception No. 3.  The strata systems of the geologic column are
worldwide in their occurrence with each strata system being present below
any point on the earth's surface."
...Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten systems are
poorly represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth's
surface area on land and under the sea has seven or more (70% or more) of
the strata systems missing beneath; 94% of the earth's surface has three or
more systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.6% has at least one
missing system.  Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) have
been described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal,
west Bolivia, and central Poland).  Even where the ten strata systems may be
present, geologists recognize individual systems to be incomplete.  The
entire geologic column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in
the diagrams drawn by geologists! [3]
"Misconception No. 4.  Strata systems always occur in the order required by
the geologic column."
Hundreds of locations are known where the order of the systems identified by
geologists does not match the order of the geologic column.  Strata systems
are believed in some places to be inverted, repeated, or inserted where they
do not belong.  Overturning, overthrust faulting, or landsliding are
frequently maintained as disrupting the order.  In some locations such
structural changes can be supported by physical evidence, while elsewhere
physical evidence of the disruption may be lacking and special pleading may
be required using fossils or radiometric dating." [4]
"Misconception No. 8. Radiometric dating can supply 'absolute ages' in
millions of years with certainty to systems of the geologic column."
Geologists and geochronologists assert that radiometric dating verifies that
individual strata systems and their strata are millions of years old.  When
asked to document the most reliable radiometric age dates, geologists
usually point to isochron and concordia plots which employ multiple isotopic
analyses, which they claim will remove the effects of original
'contaminants,' and display the 'age' of a rock in graphical form.  However,
we find geologists often reporting isochron plots which are discordant with
the accepted 'ages' of strata systems.  Frequently, these discordant
isochron plots 'date' strata systems much older than even the accepted old
ages customarily assigned to the systems of the geologic column.  Geologists
should be asking which, if any, of the isochron plots should be accepted as
'absolute ages,' and if the discordances do not falsify the assumptions upon
which radiometric dating is based.  Geologists need to consider radiometric
methods which indicate ages of thousands of years for strata systems, as
well as general indicators supporting young age." [5]
"Misconception No. 10.  The geologic column and the positions of fossils
within the geologic column provide proof of amoeba-to-man evolution."
All the animal phyla, including chordate fish, are now known as fossils in
the Cambrian System.  No ancestral forms can be found for the protozoans,
arthropods, brachiopods, mollusks, bryozoans, coelenterates, sponges,
annelids, echinoderms or chordates.  These phyla appear in the fossil record
fully formed and distinct, in better agreement with the concept of
'multiple', abrupt beginnings' (creation) than with the notion of 'descent'
from a common ancestor (evolution)." [6]
References
1.	Woodmorappe, J., The geologic column: does it exist? CEN TJ
13(2):81-82, 1999
2.	Austin, S.A., TEN MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN, ICR
Impact No. 137, p. i., 1984.
3.	Austin, S.A., Ref. 2, p. ii.
4.	Austin, S.A., Ref. 2., p. ii.
5.	Austin, S.A., Ref. 2., p. iii-iv.
6.	Austin, S.A., Ref. 2., p. iv.

Christopher,

Thank you for your thoughts.

I observed no consideration given to the supernatural activitiy of creation
or intervention by God. All your conclusions are assumed on a naturalistic
basis undergirding human observation. We are arguing from two entirely
different directions. I uphold the divine revelation of the Creator as
supreme in objective and infallible truth. That is what I must do as a
Christian. It will guide my understanding of the origin and nature of what I
see, even when fallible human conclusions based on the human wisdom
contradict. I understand the matters of origin and antiquity by faith in what
God revealed, and it is no surprise that it will conflict often with human
philosophy and science. Science approaches these matters from a naturalistic
basis. I will live and act by faith based in the testimony of inspired
scripture. If you regard this as foolish, no problem -- I have already been
warned by God that it would be.

Uniformitarianism is refuted by the very act of creation and God's
supernatural intervention at times into the natural realm. That is the point
of 2 Peter 3:3ff. Science must work off of the assumption of
uniformitarianism because it will not consider God and His work. This is a
huge problem.

Apparently Science will be the supreme authority on this discussion group as
to what is objective and absolute truth. I guess I am wasting my time in
discussing the truth of scripture. If the attempt is to reinterpret the
historical record of Gen. 1-2 without any justification in the text itself, I
want no part of such an effort. My duty as a Christian is to live by faith in
boldy declaring and doing the revealed will of God. You may have advanced
degrees, but I would rather have the Scriptures. That is where one finds the
beginning of knowledge, wisdom, and instruction. I have a few degrees myself,
but I consider them as nothing for the knowledge of God.

I leave you with two quotes from Edward J. Young in his "Studies in Genesis
One":

"Whenever "science" and the Bible are in conflict, it is always the Bible
that, in one manner or another, must give way. We are not told that "science"
should correct its answers in the light of Scripture. Always it is the other
way around." (p. 53). How true, but how shameful this is.

"In the nature of the case God's revelation does not conflict with itself.
His revelation in nature and that in Scripture are in perfect accord. Man,
however, is a rational creature, and needs a revelation in words that he may
properly understand himself and his relation to the world in which he lives.
Even in his unfallen state, God gave Adam a word-revelation, for by his very
constitution as an intellectual being, man must have such. The
word-revelation, therefore, must interpret revelation in nature. Fallen man
must read general revelation in the light of Scripture, else he will go
astray. Of course the Bible is not a textbook of science, but the Bible is
necessary properly to understand the purpose of science. Perhaps one may say
that it is a textbook of the philosophy of science. And on whatever subject
the Bible speaks, whether it be creation, the making of the sun, the fall,
the flood, man's redemption, it is authoritative and true. We are to think
God's thoughts after him, and his thoughts are expressed in the words of
Scripture. When these thoughts have to do with the origin of man, we are to
think them also. They alone must be our guide." (p. 54)

Amen and amen! "The entrance of thy words giveth light" (Psalm 119:130). Now
just where will our faith be based?

Thanks,
Marc Gibson

Marc:

You stated

---
This "real world" of today is projected into the past on the assumption of
uniformitarianism. That is how you get a date of 168,000 years. If nature is

all that there is, I would agree with this assumption about the ancient
past.
But nature is ruled by a Creator that created it supernaturally and has
intervened at various times for various purposes. Rates, measures, clock
times, etc are good for the times that they are observed. But projecting
that
into the past on the assumption that all things continue the same from the
very beginning does not always follow when you affirm something more than
just simple naturalism. A God who created and has manipulated nature at His
will certainly gives excellent reason to question the validity such
assumptions, leaving us with the faith that is based on His word about
origins and antiquity.
---
 ... and so on.

No "assumption of uniformitarianism" is required to reach a conclusion about
any matter which has to do with God's nature. The craters of the moon
resulted from catastrophes.  There is a ridge outside Lone Pine, CA, that
was formed by a catastrophic earthquake in the Sierras in the early years of
the 20th century.  There are effects of the catastrophic Big Thompson Canyon
flood of 1976 still visible in the canyon.  If you drive through the Platte
River valley in western Nebraska you can see the clear effects of one or
more catastrophic floods.  The land around Mt. St. Helens still bears the
scars of the catastrophic eruption of that mountain.  In Yellowstone there
are over 40 layers of fossil trees, each layer buried by a catastrophic
volcanic eruption.  There is evidence of non-uniform processes visible all
over the earth.  Bible-believing scientists don't make assumptions about
"uniformitarianism" when they study nature.

The assumption they do make is that when we see a particular process today
producing a particular effect, we are entitled to conclude (provisionally)
that other objects which show the same effect, which we did not see
produced, were in fact produced by that same process.

For example, scientists have been studying the formation of shale varves for
over 100 years.  They can be observed in the process of formation today, in
places like the Black Sea.  Each year, with boring regularity, two layers of
paper-thin clay are laid at the bottom of very still waters:  one
lighter-colored layer, which is relatively pure, and one darker-colored
layer, which is darker because it is contaminated with pollen from spring
and summer flowers and trees.  When scientists find alternating paper-thin
layers of light and dark shale, and when they examine the dark shale and
find that it is dark because it contains fossilized pollen, they conclude
that it took one year for each two layers to form.  They can further study
these layers and find that they show a regular variation corresponding to
events such as the precession of the earth's axis.  They can measure
magnetic materials in these varves and see the deterioration and reversal of
the earth's magnetic field, in exact correspondence to changes observed in
sea-floor igneous rock.  The Green River formation in Utah contains over ten
million of these varves.  There is no way to explain these varves except by
supposing that processes of long duration--i.e., millions of years--operated
the way we observe them to operate today.  The Green River varves look just
like varves we see forming today, at the rate of two per year.  There is no
catastrophic process which can be imagined to produce these laminae.

Is it possible that God created them just as they are.  Certainly!  But
think about what that supposition might mean.  If you take the creation
story in Genesis as a scientific description of the creation process, God
created the Green River shale during the pre-day-one portion of the event,
as described in Gen 1:1.  But God did not create plants which produced
pollen until day three.  That means God put pollen which appears to have
come from plants into every other layer of the Green River shale, even
though there were no plants alive at the time.  Is that what you believe,
Marc?

Bible-believing scientists assume that effects which appear to be the
results of catastrophic processes are, in fact, the results of such
processes.  And they assume that effects which appear to have resulted from
uniform processes of long duration are, in fact, the result of such
long-duration processes.  One assumption is just as valid as the other.
After all, if Bible-believing scientists cannot look at nature and deduce
that data which appear to be the result of long-duration processes were
actually produced by such long-duration processes, then they cannot infer
that brief, catastrophic processes caused effects which they appear to have
produced.  Perhaps the craters of the moon did not result from meteor
impacts over millions of years.  Perhaps they resulted from longer-duration
uniform processes which God has simply tricked us into thinking took a few
million years.  Perhaps God caused them to form over billions of years,
instead.

The problem with attributing "natural whimsy" to God is that Paul in Romans
1 states that God holds people who have never read the Bible responsible for
their moral conduct.  Heathens are supposed to be able to look at nature and
discern that nature is not sui generis--that it was produced by Something
Outside.  More than that discernment, they are supposed to be able to infer
something about moral standards based on their observations of nature,
without knowing anything about scripture.  So suppose a person who, based
upon his observation of nature, believes in God, but who has never read the
Bible studies varve formation ... what is that person going to infer about
the time it took for those varves to form?  Isn't he going to conclude that
it took millions of years?  But God holds that person responsible for his
moral choices--including the decision not to deceive others--based upon that
person's seeing God's divinity--i.e., His holiness--in nature.  And yet, God
put fossil pollen into that shale when He created it, leaving the believer
thinking the fossil pollen must have accumulated the way he sees it
accumulate today.  Has God not deceived that person?

Marc, this is not a hypothetical issue.  It was Bible-believing scientists
who established the science of geology in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Believers in God, who believe just as certainly as you do in miracles, study
God's nature every day.  And they always--always!--conclude that nature is
very old.  Kurt Wise, a YEC, has stated that no one has ever reached the
conclusion that the creation is young by studying it.  You have to start
with an interpretation of scripture and be determined to ignore the evidence
you find in God's nature to conclude that nature is 10,000 years old or
less.

The only assumption which is required for a believer in God or the Bible to
reach a conclusion of antiquity is the conclusion that God will not put
unnecessary indications of a historical process which never happened into
His creation.  The only way you can escape the conclusion of antiquity is to
determine that God must have left in His creation evidence of a history
which never happened.  Is that what you believe?

your brother,

tom

Tom said [The Green River formation in Utah contains over ten million of
these varves.  There is no way to explain these varves except by supposing
that processes of long duration--i.e., millions of years--operated the way
we observe them to operate today.  The Green River varves look just like
varves we see forming today, at the rate of two per year.  There is no
catastrophic process which can be imagined to produce these laminae.]

Q:Did you read the reports from ICR and AIG on the formation of varves at
Mount St. Helens?  Many varves formed very abruptly, some in a single
day-----Rod

Rod:

No varves formed at MSH.  Aeolian volcanic ash has often been observed to
form layers, so the AiG claim that this process was a shock to science was
bogus.  The layers in the MSH ashfall are not varves.  They do not alternate
between light and dark layers because of the presence of pollen.  They are
not clay--they are volcanic ash.  There is absolutely no correspondence.

BTW, the scientists (for so they are) at AiG and ICR know that these layers
are not varves.  They know that most of the readers of their material--like
yourself--are not educated on the subject (that's not a criticism of you,
Rod ... you know a lot more about some subjects than I do) will not know the
difference.  So why would they write stuff like this?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:09 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Uniformitarian assumptions

Tom said [The Green River formation in Utah contains over ten million of
these varves.  There is no way to explain these varves except by supposing
that processes of long duration--i.e., millions of years--operated the way
we observe them to operate today.  The Green River varves look just like
varves we see forming today, at the rate of two per year.  There is no
catastrophic process which can be imagined to produce these laminae.]

Q:Did you read the reports from ICR and AIG on the formation of varves at
Mount St. Helens?  Many varves formed very abruptly, some in a single
day-----Rod

good point if accurate.  I will check it out with those folks, thanks


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Uniformitarian assumptions

Rod:

No varves formed at MSH.  Aeolian volcanic ash has often been observed to
form layers, so the AiG claim that this process was a shock to science was
bogus.  The layers in the MSH ashfall are not varves.  They do not alternate
between light and dark layers because of the presence of pollen.  They are
not clay--they are volcanic ash.  There is absolutely no correspondence.

BTW, the scientists (for so they are) at AiG and ICR know that these layers
are not varves.  They know that most of the readers of their material--like
yourself--are not educated on the subject (that's not a criticism of you,
Rod ... you know a lot more about some subjects than I do) will not know the
difference.  So why would they write stuff like this?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:09 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Uniformitarian assumptions

Tom said [The Green River formation in Utah contains over ten million of
these varves.  There is no way to explain these varves except by supposing
that processes of long duration--i.e., millions of years--operated the way
we observe them to operate today.  The Green River varves look just like
varves we see forming today, at the rate of two per year.  There is no
catastrophic process which can be imagined to produce these laminae.]

Q:Did you read the reports from ICR and AIG on the formation of varves at
Mount St. Helens?  Many varves formed very abruptly, some in a single
day-----Rod

Tom, this URL reports information that looks like a conflict with your
interpretation of Green River varves.  There are other reports posted
too-----Rod
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/213.asp


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Uniformitarian assumptions

Rod:

No varves formed at MSH.  Aeolian volcanic ash has often been observed to
form layers, so the AiG claim that this process was a shock to science was
bogus.  The layers in the MSH ashfall are not varves.  They do not alternate
between light and dark layers because of the presence of pollen.  They are
not clay--they are volcanic ash.  There is absolutely no correspondence.

BTW, the scientists (for so they are) at AiG and ICR know that these layers
are not varves.  They know that most of the readers of their material--like
yourself--are not educated on the subject (that's not a criticism of you,
Rod ... you know a lot more about some subjects than I do) will not know the
difference.  So why would they write stuff like this?

tom

here is another url too-----Rod
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative7-20-2000.asp


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 3:30 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Uniformitarian assumptions

Tom, this URL reports information that looks like a conflict with your
interpretation of Green River varves.  There are other reports posted
too-----Rod
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/213.asp


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Uniformitarian assumptions

Rod:

No varves formed at MSH.  Aeolian volcanic ash has often been observed to
form layers, so the AiG claim that this process was a shock to science was
bogus.  The layers in the MSH ashfall are not varves.  They do not alternate
between light and dark layers because of the presence of pollen.  They are
not clay--they are volcanic ash.  There is absolutely no correspondence.

BTW, the scientists (for so they are) at AiG and ICR know that these layers
are not varves.  They know that most of the readers of their material--like
yourself--are not educated on the subject (that's not a criticism of you,
Rod ... you know a lot more about some subjects than I do) will not know the
difference.  So why would they write stuff like this?

tom

To Tom, Todd, Christopher, and whoever else,

I cannot answer all the questions and neither can you. The problem is we are
all caught up in what the Bible does not say instead of dealing with what it
does say and allowing it to be our authority and guide in all realms of
study. Where we go to get the infallible principles by which we may consider
these questions is the issue.

Let me ask these simple questions before we get lost in the forest...
1) Which will be the supreme authority to reveal absolute and objective truth
about origins and the ancient past - science or the Bible?
2) Will science be used to determine the proper interpretation of scripture,
or is scripture the beginning of knowledge and wisdom?
3) Is our faith-based hermeneutic based on what the text itself teaches or on
conclusions formed from human studies outside the text?
4) Is all Bible study just an exercise in subjective interpretation? Can
objective truth be known from the text of scripture? If so, how can it be
known?

I believe these are the fundamental issues behind the present controversies.
Your consideration of these matters would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Marc

----- Original Message -----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
<Roderick Bernitt>
To: CreationProcessAge forum
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Uniformitarian assumptions


>
> here is another url too-----Rod
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative7-20-2000.asp


Went there.

Comments: More of the same nonsense.
For example, It touts work by a guy named Barthault as
finding something new - layers can form during turbulent
flow.  Known by sedimentologists for decades.
Then they tout a Nature paper that shows segregation
of small and large grains into layers from a *sandpile*!
It matters not that there are other phenomena that form
layers quickly.  It would be the equivalent of me
claiming that the Green River varves could have been baked in
an oven since I proved that layer cakes are made in an oven.
Such is typical of "creation science".  Best to steer clear of it.

There is a downloadable lab on varves (you will have to
get your own varves).  In the process it will answer the
following objection:

"An article in our Creation magazine,Green River Blues pointed
out that there were two separate horizontal layers of volcanic ash,
which therefore each represent a particular (but different) time
 period. The two layers are each separated by a substantial
number of these 'varve' layers, i.e. by a number of years. But
here is the rub - in one place, the ash layers (which are each
horizontally continuous in themselves) are separated by "X"
number of laminae, in another by "Y" laminae, but X is a quite
different number from Y - i.e. the laminae cannot represent
years, because the same two volcanic events cannot be
separated by different time periods. I trust the point is obvious."

I couldn't wait:
If varves form in a lake, will the surface area of the lake bottom
be the same year to year?  No.  I trust the point is obvious.

Couchman:
> No varves formed at MSH.  Aeolian volcanic ash has often been observed to
> form layers, so the AiG claim that this process was a shock to science was
> bogus.  The layers in the MSH ashfall are not varves.  They do not
> alternate between light and dark layers because of the presence of pollen.
> They are not clay--they are volcanic ash.  There is absolutely no
> correspondence.
>
> BTW, the scientists (for so they are) at AiG and ICR know that these
> layers are not varves.  They know that most of the readers of their
> material--like yourself--are not educated on the subject (that's not a
> criticism of you, Rod ... you know a lot more about some subjects than I
> do) will not know the difference.  So why would they write stuff like
> this?

That is a good question.  The most important question.

Tracy P. Hamilton

Rod:

Well, Tracy pointed out some things I could have ... but thanks to him!!!

FOSSILS IN THE VARVES

Yes, there are fish and bird fossils in the Green River shale.  That's
exactly what one would expect of a still-water environment.  You can't have
clay settling to the bottom of a body of water except when the water is very
still, and still cold water becomes anoxic.  Fish or birds which die and
sink to the bottom are not eaten or decomposed because there's no oxygen
there.  Fish which swim into the area quickly succumb and are added to the
mix.  There are other areas of the same ancient lake which are relatively
fossil-poor, and which show signs of "near-shore" mixing of water and influx
from external sources.  The varved areas shown no signs of these phenomena.

"VARVE-LIKE SEDIMENTS"

The article stated:  "There is a large body of experimental and
observational data that shows that varve-like sediments can build up very
rapidly under catastrophic conditions."  Look carefully, Rod ... "varve-like
sediments."  What does that statement mean?  To them it means "layered
sediments of any kind."  Well, clay will not precipitate out of a suspension
if the water in which it is suspended is moving at all.  It must be very
still.  There are no observational data or theoretical explanations for clay
settling out of suspension under catastrophic conditions, much less lying
undisturbed during the time it would take that clay to lithify into shale.


ANOTHER SNELLING-ISM

The second article you cited contained the statement:  " ... where one
lamina allegedly equaled one year ..."  That is a very sloppy statement.
The varves are identifiable as such because two varves--one light-colored,
one dark-colored, are generally laid down in one year (I would guess there
are a few exceptions).

As Tracy noted, both articles cite a Nature article and a CENTJ article
which cited that Nature article entitled "spontaneous stratification in
granular mixtures."  Here is the abstract of that article:

"Granular materials segregate according to grain size when exposed to
periodic perturbations such as vibrations. Moreover, mixtures of grains of
different sizes can also spontaneously segregate in the absence of external
perturbations: when such a mixture is simply poured onto a pile, the large
grains are more likely to be found near the base, while the small grains are
more likely to be near the top. Here we report another size-separation
effect, which arises when we pour a granular mixture between two vertical
plates: the mixture spontaneously stratifies into alternating layers of
small and large grains whenever the large grains have larger angle of repose
than the small grains. We find only spontaneous segregation, without
stratification, when the large grains have smaller angle of repose than the
small grains. The stratification is related to the occurrence of avalanches:
during each avalanche, the grains separate into a pair of static layers,
with the small grains forming a sublayer underneath the layer of large
grains."

Contrary to what the CENTJ article stated, this article had nothing at all
to do with Berthault's experiments, and neither of these had anything at all
to do with the Green River shale.  Look at that abstract.  What does it say
about moving water?  If you have running water carrying suspended-load
sediments, variations in the water flow will cause particles of various
sizes to settle out of the suspension, and you will get "layers."  These are
not layers like the layers in the Green River shale, and they are most
assuredly not like the layers you observe in the Grand Staircase.

The author of the second article you cited is Dr. Andrew Snelling.  Dr.
Snelling is a trained geologist who knows the difference between the
spontaneous segregation of heterogeneously sized clasts in dry environments,
which is what the Nature article was discussing, and the deposition of
water-borne sediments.  Dr. Snelling also knows the difference between
depositions of aeolian volcanic sediments, pyroclastic deposition, and the
deposition of tiny clay particles in anoxic distal lake environments.  He
knows very well that the sources he has cited have nothing to do with the
Green River shale.

Rod, tell me ... Why is Snelling writing stuff like this?  Whom does he
think he is fooling?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:32 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Uniformitarian assumptions

here is another url too-----Rod
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative7-20-2000.asp