Is the Romance of Radiometric Dating Getting Old?

Radiometric dating is still a faulty argument against biblical history. Naturalistic geolo­gists often “cherry-pick” dates they deem appropriate to their particular studies. Carbon-14 has been found in coal and diamond samples supposedly be billions of years old, even though the half-life of ¹⁴C is only 5730 years. The creationist RATE group's theory that there have been periods of accelerated nuclear decay in the past runs into the problem of rapid volume cooling. Woodmorappe's statistical noise theory that radiometric dating is inherently unreliable may indeed be vindicated.

The inherent inconsis­tency of secular results strengthens the argument for a young earth, as the Bible describes in a most straightforward way!
 
Selections from RATE Study: Questions Regarding Accelerated Nuclear Decay and Radiometric Dating, by Carl R. Frode Jr. and A. Jerry Akridge.

(These selections by Marko Malyj are of the article published in Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Volume 49 Number 1, Summer 2012)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

Introduction

Radiometric dating remains a popular, but still faulty, argument against biblical history.

Radiometric dating utilizes the decay rates of certain radioactive atoms to date rocks or artifacts. Uniformitarian geologists consider this form of dating strong evidence that the Earth is billions of years old. Many atoms (or elements) exist as numerous varieties called isotopes, some of which are radioactive, meaning they decay over time by losing particles. Radiometric dating is based on the decay rate of these isotopes into stable nonradioactive isotopes. To date an object, scientists measure the quantity of parent and daughter isotope in a sample, and use the atomic decay rate to determine its possible age. (Creationwiki, 2012)

But research by creationists has revealed a large number of problems with radiometric dating. 

For instance, Naturalistic geolo­gists often “cherry-pick” dates they deem appropriate to their particular studies, and if results do not agree with expected dates, the “error” is attributed to any number of possible problems (Froede, 2010).

Yet another challenge for the interpretation of nuclear decay findings is documentation of detectible Carbon-14 in coal and diamond samples purported to be billions of years old, even though the half-life of ¹⁴C is only 5730 years.

Radiometric Age-Dating in Creation Science— A Brief History

Beginning with the publication of The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb and Mor­ris, 1961), radiometric age-dating was deemed incompatible with biblical history. Over the years, many young-earth creationists have documented the problems and unbiblical assumptions of various dating methods (Acrey, 1965; Armstrong, 1966; Clementson, 1970; Cook, 1968; Lammerts, 1964; Whitelaw 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Woodmorappe, 1979, 1999).

However, many young-earth creationists have suggested that radiometric dating can be accepted with one or more episodes of ac­celerated nuclear decay having occurred during Earth’s past.

In 1968, Gentry proposed a bold idea based on his work on radioactively damaged zircons. He stated, “While there might be other alternatives, one possible explanation of these ‘fractures’ or ‘blasting’ halos is that the rate of ra­dioactive decay was at one time greater than that observed today” (Gentry, 1968, p. 85; italics added).

But no one could of­fer a mechanism for decay acceleration.

Chaffin (2000) proposed that a variation in the fifth dimension of our universe early in the Creation Week might have led to accelerated nuclear decay.

RATE Project

The radioisotope age dating book
and DVD set by the RATE
group can be purchased here.

As a joint project between the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, the RATE group convened in 1997 to discuss issues with radiometric dating within the framework of a young earth  (Vardiman, 2000).

Research seemed predicated on the belief that

at some time in the past much higher rates of radioisotope decay may have occurred, leading to the production of large quantities of daughter prod­ucts in a short period of time. It has been suggested that these increased decay rates may have been part of the rock-forming process on the early earth and/or one of the results of God’s judgment upon man follow­ing the Creation, that is, the Curse or during the Flood (Vardiman, 2000, p. 4).

The results of the eight-year study were published in 2005 (Vardiman et al, 2005), and the RATE scientists de­termined that "accelerated nuclear decay was the most promising explanation for the large amount of daughter products." (Vardiman, 2005, p. 7).

Problem of Massive Heat Generation

Any episode of rapid nuclear decay should result in the release of large amounts of heat (Humphreys, 2005; Snelling, 2005; Vardiman, 2005). This heat would profoundly affect the planet, whether it happened during the Cre­ation Week, following the Curse, or during the Flood. Humphreys (2005, pp. 68-70) stated

rapid cooling occurred .... most of the cooling could not be by the normal processes of conduction, convection, or radiation. Instead, the process would have to cool the entire volume of material simultaneously (“volume” cooling) and abnormally fast.  

In my feasibility study, I pointed out a little-known and less-understood phenomenon in standard General Relativity theory that seems quite relevant. The mech­anism causes photons and moving material particles in an expanding cosmos to lose energy. The equations clearly show the loss of energy but where and how the energy goes is less clear…. This mechanism offers good potential for removing heat on a large scale. 

But if volume cooling cannot be empirically demonstrated, then it remains specula­tion.

Variability in the Rates  of Nuclear Decay: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isochron Discordance

In his analysis of the parent/daughter radioisotopes for the Beartooth amphibolite (Wyoming) and the Bass Rapids diabase sill (Grand Canyon, Arizona), Austin determined that changing decay rates created discor­dances in the K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb radioisotope age-dates. He noted,

Furthermore, our data are consistent with the possibilities that, at some time or times in the past, decay of the α-emitters (²³⁸U, ²³⁵U, and ¹⁴⁷Sm) was accelerated more than decay of the β-emitters (⁸⁷Rb and ⁴⁰K). (Austin, 2005, p. 386)

Snelling and others reached this same conclusion in their investigation of the Bass Rapids diabase sill (Snelling et al, 2003, p. 283).

Both projects concluded that there was decay-dependent variability in the rate of nuclear decay that should show consistent differences between different radiometric dating methods, yet some level of consistency in the same method.

What radiometric age- dates would indicate Creation Week rocks, post-Curse antediluvian rocks, or Flood rocks and sediments? (Figure 1) If the results (using accelerated decay) are to be useful, the ability to link rocks/sedi­ments to biblical history is essential. This also raises the question of a quantifiable conversion factor for each radiometric method; such numerical factors would be invaluable for creationist analyses of radiometric age-dates (Figure 2).


Figure 1. This diagram shows a biblical geologic timescale with three shaded boxes corresponding to the three periods of time when accelerated radiomet­ric decay purportedly occurred. The darker the box, the greater the level of accelerated radiometric decay based on the findings of the RATE project team.

Figure 2. This diagram presents a hypo­thetical mathematical formula necessary to convert naturalistic radiometric dates to accelerated and acceptable values in the Creation/Flood geologic framework of earth history. Missing are the conversion factors for each of the secular radiometric age-dating methods. These factors will need to be provided in order to demonstrate that accelerated nuclear decay occurred within the anticipated time frame of the biblical record (see Figure 1).

Inconsistency between Carbon 14 and Long-Lived Nuclides

Baumgardner (2005) presented an in­teresting study on detectable carbon 14 (¹⁴C) in various “old” coal deposits and diamonds.

... during the Flood might have affected a offer the tentative hypothesis that, This amount of decay represents short half-life isotope like ¹⁴C.... perhaps only a modest amount of accelerated ¹⁴C decay took place dur­ing the cataclysm itself.... whatever the physics was describing the decay acceleration, it did not operate in so simple a manner as to reduce temporarily the effective half-lives of all radioisotopes by the same factor. (Baumgardner, 2005, p. 620)

At present, it is not clear how ac­celerated nuclear decay could have occurred at very high rates for the K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb systems but at very low rates for short-lived isotopes such as ¹⁴C.

Certainty and the RATE Results

It is use­ful that some of the results of the RATE research appear to be critiques of radio­metric dating from both theoretical and experimental perspectives (Snelling et al, 2003; Snelling, 2004).

Unfortunately, the same circularity that afflicts modern secular stratigraphers seems likely to also plague creationists that take this route. Quantifying accelerated decay for each dating method would go a long way to­ ward reducing those uncertainties.

Discussion and Conclusions

The RATE group considered the possibility that a substantial amount of decay might have occurred dur­ing the Judgment in the Garden of Eden, but then it was concluded that the implied levels of radiation and heating would have been so highly destructive to biology at that point in earth history as to render this possibility unlikely (Vardiman et al, 2005, p. 737).

Unfortunately, there is an inherent problem of knowing the relative ages of rocks in the first place. Some creationists resolve this problem by accepting a compressed ver­sion of the standard geologic timescale, although one reason for doing so is the presumption of accelerated radiometric dating (Dickens and Snelling, 2008a, 2008b). However, Reed (2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d) and others (Froede, 2008; Reed and Oard, 2008) have questioned this approach.

There is a demonstrated lack of accuracy and precision of radiometric results, and their inconsistency with other field evidence. Some of these stud­ies showed results that were definitively wrong (Austin, 1988, 1992, 1994, 1996, 2000; Snelling, 1995, 1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b).

The statistical noise theory was a competing model proposed by Woodmorappe (1999). He asserted that radiometric dating is inherently unreliable and that secular scientists select desired results from a reservoir of inconsistent results, based on their needs at the time. It would require researchers to find a quantitative basis for eliciting consistency from apparently inconsistent results. This might provide the basis for conversion factors or equa­tions that would ultimately allow the theory to become useful in field studies. If they cannot, then the skepticism of Woodmorappe (1999) and the earlier creationists who wrote against radiomet­ric age-dating might be vindicated.

But even then, a good result will have been achieved. If creationists can demonstrate the inherent inconsis­tency of secular results, the argument for a young earth is greatly strengthened. This would force acknowledgment that chronology must ultimately rest on the divinely inspired historical documents provided in the Bible. Similarly, the demonstration of the unreliability of radiometric dating would reinforce the inherent weakness of the geological timescale (Reed, 2008c).

References (selected)

Acrey, D.O. 1965. Problems in absolute age determination. CRSQ 1:7–9.

Armstrong. H.L. 1966. An attempt to correct for the effects of the Flood in determin­ing dates by radioactive carbon. CRSQ 2:28–30 and CRSQ 3:4.

Austin, S.A. 1988. Grand Canyon lava flows: a survey of isotope dating methods. Impact No. 178. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.

Austin, S.A. 1992. Excessively old “ages” for Grand Canyon lava flows. Impact No. 224. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.

Austin, S.A. 1994. Are Grand Canyon rocks one billion years old? In Austin, S.A. (editor), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, pp. 111–131. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.

Austin, S.A. 1996. Excess argon within min­eral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano. CenTJ 10(3):335–343.

Austin, S.A. 2000. Dubious radiogenic Pb behavior places U-Th-Pb mineral dating in doubt. Impact No. 319, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.

Austin, S.A. 2005. Do radioisotope clocks isochron need repair? Testing the assumptions of isochron dating using K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm- Nd, and Pb-Pb isotopes. In Vardiman, L., A.A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin (editors), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, pp. 325–392. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ.

Baumgardner, J.R. 2005. 14C evidence for a recent global Flood and a young Earth. In Vardiman, L., A.A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin (editors), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young- Earth Creationist Research Initiative, pp. 587–630. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ

Chaffin, E.F. 2000. A mechanism for acceler­ated radioactive decay. CRSQ 37:3–9.

Clementson, S.L. 1970. A critical exami­nation of radiocarbon dating of rocks. CRSQ 7:137–41.

Cook, M.A. 1968. Radiological dating and some pertinent applications: do radiolog­ical clocks need repair? CRSQ 5:69–77.

Creationwiki 2012. Radiometric dating. http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating, accessed 11/8/2012.

Dickens, H., and A.A. Snelling. 2008a. Precambrian geology and the Bible: a harmony. JoC 22(1):65–72.

Froede, C.R., Jr. 2008. Harmony between the Bible and Precambrian geology—too fa­ vourable to naturalism. JoC 22(3):40–41.

Froede, C.R., Jr. 2010. Radiometric cherry-picking. Creation Matters 15(6):1–4.

Gentry, R.V. 1968. On the invariance of the decay constant over geologic time. CRSQ 5:83–5.

Humphreys, D.R. 2005. Young helium diffu­sion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay. In Vardiman, L., A.A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin (editors), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, pp. 25–100. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ.

Lammerts, W.E. 1964. Discoveries since 1859 which invalidate the evolution theory. CRSQ 1(1):47–55.

Reed, J.K. 2008a. Toppling the timescale part I: evaluating the terrain. CRSQ 44:174–178.

Reed, J.K. 2008b. Toppling the timescale part II: unearthing the cornerstone. CRSQ 44:256–263.

Reed, J.K. 2008c. Toppling the timescale part III: madness in the methods. CRSQ 45:6–17.

Reed, J.K. 2008d. Toppling the timescale part IV: assaying the golden (FeS2) spikes. CRSQ 45:81–89.

Reed, J.K., and M.J. Oard. 2008. Precam­brian dissonance. JoC 22(3):42–44.

Snelling, A.A. 1995. The failure of U-Th-Pb “Dating” at Koongarra, Australia. CenTJ 9(1):71–92.

Snelling, A.A. 1999a. “Excess argon”: The “Achillies’ Heel” of potassium-argon and argon-argon “dating” of volcanic rocks. Impact No. 307. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.

Snelling, A.A. 1999b. Potassium-argon and argon-argon dating of crustal rocks and the problems of excess argon. Impact No. 309. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.

Snelling, A.A. 2000a. Dubious radiogenic Pb behavior places U-Th-Pb mineral dating in doubt. Impact No. 319. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.

Snelling, A.A. 2000b. Conflicting “ages” of Tertiary basalt and contained fossilized wood, Crinum, central Queensland, Australia. CenTJ 14(2):99–122.

Snelling, A.A., S.A. Austin, and W.A. Hoesch. 2003. Radioisotopes in the diabase sill (upper Precambrian) at Bass Rapids, Grand Canyon, Arizona: an application and test of the isochron dating method. In Ivey, R.L. (editor), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Cre­ationism, pp. 269–284. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.

Snelling, A.A. 2004. Radioisotope dating of Grand Canyon rocks: Another devastat­ ing failure for long-age geology. Impact No. 376. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.

Snelling, A.A. 2005. Radiohalos in granites: evidence for accelerated nuclear decay. In Vardiman, L., A.A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin (editors), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, pp. 101–207. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ.

Vardiman, L., A.A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaf­fin (editors). 2000. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MO.

Vardiman, L., A.A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaf­fin (editors). 2005. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ.

Whitcomb, J.C., and H.M. Morris. 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Re­ formed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, NJ.

Whitelaw, R.L. 1968. Radiocarbon confirms biblical creation (and so does potassium-argon). CRSQ 5:78–83.

Whitelaw, R.L. 1969a. Radiocarbon and potassium-argon dating in the light of dis­coveries in cosmic rays. CRSQ 6:71–73.

Whitelaw, R.L. 1969b. A reply. CRSQ 6:114.

Woodmorappe, J. 1979. Radiometric geo­ chronology reappraised. CRSQ 16:102– 129, 147, i.

Woodmorappe, J. 1999. The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.

Incredible Energies of the Global Flood quickly created the Appalachian Water Gaps

Mainstream "millions of years" scientists oscillate back and forth between failed explanations for the formation of water gaps. But the Global Flood described in the book of Genesis leads to a very reasonable explanation!

The retreating waters started with sheet flow that ultimately deposited the continental shelves. The sheet flow then diminished to channelized currents with ultra high velocities and scale, the only kind of flow powerful enough to form aligned water gaps in a series of perpendicular ridges, seen throughout the Appalachians. This ultra high energy channelized flow stopped so quickly that it left many water gaps high and dry to make wind gaps. 

Once again, a creationist explanation is the one that holds water!
Selections from the second section of Origin of Appalachian Geomorphology, Part III: Channelized Erosion Late in the Flood, by Michael J. Oard.

(These selections by Marko Malyj are of the article published in Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Volume 48, Number 4, Spring 2012)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)
 

The Appalachian Mountains are a complex fold and thrust belt in the eastern United States. There are five uniformitarian hypotheses for the origin of water gaps in these mountains and other mountain chains around the world:

1. relief inversion plus reversal in drainage
2. faults
3. the antecedent stream
4. the superimposed stream
5. stream piracy

But uniformitarian geomorphologists seem to bounce from one hypothesis to another, stuck in the rut of their failed paradigm.

"What was written in 1932-33 can still be quoted today: 'The Appalachian problem, like the poor, we shall have with us always.'" (Bryan etal., 1932/3 3, p. 318, quoted in Clark, 1989, p. 225, 229).

If all of the classical uniformitarian hypotheses are insufficient, then we must conclude the necessity of searching for an explanation within a completely different paradigm. Ironically, the features of these landforms readily can be explained by the great nemesis of modern geology- the Genesis Flood. The retreating stage of the Flood, with its two phases, readily accounts for all of these features, including erosion surfaces, plateaus, and the many wind and water gaps cutting through the mountains along its entire length.

Sheet Flow created the Continental Margin

Sheet flow produced extensive erosion surfaces, mainly on the Piedmont and on the plateaus west of the Valley and Ridge Province. As the combination of uplift and base-level decline caused the Appalachian Mountains to emerge from the Flood, the flow diverged from either side of the rising peaks. Sediments eroded west of the Appalachian divide were transported west, where they merged with water flowing east from the rising Rockies, carrying vast amounts of sediment that would form the massive Gulf of Mexico coastal plain and continental margin sediments. Erosion surfaces were later formed on either side of the Appalachian Mountains.

As the sheet currents began to diminish into large embayments and channels, they would have still been flowing perpendicular to ridges (Figure A), initiating the water gaps. Water gaps appear to be the last large-scale features formed by the Flood’s recession off the Appalachians. The water (and wind) gaps indicate that the water was at first flowing perpendicular to the mountains when the Appalachian erosion surfaces were formed, since it takes perpendicular flow to create water and wind gaps. When the water and wind gaps were first started, the flow velocities would have been incredibly high, and locally variable (Schumm and Ethridge, 1994, p. 11). The water flow may have taken advantage of possible structural weakness or a low spot on the ridge.

This type of process is seen on a small scale in the breaching of an earth dam by water flowing over its top. Finding a zone of weakness, the sheet flow over the top rapidly cuts a narrow deep notch that channels the water through. Most of the remainder of the dam wall usually remains intact. Also, the anomalously high velocities and the scale of the channelized currents is the only feasible explanation for the phenomenon of aligned water gaps in a series of perpendicular ridges.

The extent and speed of these currents is evidenced by the extent and nature of the erosion, as well as by the gravel veneer deposited on top of the erosional surfaces. But the best way to visualize the energy involved is to understand that the shelf-slope system on the present continental margin was rapidly deposited from eroded Appalachian sediments.

Continental margin off the northeastern United States.

Channelized Flow then Created Water and Wind Gaps

As the Floodwater transformed from sheet flow into channelized flow, the erosion became narrow and linear. Valleys, canyons, and water and wind gaps would then be cut until the Flood ended. This is similar to the two-step erosion on the Colorado Plateau: (1) the Great Denudation from sheet flow, and (2) the Grand Canyon, Zion Canyon, and other canyons from channelized flow (Oard, 2010, 2011a, also see the excerpted article Did Noah's Flood make the Grand Canyon?).

Once a notch was cut, water would have sought that channel, increasing flow velocity relative to the surrounding area (Figure B).

The notch would quickly grow as more water was forced through the narrow opening. In addition, the faster water would have carried abrasive particles, cutting the gap even faster (Figure C).

The Flood explanation also differentiates between wind and water gaps. Wind gaps represent early water gaps that were left high and dry as the water level rapidly dropped or the current velocity diminished quickly, leading to the cessation of erosion (Figure D). These would have remained as remnants at high elevations while the lowering water carved new gaps at lower elevations, establishing the basic post-Flood drainage patterns. Today, only wind traverses the higher gaps, while the rivers naturally take advantage of the low water course through the water gap established at the very end of the Flood.

Conclusion

Mainstream "millions of years" scientists oscillate back and forth between failed explanations for the formation of water gaps. But the Global Flood described in the book of Genesis leads to a very reasonable explanation.

The retreating waters started with sheet flow that would have been flowing perpendicular to ridges and ultimately deposited the continental shelves. The sheet currents initiated the water gaps by cutting narrow deep notch that channeled the water through. Most of the remainder of the mountain wall remained intact.

The sheet flow then diminished to channelized currents with anomalously high velocities and scale. They are the only feasible explanation for the phenomenon of aligned water gaps in a series of perpendicular ridges, as seen throughout the Appalachians. This ultra high energy channelized flow stopped so quickly that it left many water gaps high and dry. These resulted in the many wind gaps, unexplainable by any uniformitarian model involving millions of years.

Once again, a creationist explanation is the one that holds water.

References (selected)

Clark, G.M. 1989. Central and southern Appalachian water and wind gap origins: review and new data. Geomorphology 2:209–232.

Oard, M.J. 2010. The origin of Grand Canyon part IV: the great denudation. CRSQ 47:146–157.

Oard, M.J. 2011a. The origin of Grand Canyon part V: carved by late Flood channelized erosion. CRSQ 47:271–282.

Schumm, S., and F.G. Ethridge. 1994. Origin, evolution and morphology of fluvial valleys. In Dalrymple, R.W., R. Boyd, and B.A. Zaitlin (editors), Incised-Valley Systems: Origins and Sedimentary Sequences, pp. 11–27. SEPM Special Publication No. 51, Tulsa, OK.

Water Gaps could not have Formed over Millions of Years

As Michael J. Oard tells us: "the origin of water gaps has not been explained, despite all the attempts. What was written in 1932-33 about water gaps in the mountains of the eastern U.S. can still be quoted today: 'The Appalachian problem, like the poor, we shall have with us always.'"

"Uniformitarian geomorphologists seem to bounce from one hypothesis to another. They have tried the antecedent stream hypothesis, the superimposed stream hypothesis, even stream piracy. They are stuck in the rut of their failed paradigm."

"We must conclude the necessity of searching for an explanation within a completely different paradigm. Ironically, the features of these landforms readily can be explained by the great nemesis of modern geology- the Genesis Flood."

Selections from the first section of Origin of Appalachian Geomorphology, Part III: Channelized Erosion Late in the Flood, by Michael J. Oard.

(These selections by Marko Malyj are of the article published in Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Volume 48, Number 4, Spring 2012)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

Water Gaps

Many master streams flow in deep gorges through ridges of resistant rock, with the Valley and Ridge of Pennsylvania having the most dramatic examples. The problem of how streams were able to cut through such obstacles has fascinated many geomorphologists.

Water gaps are numerous in the Appalachian Mountains (VerSteeg, 1930; Thompson, 1939; Strahler, 1945; Ahnert, 1998). Hundreds of them have been cut through resistant ridges (Thornbury, 1965). Speculation and controversy over the origin of water gaps have been going on for about 150 years. Although the major rivers Bow through water gaps of the Valley and Ridge and Blue Ridge Provinces, many tributary streams also Bow through water gaps, especially in the northern Appalachians (see Figures 23 and 24).

One of the most famous is the series through which the Susquehanna River flows. The river cuts through the folded and eroded ridges of Blue Mountain north of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (Figure 4). The river, on the 37-km stretch upstream from Harrisburg, could have flowed around four out of five of the resistant ridges, had it followed the expected course at lower elevations over softer rocks (Strahler, 1945).

Figure 4. Coogle Maps Image of Susquehanna River water gaps north of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Note that the last two water gaps are aligned and the third to the north is almost aligned (© Google 2010).

Figure 9. Shaded relief map of New River. Downstream toward top. Note that the river cuts almost straight through the Valley and Ridge Province(© Google 2010).

The New River starts near the Blue Ridge Escarpment in North Carolina and cuts northwest through at least four ridges of the Valley and Ridge Province via major water gaps (Figure 9) (Bartholomew and Mills, 1991; Ward et al, 2005).

Uniformitarian Hypotheses and Problems

A water gap is "a deep pass in a mountain ridge, through which a stream flows; esp. a narrow gorge or ravine cut through resistant rocks" (Neuendorf et al., 2005, p. 715). This applies to any perpendicular cut through any topographical barrier, including a plateau (Douglas, 2005).

There are five uniformitarian hypotheses for the origin of water gaps, also called transverse drainage (Oberlander, 1965). William Morris Davis was one of the first to attempt an explanation in the early twentieth century, by relief inversion plus reversal in drainage. This explanation is not taken seriously today. The second is that gaps are the surface expression of faults cutting through the mountains. However, most water gaps in the Appalachians are erosional and cannot be attributed to faulting. In fact, many well-known faults have not resulted in water gaps (e.g., Strahler, 1945, pp. 46, 63-65).

That leaves three current uniformitarian hypotheses: (1) the antecedent stream, (2) the superimposed stream, and (3) stream piracy (Stokes and Mather, 2003, p. 76).

Antecedent Stream Hypothesis
The antecedent stream hypothesis, defined above and illustrated in Figure 1, seems to have been the first invoked to explain transverse drainage. John Wesley Powell simply assumed the Green River
through the Uinta Mountains and the Colorado River through Grand Canyon had been eroded by antecedent rivers. Most other geologists accepted this hypothesis until the mid 1900s, when
it ran into severe problems.

Figure 1. The antecedent stream hypothesis shown on a plaque near a Yakima River water gap, Washington. First, a stream is established; then, as a ridge slowly uplifts, the stream erodes through the barrier.

One must prove that the river in question predates uplift, but that is difficult (Twidale, 1976). Furthermore, uplift must be slow enough and steady enough so that the river's course is not deflected
(Ranney, 2005). If uplift was too rapid, a river in an enclosed basin would become a lake. If a water gap through one barrier is difficult to achieve, aligned water gaps through multiple uplifts, such as on the Susquehanna north of Harrisburg (Figure 15), would be much less likely.

Figure 15. Coogle Maps close-up view of aligned water gaps of the Susquehanna River north of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Superimposed Stream Hypothesis

In the superimposed stream hypothesis, a landscape is buried by renewed sedimentation, usually by a marine transgression. Then, a stream or river is established on the generally flat cover of sediments or sedimentary rock, called the "covermass." As erosion takes place over millions of years, the stream erodes downward in the same location (Figure 2). In that way, after millions of years, the stream ends up flowing through structural barriers. At the same time, the rest of the covermass not in the path of the river is somehow eroded or mostly eroded, leaving behind the stream or river flowing through ridges or mountains.  If so, that surface would have been generally level, and rivers flowing across it were assumed to have cut down into older deformed sedimentary rocks.

Figure 2. Block diagram of the superimposed stream hypothesis. The stream maintains its same course as most of the covermass (top layer) is eroded. Drawing by Bryan Miller.

What is actually observed is that many tributaries do flow parallel to the ridges, but then they mysteriously jump across ridges through water gaps. Von Engeln (1942) also pointed to the aligned water gaps as evidence of superimposition, since these features would not be likely caused by antecedence or stream piracy.

The most significant problem is the absence of evidence for the proposed transgression, the great volume of "covermass." Cretaceous marine deposits do not occur within the Appalachian fold belt (Kaktins and Delano (1999, p. 382). Another difficulty is the tendency of modern rivers to take the path of least resistance. We would expect a downward-cutting river to change course as it encountered a more resistant anticline, and flow through the more easily eroded covermass.

Superimposition has a problem with removing the covermass in between the rivers. If the rivers are cutting vertically, then why would we expect laterally extensive erosion of these sediments on the ridges between the rivers? The hypothesis requires the river to maintain the same course and
downcut into both resistant and nonresistant formations, while at the same time having the drainage basin erode the covermass all across the remainder of the region. Thus, the soft rocks are cut into valleys and leave the more resistant rocks as ridges, while the main rivers do not change course through the ridges (Crickmay, 1974 ).

Stream Piracy

Figure 3. Schematic of stream piracy drawn by Peter Klevberg. As the stream valleys erode, a tributary stream supposedly erodes through the intervening ridge and eventually captures part of the stream on the other side of the divide.

In a flume experiment, Douglas and Schrneeckle (2007, p. 38) discovered hat the mechanism of stream piracy is very difficult and needs extra "help":

The final piracy experiment successfully produced a transverse drainage through headward erosion, but required the retreat of a strongly asymmetrical scarp ridge and required much more time than the other experiments. This supports Bishop's (1995) argument concerning piracies over utilization.

All Uniformitarian Hypotheses Fail

Hack (1989) acknowledged that the origin of water gaps has not been explained, despite all the attempts. Uniformitarian geomorphologists seem to bounce from one hypothesis to another, stuck in the rut of their failed paradigm.

"What was written in 1932-33 can still be quoted today: 'The Appalachian problem, like the poor, we shall have with us always.'" (Bryan etal., 1932/3 3, p. 318, quoted in Clark, 1989, p. 225, 229).

If all of the classical uniformitarian hypotheses are insufficient, then we must conclude the necessity of searching for an explanation within a completely different paradigm. Ironically, the features of these landforms readily can be explained by the great nemesis of modern geology - the Genesis Flood.

References (selected)

Ahnert, F. 1998. Introduction to Geomorphology. Arnold, London, UK.

Bartholomew, M.J., and H.H. Mills. 1991. Old courses of the New River: its late Cenozoic migration and bedrock control inferred from high-level stream gravels, southwestern Virginia. GSA Bulletin
103:73–81.

Bishop, P. 1995. Drainage rearrangement by river capture, beheading and diversion. Progress in Physical Geography 19(4):449–473.

Clark, G.M. 1989. Central and southern Appalachian water and wind gap origins: review and new data. Geomorphology 2:209–232.

Crickmay, C.H. 1974. The Work of the River: A Critical Study of the Central Aspects of Geomorphology. American Elsevier Publishing Co., New York, NY.

Douglass, J.C. 2005. Criterion approach to transverse drainages. PhD thesis, Arizona State University, Tucson, Arizona.

Douglass, J., and M. Schmeeckle. 2007. Analogue modeling of transverse drainage mechanisms. Geomorphology 84:22–43.

Hack, J.T. 1989. Geomorphology of the Appalachian Highlands. In Hatcher,R.D. Jr., W.A. Thomas, and G.W. Viele (editors), The Geology of North America, Volume F-2, The Appalachian-Ouachita
Orogen in the United States, pp. 459–470. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO.

Kaktins, U. and H.L. Delano. 1999. Drainage basins. In Shultz, C.H. (editor), The
Geology of Pennsylvania, pp. 379–390. Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Harrisburg, PA, and Pittsburgh Geological Society, Pittsburgh, PA.

Neuendorf, K.K.E., J.P. Mehl, Jr., and J.A.Jackson. 2005. Glossary of Geology, 5th
Edition. American Geological Institute, Alexandria, VA.

Oberlander, T. 1965. The Zagros Streams: A New Interpretation of Transverse Drainage in an Orogenic Zone. Syracuse Geographical Series No. 1, Syracuse, NY.

Ranney, W. 2005. Carving Grand Canyon: Evidence, Theories, and Mystery. Grand Canyon Association, Grand Canyon, AZ.

Stokes, M., and A.E. Mather 2003. Tectonic origin and evolution of a transverse drainage: the Río Almanzora, Betic Cordillera, Southeast Spain. Geomorphology 50:59–81.

Strahler, A.N. 1945. Hypotheses of stream development in the folded Appalachians of Pennsylvania. GSA Bulletin 56:45–88

Thompson, H.D. 1939. Drainage evolution in the southern Appalachians. GSA Bulletin 50:1,323–1,356.

Thornbury, W.D. 1965. Regional Geomorphology of the United States. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Twidale, C.. 2004. River patterns and their meaning. Earth-Science Reviews 67:159–218.

Ver Steeg, K. 1930. Wind gaps and water gaps of the Northern Appalachians, their characteristics
and significance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 32:87–220. 

Von Engeln, O.D. 1942. Geomorphology: Systematic and Regional. Macmillan, New York, NY.

Ward, D.J., J.A. Spotila, G.S. Hancock, and J.M. Galbraith 2005. New constraints on the late Cenozoic incision history of the New River, Virginia. Geomorphology 72:54–72.

Helium atoms in Zircon minerals point to a young creation

Yes, zircon minerals have lots of lead produced by Uranium decay that by today's rates occurs extremely slowly, over billions of years. But zircons also have a lot of helium atoms, that are lightweight, fast-moving, and not chemically sticky. They remain in microscopic zircons for only thousands of years before escaping. So these "ancient" rocks must be only thousands of years old! Here is a yet another sign that our world is young, and supports what the Bible says: "in six days God made the heavens an the earth" (Exodus 20:11)

(reposted from D. Russell Humphreys, "Zircons: God’s Tiny Nuclear Laboratories,"  published in Creation Matters, a publication of Creation Research Society, Volume 17, Number 3, May/June 2012, to appear at http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2012/CM17%2003%20for%20web.pdf)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

This looks like a good time to re-tell the story of zircons and radioactivity since, after seven years of publicity about the RATE project [see reference], there are still some people who haven’t yet appreciated this marvelous evidence for creation. I say “marvelous” because it seems as if God esigned zircons as microscopic nuclear laboratories specifically to show some of the amazing things He did with radioactivity.

How did lead get inside zircon crystals? Evolutionists claim that there was no lead present during the creation of the crystals, and that the lead which is present is a result of radioactive decay of Uranium 238, which has a half-life of 4.46 billion years. They argue that if the earth were only 6,000 years old, there would not be as much lead present in the zircon crystals as is currently found.

Retelling the story

When zircons form, they chemically attract
uranium atoms and chemically reject lead
atoms. Afterward, the uranium decays,
depositing both lead and helium within the
crystal.

First, in molten granitic rock today, there are lots of silicon and oxygen ions (electrically charged atoms), and some zirconium, uranium, and lead ions (as well as many other types of ion). As the melt cools, the first crystals to start forming are zirconium silicate, or zircon (ZrSiO4), because zircon has the highest melting point of all the minerals common in granite. Each zirconium ion has a +4 electric charge, giving it four chemical “hooks” with which it grabs onto the silicon and oxygen ions surrounding it, to start laying down a crystal lattice.

However, the uranium ions in the molten rock also have a +4 electric charge and four chemical hooks, and they are only about 20% larger than the zirconium ions. So, as a uranium ion floats by a zircon lattice that is forming, the lattice will often reach out (electrostatically), grab the uranium ion, and stick it into the place where a zirconium ion would normally go. As the crystal forms, it will have uranium ions distributed throughout it, often in up to 4% of the normally-zirconium sites. In fact, most of the uranium in crustal granites is concentrated in zircons.

Getting the lead out

But what about the lead ions in the molten rock? It turns out that the most common type of lead ion has only +2 electric charge (only two chemical hooks) and is more than 40% larger than a zirconium ion. (There is another type of lead ion that has +4 charge and is about the same size as a zirconium ion, but at the temperature of the molten rock it is much less common than the first type.) This makes it difficult for the lead +2 ion to fit into the lattice, so the lattice rejects it. Laboratory experiments with zircons forming in lead-enriched molten rock show that the zircons absorb very little of the lead.

Thus, zircons forming naturally will start out containing a lot of uranium and very little lead. Most of the uranium is the most common uranium isotope, uranium 238.

However, it turns out that zircons in pre-Cambrian granites have quite a bit of lead, almost all of it being lead 206, the isotope descended from uranium 238 decay. Relatively little of the lead isotope that is not descended from nuclear decay, lead 204, is in the zircons. (If there are significant
amounts of thorium 232 in the zircon, then significant amounts of its descendant, lead 208, will be there also. Lead 207, the descendant of the relatively scarce uranium 235, is also in zircons in small amounts.)

Zircon is also a very hard crystal with a tight lattice, so once it has solidified, very little uranium and lead can enter or leave it.

Helium for the ages

Lastly, of course, there is the helium produced by uranium decay. It is there in the zircons, in large mounts — consistent with the amount one would expect from the amount of lead 206 in the zircon if it were produced by nuclear decay. Helium atoms, being lightweight, fast-moving, and not chemically sticky, would depart from microscopic zircons in only thousands of years. The fact that helium is STILL THERE is the conundrum for long-agers upon which the RATE project team seized.

It follows that the only answer to the original question (how does lead get into the crystals?) which I can imagine is this: most of the lead — on the order of a billion years’ worth at today's decay rates — got into the zircons by nuclear decay of the uranium 238 that was in the zircons from their beginning. Yet we know from Scripture that there were only thousands of years available for the decay to take place. So billions of years worth of decay took place within thousands of years ... accelerated
nuclear decay! The young helium diffusion ages we got for RATE’s zircons confirm that.

Marko comments: The Bible says that "scoffers will come, and will say, 'everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.'" (2 Peter 3:4) Mainstream scientists would say that radioactivity is included here - that the half life decay time of atoms like Uranium 238 has always been 4.46 billion years. This helium evidence from the RATE project shows the contrary, the decay time was much much faster only a few thousand years ago. Wow, this is when the Bible indicates God created the heavens and the earth!

Reference

Humphreys, D.R. 2005. Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay,
ch. 2 of Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II, Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, editors, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ, pp. 25-100. Archived at:
www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Young-Helium-Diffusion-Age-of-Zircons.pdf.

Evolutionists Believe in Flat Earth!!

Geologists who follow mainstream evolutionary thinking use the "standard geological column" to explain the different layers of rocks that they find in southeastern Utah and other areas near the Grand Canyon. This column displays all of the different eras of time, supposedly going back millions of years. The most well known in our popular culture are the Devonian, the Triassic, and of course, the Jurassic. The oldest layers in Utah are Precambrian, which go back 500 million years and more.

Please look at the diagram for this area. It shows the rock layers in brown. We see many pancake-like sedimentary layers in sequence. The problem is that geologists do not find layers of rock that correspond to all of the different geologic periods. In the figure, you can see that noticeably missing is rock from the early Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, late Mississippian, and many other ancient eras. This is represented by the cross-hatched areas. Such charts could be drawn anywhere, and all of them have the same gaps.

Where did all the in-between rock go?

For evolutionary geologists, the fact that layers are missing is the evidence for erosion. But millions of years of erosion would produce irregular terrain, but there is none—no stream beds, valleys, or canyons.

Evolutionists assign the “time” between two layers as tens of millions of years. But road cuts, some extending many miles, reveal layers of rock that are completely flat with featureless contacts between strata. In the diagram, the horizontal distance represents about 200 kilometers, while the total thickness of the actual strata is only about 3-1/2 km.

These geologists would have us believe that completely flat time gaps showing absolutely no erosion for  millions of years span the continent. This is an amazing finding. It is a return to Flat Earth theory!!

This is actually one more piece of evidence that "millions of years" is a completely suspect idea, based on circular reasoning. A far better explanation is that these different sedimentary layers were either water-deposited or water-eroded during a very short period of time. Could this be the signature of the global Flood, as described in the book of Genesis?

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

References
1. Diagram modified from A. Roth. 1988. Those Gaps in the Sedimentary Layers. Origins. 15 (2): 75-92.
2. Morris, J. 2012. Flat Gaps Between Strata. Acts & Facts. 41 (5): 15.

The Intelligent Designer must have employed Miracles!

Naturalism cannot account for all of the parts necessary for life coming together at one time. Only an instantaneous creation and assembly of all of the necessary parts into a functioning unit can produce life. This is the basis of Intelligent Design. Anyone who would seriously consider this must admit that the Intelligent Designer used miraculous methods to do this!

The Bible teaches that God created everything from nothing, ex nihilo, with the appearance of age. Adam, the trees in the Garden of Eden, the rays of sunlight that warmed the garden, all evidently appeared mature, though they were all brand new. Is God a Deceiver by creating things that look old when they are not? No, he did not leave us in the dark or try to “trick us” or “test our faith”. God told us what he did!

Selections from The Case for the Mature Creation Hypothesis, by Jerry Bergman.

(These selections by Marko Malyj are of the article published in Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Volume 48, Number 3, Winter 2012)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)

Irrefutable Evidence for Intelligent Design

Transcription and Translation.

Naturalism simply cannot explain life. Consider that DNA is useless without: (1) all of the complex machinery required to produce mRNA, such as RNA polymerase, and (2) the machinery required to translate the mRNA code into protein such as a ribosome. Furthermore, a ribosome is only one of multiple proteins that the cellular machinery produces from mRNA. Hundreds of complex proteins are necessary for a cell to be alive and, therefore, a functional cell could have been created only as a complete functioning unit, not as individual parts. Also, most nucleotides rapidly degrade at the temperatures that scientists speculate existed on the early earth (Irion, 1998).

Evolution cannot account for all of the parts necessary for life coming together at one time and being properly assembled and activated as a unit in a timely manner so that it will produce life.
Products produced by the nonliving world (such as smooth stones polished by moving water) could never produce either plant or animal life because all life is based on enormous amounts of information, and the parts produced by that information must be assembled according to a designed plan in an environment, such as a certain ecosystem, that supports life (Schroeder, 2001; Yockey, 1992; Behe, 1996)

The Water Cycle.

Furthermore, the earth is a system involving many complex feedback cycles. A well-known example is that the earth must have an oxygen cycle, a carbon cycle, a nitrogen cycle, a sulfur cycle, a hydrologic cycle, and numerous other interconnected cycles in order to sustain life on the planet. The earth must have been created with all of its cycle systems functioning to allow life to be able to live on it.

The Intelligent Designer at Work

Since evolution cannot explain this problem, and it has been documented that this approach is not feasible, only an instantaneous creation and assembly of all of the necessary parts into a functioning unit can produce life.

If creation has occurred at all, it is reasonable that it would have been a complete creation. It must have had an “appearance of age” at the moment of creation. This Creation must have included all the chemical elements already organized in all the organic and inorganic chemical compounds and mixtures necessary to support the processes of the earth and of life on the earth (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, pp. 344-345, 369).

Eighteenth-century naturalist Philip Gosse argued that since both living and nonliving things existed in never-ending cycles, the Intelligent Designer created everything in the act of progressing in its cycle—egg to chicken, chicken to egg, oak to acorn, then to oak, and again to acorn in an endless cycle. Life would reproduce and develop, with animals having skin, blood, and bones when created, all making them appear to someone who falsely assumes that all current processes must be extrapolated into the past older than they actually were when created. This theory he called prochronism, or “outside of time” (Gosse, 1857).

Nobel laureate George Wald even stated that he believed the universe was designed for life. As an example, he stated that the elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen “have unique properties” required for life that are not shared by any other element in the periodic table of the elements (interview in Levy, 1998, p. 12).

Creation from Nothing

Plato and other ancient sages believed that God created the universe from preexisting chaos (Hannam, 2009, p. 63). In contrast, Christianity taught that God created the universe from nothing, thus the creation was not a remake of something old, but rather was the creation of something that was new and that Genesis says was “very good.” This is important for the doctrines of the Fall of mankind into sin and death described in Genesis and Jesus’ sacrifice to restore humankind (Hannam, 2009, p. 41).

Ex-nihilo creation from nothing always results in all created objects having the appearance of maturity. This conclusion applies to all miracles, including everything from the creation of wine from water to the creation of Adam and Eve from dust.

The idea of mature creation may account for the discrepancy between the age that scientists have determined for various aspects of creation and the age that Genesis presents.

The problems inherent in dating an instantaneous, supernatural creation are illustrated by the creation of the first man, Adam. If a modern onlooker assumed that Adam was born an infant as are modern humans, he would conclude that Adam was about 20 years old when, in fact, he was only about one day old. This does not imply that the Creator is deceptive but reflects the fact that the human body had to be created fully formed and functional in order to exist as a living organism.

If Adam’s blood were not already circulating in his circulatory system when he was created, the few minutes required to prime his circulation system could cause major cell death or damage. Furthermore, all of Adam’s organs—including his heart, lungs, kidneys, brain, etc. — must have been functioning simultaneously as a unit the instant that he was created. In other words, Adam must have been created as a fully mature young man.

For this reason, even though Adam was created instantaneously, he would be evaluated by many modern physiological measurements to be a 20-year old man the moment he was created (Poythress, 2006). An example is bone ossification measurements that evaluate the level of conversion of cartilage into bone as the child develops. A physician might conclude from bone-to-cartilage ratios, that Adam was 20 years old, some evidence for an age much less than 20 might also be found. We might not detect certain effects of aging (such as DNA and RNA damage) in a one-day-old Adam. Likewise, lack of both tooth wear, cosmic ray damage, and other signs of aging may also have indicated an age of a few days old instead of 20 years old.

Kyle Butt asks, "How old were Adam and Eve two seconds after God created them? They were literally two seconds old! Yet they walked, talked, and looked like adult human beings, and even had the ability to reproduce" (Butt, 2002, p. 40-R).

Artistic depiction of
the Garden of Eden.

We know that the Garden of Eden appeared old because it had fully grown trees with fruit on them when created.

The earth, solar system, Milky Way Galaxy, and entire universe were brought into existence supernaturally during six 24-hour days. Top soil and trees appeared virtually instantaneously in the Garden. Fully-grown animals were miraculously formed on land and in the air, complete with symbiotic relationships. The seas instantly swarmed with creatures, great and small, that had never been born or developed from infancy. Our first parents, Adam and Eve, were adults from their first breaths. The sun’s nuclear fusion furnace began on Day 4, at full power and in thermodynamic equilibrium. Starlight from distant stars was created in transit, complete with a virtual history of information embedded within the light waves. Adam and Eve could look at the night sky their first evening on Earth and see cosmic light sources much as we do tonight. To an observer the completed creation on Day 6 was fully functioning in a steady state (DeYoung, 2010, p. 54).

The sun must have been able to heat and light the earth on the day it was created. Although it takes only eight minutes for the sun’s light to reach the earth, it takes an estimated 10,000 to 170,000 years for the gamma rays produced in the sun’s core to reach the sun’s surface as visible photons due to the absorption and reemission path taken as the photons journey outwards (Sturrock, 1985). The photons must have been created in transit as if millions of years had passed.

Russell Humphey's
Starlight and Time.

As God created the universe for a reason it is not unreasonable to infer that the stars were created with their light in transit (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 369). Although other theories exist to explain the fact that we can see stars that are millions of light years away, such as Russell Humphrey’s white hole cosmology (Humphreys, 1994), the mature creation view can effectively explain how distant supernovae can be seen from the earth within a Biblical time framework.

Interesting questions remain. Did Adam had a navel? (Since he was not born of a woman.) Did the first trees have rings? (The trees would have been fully grown, and fruit trees would have fruit on them, giving the appearance of age). Would ground erosion be evident at the time of Adam, aside from that caused by newly created rivers, a moment after they were created?

Miracles

Creation ex nihilo is not a natural process. Rather it is a miracle.

Resurrection of Lazarus.

Arguably the “most spectacular of Jesus’ miracles” was the resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany, the brother of Mary and Martha (Sanders, 1962, p. 103). Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after Lazarus had been in the grave for four days, long enough for his body to begin major levels of decomposition. It is for this reason that the scriptural account describes his body as having a strong, unpleasant smell.

Others Jesus raised from the dead had only recently died (namely, Jairus’s daughter in Mark 5:22–43 and the son of the widow at Nain in Luke 7:11–17), and some argue that they were only in a coma from which they were revived.

But no such argument can be made in the case of Lazarus. When a body smells, it means that the stomach acids have begun to hydrolyze the body’s internal tissues and that the intestinal bacteria has begun digest connective tissue and other body carbohydrates. However, writing books arguing that Lazarus’s resurrection was medically impossible does not prove that the event did not occur, only that it was a miracle.

Jesus turns water into wine.

Another example of a miracle is Christ’s conversion of water into wine (John 2:7–11). Scientifically, this is impossible because water contains hydrogen and oxygen in a two to one ratio. Wine contains water, plus a carbon based compound called ethyl alcohol or ethanol, and various flavors and other components. Jesus performed a natural process instantaneously, not in a year or so as is normally required to produce wine from
grapes using water.

As it is a “strain to fit the history of the world into a biblical 6,000 years” (Gardiner, 2009, p. 132), it is also a strain to convert water into wine in a few seconds, or to turn back the clock on a dead man. If these events actually occurred, as the Bible and Christians have believed for 2,000 years, all these events are miracles.

Is God a Deceiver?

A major objection to the appearance-of-age theory is that if God made the earth appear older than it actually is, then He has deceived us because the earth is not, in fact, as old as it appears. 

Kyle Butt concludes that the deception claim would be valid except that:

God told us what he did! He did not leave us in the dark or try to “trick us” or “test our faith” by hiding from us important information that He knew we would need. Rather, He was very straightforward and honest with us. Considering the material found in the first eleven chapters of Genesis (and elsewhere throughout the Bible), no one can justifiably accuse God of deception (Butt, 2002, p. 40-R).

Conversely, John Morris adds that if “scientists extrapolating present process  are right and the universe is old, then God has lied to us, for He clearly said He created all things in six days, not too long ago” (Morris, 2010, p. 15).

Appearance of Age, Evolutionists, and the Culture Wars

One evolutionist Professor, John Wagner has noticed the difficulty in teaching evolution in the classroom to students with a religious veiwpoint. He wrote:

Most undergraduate students take geology courses as the perceived least painful option to fulfill their institution’s general education laboratory science requirements … Many of these students, especially in large state-assisted schools … bring religious viewpoints and perspectives to their studies which espouse profoundly negative views about evolution and the geologic time scale. Students in this category will grudgingly memorize the minimum amount of geological information they need to pass the course, but will let the instructor know that they don’t believe a word of it is true. This type of situation doesn’t help the student, the class morale, or the greater goal of scientific literacy for all people (Wagner, 2005, p. 194).

The solution that he found very successful in both physical and historical geology classes is:

to introduce the concept of apparent age prior to discussing the geological time scale or the age of the earth in the lecture setting. By acknowledging up front that special creation is a possible option, so long that creation carries the imprint of apparent age, the tension among students is relieved and geological processes and concepts can be investigated in good conscience based on the apparent age of rocks, fossils, or landscapes. With students no longer on the defensive, they are free to study geology without feeling like they are betraying their religious faith (Wagner, 2005, p. 194).

The evidence given here should cause all evolutionists to consider, as Wagner does, that special creation is viable!

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
(On Twitter: FOLLOW uMarko or http://www.twitter.com/uMarko)

References (selected)

Behe, M. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box. Free Press, New York, NY.

Butt, K. 2002. What is the doctrine of apparent age? Reason and Revelation 1(10):40–41.

Comins, N. 1993. What If the Moon Didn’t Exist? Harper Collins, New York, NY.

Gardiner, J. 2009. At liberty to divulge. American Scholar. 87(2):131–133.

Gonzalez, G., and J. Richards. 2004. The Privileged Planet. Regnery, New York, NY.

Gosse, P. 1857. Omphalos. An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. John Van Voorst, London, England.

Hannam, J. 2009. God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science. Icon Books, London, UK.

Irion, R. 1998. Ocean scientists find life, warmth in the seas. Science 279:1302–1303.

Levy, D. 1998. Four simple facts behind the miracle of life. Parade Magazine. June 12, p. 12.

Morris, J. 2010. Creation with the appearance of age. Acts & Facts 39(12):15.

Poythress, V. 2006. Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach. Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL.

Sanders, J.N. 1962. Lazarus of Bethany. In Buttrick, G. (editor), The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Abingdon Press, New York, NY.

Schroeder, G. 2001. The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth. The Free Press, New York, NY.

Sturrock P. 1985. Physics of the Sun: The Solar Interior. Springer, New York, NY.

Wagner, J. 2005. Using the concept of apparent age to defuse creationist confrontations in the classroom. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 37(7):194.

Whitcomb, J.C., and H.M. Morris. 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Philadelphia, PA.

Yockey, H. 1992. Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.