The evolution of the evolutionary tree diagram

Don't be fooled by the "Tree of Life" diagram from your standard evolutionary textbook. Real evolutionary scientists know that is just to get you started, they now have any number of diagrams to choose from that don't look like trees at all.

It's much better to get the truth about life not from any diagram, but from the Bible - given to us by the Creator Himself. He created all living kinds to be similar in some ways, different in others!

(excerpts from David Coppedge, Convergence Convenience, published in Creation Matters, a publication of Creation Research Society, Volume 17, Number 5, September/October 2012, to appear at http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2012/CM17%2005%20low%20res.pdf)

 

Darwin's tree diagram was
based on "homologous" traits.

In Charles Darwin's original tree diagram (1837), animals with similar structures on the same branch are said to have “homologous” traits, because they derive from the same common ancestor. 

But the living world is filled with traits that resemble each other on different branches.

What caused that?  Ah, the evolutionist replies, those traits are due to “convergent evolution.”  The similarities are “analogous” traits, because they do not derive from the same common ancestor. With this classification scheme, evolution explains everything: if similar animals are related, they evolved; if they are unrelated, they evolved.


Let's consider some of many recent examples in the evolutionist storytelling:

Jellyfish and Birds. PhysOrg¹ wrote, “Ion selectivity in neuronal signaling channels evolved twice in animals.”   Sea anemones and birds have complex channels in their cell membranes called volt- age-gated sodium channels, responsible for passing signals along nerves. 

Jellyfish and Man. Nature News² claims that muscles, too, evolved twice.  In discussing the alleged dual origins of muscles, Andreas Hejnol said, "Jellyfish move using a set of muscles that look remarkably similar to striated muscles in vertebrates.  However, new data show that the two muscle types contain different molecules, implying that they evolved independently."

Resistance to Plant Toxins. Another paper in Nature³ begins, “In a remarkable example of convergent evolution, insect species spanning 300 million years of divergence have evolved identical single-amino-acid substitutions that confer resistance to plant cardenolide toxins.”

Odor Detection. Fruit fly maggots and humans could hardly be further apart in the evolutionary tree, but three Cambridge evolutionists found an “unpredicted degree of similarity” between their odor-detection equipment.⁴ They said, "Our results reveal an unexpected degree of similarity between the development of the olfactory systems in vertebrates and the Drosophila larva."

Blood Suckers.  A paper about fleas in PLoS ONE states, “Blood feeding evolved at least ten times within arthropods, providing a scenario of convergent evolution for the solution of the salivary potion.”⁵

Crayfish. Another paper in PLoS ONE found convergent evolution in 12 subgenera of Appalachian crayfish.⁶ "Convergent morphological evolution appears to be a common occurrence in invertebrates suggesting the need for careful phylogenetically based interpretations of morphological evolution in invertebrate systematics.:

The Tree Diagram isn't just a Tree Anymore. Darwin's original tree of life does not accommodate "convergent" evolution very well. If you really insist on drawing pictures of what evolutionists can pick and choose from, there are 5 varieties, as discussed in Evillusion's blog⁷:

To make the point of this chapter very clear, and to do a bit of a review, below is a list of all of the scenarios that are available and imaginable for evolution as an explanation for the appearance, formation, and migration of organs and bio-logical systems into multiple species and groups of species.  Each one is a biological and logical impossibility.... The list below includes all scenarios, no matter how absurd that could have brought a full inventory of organs and bio-logical systems into a common ancestor of any group of modern species.  I realize that evolution would say only one of the choices actually occurred.  For the sake of good science, these are all of the various impossibilities, no matter how absurd.



1. Each species fills in its own missing inventory



2. Coalescing of species

3. Inter-Species Procreation



4. One species evolves a full inventory

5. A string of species evolved a complete inventory

Convergent Everything! The Wikipedia entry on “Convergent Evolution” ends with a statement that reveals that “convergent evolution” is an incomplete and controversial notion:

Simon Conway Morris counters this …, arguing that convergence is a dominant force in evolution, and that, since the same environmental and physical constraints act on all life, there is an “optimum” body plan that life will inevitably evolve toward.... Convergence is difficult to quantify, so progress on this issue may require exploitation of engineering specifications (e.g., wing aero- dynamics) and comparably rigorous measures of “very different course” in terms of phylogenetic (molecular) distances.

Although the escape clause “convergent evolution” may be thought by evolutionists to be a work in progress, it remains little more than a convenient phrase for evolutionists to toss around in their papers!

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

References (selected)

1. Univ. of Vienna (2012, July 26). Ion selectivity in neuronal signaling channels evolved twice in animals. PhysOrg. Retrieved October 11, 2012, from http://phys.org/news/2012-07-ion-neuronal-channels-evolved-animals.htm

2. Hejnol, A. 2012. Evolutionary biology: Muscle’s dual origins. Nature 487(7406):181–182.
3. Whiteman, N.K. and K.A. Mooney. 2012. Evolutionary biology: Insects con- verge on resistance. Nature 489(7416):376–377.

4. Prieto-Godino, L.L., S. Diegelmann, and M. Bate. 2012. Embryonic origin of olfactory circuitry in Drosophila: Contact and activity-mediated interactions pattern connectivity in the antennal lobe. PLoS Biology 10(10): e100014000. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001400

5 Ribeiro, J.M.C., T.F.C. Assumpção, D. Ma, P.H. Alvarenga, V.M. Pham, et al. 2012. An insight into the sialotranscriptome of the cat flea, Ctenocephalides felis. PLoS ONE 7(9): e44612. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044612.

6. Breinholt, J.W., M.L. Porter, K.A. Crandall. 2012. Testing phylogenetic hy- potheses of the subgenera of the freshwater crayfish genus Cambarus (De- capoda: Cambaridae). PLoS ONE 7(9): e46105. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046105.
7. http://evillusion.wordpress.com/evolution-explodes-gets-hung-on-a-phylogenetic-tree/, retrieved 12/28/2012.

Creation and Truly Good News of the Gospel

My friend Dave T. asks the following question: "Could you write me a brief, poignant and concise defense of a six day literal creation, and refutes other perspectives?"

The Argument from Science

As spelled out in the article “Evidence for a Young Earth”

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm, (with references given at http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/young%20earth%20refs.htm) there are at least 22 clocks, or indicators, given to us by nature that the Earth and Universe are young. The vast majority give an age estimate of less than 10,000 years. They include clocks based on:  

• Receding Moon
• Oil Pressure
• The Sun
• The Oldest Living Thing
• Helium in the Atmosphere
• Short Period Comets
• The Earth's Magnetic Field
• C-14 Dating of Dino Bones
• Dinosaur Blood and Ancient DNA
• Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones
• 165 Million Year Old Ligaments
• Axel Heiberg Island
• Carbon-14 in Atmosphere
• The Dead Sea
• Niagara Falls
• Historical Records
• The San Andreas Fault
• Mitochondrial Eve
• Population Growth
• Minerals in the Oceans
• Rapid Mountain Uplift
• Carbon 14 from "Old" Sources
• Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies
• Helium and lead in Zircons

The Argument from Philosophy

So-called “science” that leads to Old Earth  conclusions is based on completely unbiblical presuppositions. In the words of Francis A. Schaeffer How Should We then Live? (1976 ed p.146) “scientists … [have] pushed God more and more to the edges of their systems.… [They] moved to the idea of a completely closed system. That left no place for God. But equally it left no place for man. Man disappears, to be viewed as some form of determined or behavioristic machine. Everything is part of the cosmic machine, including people.” This is falsehood!

The Argument from the Bible

The truth is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This gospel has at its foundation the truth of a Creator God, who created all things in a literal period of six days, with the corollary of a global flood in Noah’s day.

Here are some great Good News verses that should only be ignored or hermeneuticized (by our theological professors) at our peril:

• Romans 5:12: "Just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned."
• Exodus 20:11: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (in the Fourth Commandment, written by the finger of God on a tablet of stone)
• Matthew 24:39: "And they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." (direct words of Jesus)
• Genesis 1:31: "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."

The Christian who wants to grow ever closer to Christ should aspire to these words of Paul:

“I want to know Christ, and the POWER of His Resurrection, that I may share in His sufferings, and be like Him in His death” (Philippians 3:10)

The power of the Resurrection to make all things new is the same power of our Creator, who originally made all things in six days, and who sent a cataclysmic judgment over all of the Earth in the flood of Noah.

To sum it up, if the Gospel is truly Good News, the Earth must be young!

(written by Marko Malyj)

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

How Long Is a Cubit?

The cubit is one of the earliest known standards of length, used in ancient Israel and throughout the Near East. It was originally the length of one’s forearm between the tip of the middle finger and the elbow. The word cubit comes from the Latin word for elbow and the Hebrew term refers to the forearm. The term occurs more than one hundred times in the Old and New Testaments to describe structures and distances.

Nations varied somewhat in defining the cubit's exact length, and both short cubits and long or royal cubits were common. Dual cubit values in Egypt were 17.72 and 20.67 inches, as determined from measuring sticks found in tombs. In Babylon, 20.806 inches was a common cubit length (Achtemeier, 1985).

Cubit measuring rods such as these from the Eighteenth Dynasty tomb of Aperia would have been common tools in the quarries and at the pyramid construction site (Photo by Jon Bodsworth)

There is a fascinating clue to the length of the cubit from the Old Testament and archaeology. Hezekiah’s famous Siloam water tunnel is referenced in 2 Kings 20:20 and 2 Chronicles 32:3–4. It was built around 700 B.C. to provide water for Jerusalem during a siege by the Assyrians under Sennacherib. This tunnel is hewn from solid rock and is a memorable hike for visitors to the old city of Jerusalem. When I walked the tunnel in 1995 by flashlight, there was a foot depth of moving water along the entire length of one-third mile, or 1,749 feet.

Originally there was a carved inscription near the tunnel outlet into the Pool of Siloam within the city wall. This Siloam Inscription, now in the Archaeology Museum of Istanbul, Turkey, records the tunnel length as 1,200 cubits. Comparison with the actual length yields a cubit measure of about 17.5 inches.

With a 17.5-inch value for the cubit, Noah’s Ark measures an impressive 437.5 feet long, 72.92 feet wide, and 43.75 feet high (300x50x30 cubits; Genesis 6:15). The Ark may well have been the largest building project in history up to that time. Also, the biblical giant Goliath was over six cubits tall (l Samuel 17:4), or nine feet.

(re-posted from Don DeYoung, How Long Is a Cubit?, published in Creation Matters, a publication of Creation Research Society, Volume 17, Number 5, September/October 2012, to appear at http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2012/CM17%2005%20low%20res.pdf)

(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
Reference
Achtemeier, P.J. (ed.) 1985. Harper’s Bible Dictionary. Harper & Row, San Francisco.

Abiogenesis: metabolism or information? Better question: chicken or egg?

Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from inorganic matter, is between a rock and a hard place. If the origin of life began with metabolism, the first life molecules were so simple they could not copy themselves. If it began with information, the first life molecules had to be so complicated that they have never been produced by reasonable chemical processes. The real answer can be found in the age-old question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

(excerpts from Timothy R. Stout, Testimony of the Origins Divice, published in Creation Matters, a publication of Creation Research Society, Volume 17, Number 5, September/October 2012, to appear at http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2012/CM17%2005%20low%20res.pdf)

Melissa Lee Phillips published an article not too long ago in BioScience magazine titled, “The Origins Divide: Reconciling Views on How Life Began” (Phillips, 2010). In it she gives a history of the understanding of abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from inorganic matter.

Regarding the large macromolecules which are so critical to the functioning of living organisms, she commented,

All of these molecules and processes are so intertwined that it’s difficult to imagine how any of them could have arisen without the others already in place. Chicken-and-egg problems abound.

It turns out that the big, fundamental divide facing abiogenesis researchers today is whether the origin of life was information first or metabolism first. Study has revealed serious problems with both of these situations! The molecules which are proposed to have arisen in the metabolism-first scenario are simple enough to have achieved some level of concentration in plausible prebiotic chemical processes. However, the fact that these molecules do not copy themselves is a critical shortcoming since reproducibility is a fundamental, required characteristic of life.



Phillips says: "The metabolism-first model proposes that life probably arose at deep-sea hydrothermal vents, like the black smoker pictured here, when very simple molecules such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and hydrogen sulfide reacted with each other on the common iron-sulfur minerals pyrrhotite and pyrite. Photograph: OAR/National Undersea Research Program (NURP); NOAA."

By contrast, the molecules associated with an information-first scenario are so complicated that they have never been produced by chemical processes which can be reasonably associated with prebiotic circumstances. The meager positive results occasionally observed experimentally in- variably are found to have required extensive human intervention. Indeed, Phillips quoted Jim Cleaves of the Carnegie Institute for Science who said that whenever researchers manage to synthesize an interesting molecule, “it’s such a complex and kind of contrived experiment, it’s hard to really swallow.”



Phillips says: "The 'RNA world' model arose with the discovery of ribozymes—RNA molecules, such as the self-cleaving hammerhead ribozyme depicted here, that can act as catalysts. Could these self-replicating molecules have evolved from short, noncatalytic stretches of RNA, or would an autocatalytic network of chemical reactions have had to come first? The pink spheres are Mg11ions that stabilize the structure of the ribozyme. Graphic: Kalju Kahn and Esther Zhuang, University of California, Santa Barbara; created with PyMol (DeLano Scientific)."

Finally, after six pages of pointing out major problems at every level of abiogenesis, Phillips endeavored to end the article on an optimistic note by discussing the new “emergent systems” approach.

In this approach, scientists “toss dozens or hundreds of chemicals together and see what happens.”  John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, United Kingdom, declared, “We spent fourteen years exploring all that assembly chemistry and were largely extremely unsuccessful…” Then, using this “systems” approach, they discovered a method to make RNA nucleotides, the only successful effort by abiogenists to make nucleotides (Powner et al., 2009)

However, they did not just step back and watch the synthesis happen. In order to avoid a series of problems, not the least of which was the formation of tar, they had to monitor and control the process very carefully.  In another article, Benner and others simply chalk this up as another example of an experiment which is supposedly plausible for a prebiotic scenario, but which realistically requires far too much human intervention to be suit- able (Benner et al., 2012 )

Sixty years of study in abiogenesis has not provided the anticipated solutions to the problem of life’s origin, but just the opposite! The abundance of “chicken-and-egg problems” implies the necessity of all of these components making a simultaneous, first appearance, in a fully-functioning interdependent form. If there were no religious implications, the evidence would be sufficient to make the case and this would be the end of the discussion.

Of course, there are religious implications and this changes the entire character of the discussion.

The Bible states that the Creation of the entire cosmos (universe) took place in six days. It is clear from the context that these were literal days, not figurative. Experts have failed to build a scientifically-defensible case otherwise. 
 Illustration from the Creation Facts Screen Saver. 

Marko's comment: It seems that scientists always like to talk about “chicken-and-egg problems." Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Thinking people who also believe that there is a God who gave us the Bible - they know the answer. It's the chicken! Created on Day Five of the Creation week! How did life arise from inorganic matter? The answer is not in the primeval depths of time, it is that God Himself called living creatures into being.

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

References

Benner S.A., H-J. Kim, and Z. Yang. 2012. Setting the stage: The history, chemistry, and geobiology behind RNA. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 4:a003541. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a003541

Phillips, M.L. 2010. The origins divide: Reconciling views on how life began. BioScience 60(9). 10.1525/bio.2010.60.9.3.  Retrieved October 25, 2012, from www.deepdyve.com/lp/university-of-california-press/the-origins-divide-reconciling-views-on-how-life-began-vOMlkgH3Lk

Powner, M.W., B. Gerland, and & J.D. Sutherland. 2009. Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions. Nature. 459:239–242. doi: 10.1038/nature08013

Beware Biologos attempts to improve on Scripture...

Evil has nothing to do with the Curse or the Fall of man? Evil is somehow a natural outcome of evolutionary progress? God does not know the details of how history will turn out? Here is a suggestion: When Biologos or any other group attempts to improve on Scripture, be suspicious.

Selections from Don DeYoung's book review of The Language of Science and Faith, by Karl Giberson and Francis Collins.

(These selections by Marko Malyj are of the book review 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)

Physicist Karl Giberson is on the faculty of Eastern Nazarene College, Quincy, Massachusetts, and geneticist Francis Collins directs the National Institutes of Health. Both authors are in leadership of the Biologos Foundation, which strongly promotes theistic evolution.

One of the questions that the authors address is "What about about evil in nature? [It] has no simple answer; alas it also has no complex answer” (p. 128). The authors state that evil has nothing to do with the Genesis 3 Curse or the Fall of man. Instead, Biologos concludes that evil is somehow a natural outcome of evolutionary progress (p. 132).

Furthermore, they believe that God does not know the details of how history will turn out. “God has endowed nature with a degree of freedom … with and inherent liberty … it explores its own inherent potential through its evolving process” (p. 116).

It is further stated that a literal Adam and Eve are ruled out by genomics (p. 206). The studies conclude that there is too much genetic variation in humanity for an origin in just two people. Instead, there must have been at least 10,000 prehuman creatures to get us where we are today. The apostle Paul must not have gotten this memo, since he refers to Adam and Eve in Romans 5:12. The Lord makes similar reference in Mat­thew 19:4.

Here is a suggestion: When Biologos or any other group attempts to improve on Scripture, be suspicious.

The Language of Science and Faith by Karl Giberson and Francis Collins
IVP Books, Downers Grove, IL, 2011, 250 pages, $20.00.

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.

Untold secrets of Planet Earth: Dire Dragons, by Vance Nelson

Did dinosaurs and people live together? According to creationist researcher Vance Nelson, this was indeed the case. Dire Dragons presents much never-before-published evidence.

Selections from Andrew V. Ste. Marie's book review of Untold Secrets of Planet Earth: Dire Dragons, by Vance Nelson.

(These selections by Marko Malyj are of the book review 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)

Carbon-14 dating of dinosaur bones and soft tissue finds both indicate that dinosaurs lived recently. Nelson critiques the idea that ancient men could have excavated or observed fossils and accurately reconstructed dinosaurs from them. He shows photographs of ancient depictions of dinosaurs and pterosaurs from five different continents. He also shows similarities between ancient and modern depictions of what appear to be the same animal. A wide array of creatures are shown in ancient art, including pterosaurs, mastodons, hadrosaurs, ceratopsians, sauropodomorphs, theropods, nothosaurs, and pachycephalosaurs.

The Kachina Bridge sauropod petroglyph, for example, is already known among creationists. But Nelson shows new evidence never before published in creationist literature. Examples include a Peruvian vessel with an apparent Protoceratopslike animal, a “salamander” emblem similar to a prosauropod, an apparent young hadrosaur on a sixteenth-century tapestry, and some very compelling ceratopsian depictions from China. Several depictions of the story of St. George and the dragon are also included, showing creatures similar to theropods and nothosaurs (pp. 71, 101, 121).

Many representations, although quite convincing, show slight inaccuracies, such as a wrong number of toes or fingers. However, modern artists have only bones to work with, and thus we do not know the details of soft tissue that the ancients may have had knowledge of, accounting for more differences. an ancient eyewitness to a living dinosaur may have only seen one a few times, perhaps while it was moving, obstructed, or at a distance.

Dire Dragons is an excellent book with much new, verified information that should be of great usefulness to creationists. In addition to being scientific, it is a beautiful work of art, a coffee-table type book with excellent graphics and beautiful dinosaur reconstructions. The book concludes with a gospel presentation.

Untold Secrets of Planet Earth, by Vance Wilson
Untold Secrets of Planet Earth Publishing Company
Red Deer, Alberta, Canada, 2011, 137 pages, $30.00.

Another Lunar Formation Theory is in Trouble

For the past 200 years, scientists have been working hard to come up with an explanation for the Moon's formation that does not involve the direct work of a Creator. The fourth hypothesis in that the Moon was formed by the impact upon Earth of a body the size of Mars. Early this year it was proved to be wrong by new evidence. A fifth hypothesis has quickly taken its place! When will they realize that the God hypothesis is the only fully reasonable explanation?

(Based on Ron Samec, "Lunar Formation Theories" published in Creation Matters, a publication of Creation Research Society, Volume 17, Number 4, July/August 2012, to appear at http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2012/CM17%2004%20for%20web.pdf)

Theory One. Fission Hypothesis.

George Darwin was the fifth child of Charles Darwin, who wrote On the Origin of Species, the sacred book of evolution. George, who became a professor of astronomy, followed in his father's footsteps by calling into question the Biblical account of the formation of the Earth and the Moon. In 1898, he published The Tides and Kindred Phenomena in the Solar System, in which he discussed the effects of tidal friction on the Earth–Moon system.¹



Fission Hypothesis

In this fission hypothesis, George Darwin claimed that the early Earth rotated faster and faster, as more dense elements sunk to its core. When the earth exceeded breakup velocity, the material that would become the Moon tore from the Pacific Ocean Basin, leaving a scar (Ridges). 

The problem with this is that the initial spin or angular momentum is not conserved in the present Earth-Moon system (50% loss).

Also, the orbit of the moon and the obliquity of the ecliptic (likewise the inclination of the earth) should coincide, and they do not. The Earth’s inclination is about 23.5^o to the orbital plane (the ecliptic) and the Moon’s orbit is inclined by some 5^o. 




The plane of the Moon's orbit does not match the plane of the Earth's rotation.

Theory Two. Condensation Hypothesis.



The Solar System supposedly
formed from a spinning ball
of gas. But then why is the
motion of the Moon and
Earth on different planes?

The fact that the plane of the Moon's orbit does not match the plane of the Earth's rotation also defeated the second Lunar formation theory that became very popular among scientists, namely the Condensation hypothesis. It is an extension of the Laplace nebular hypotheses: the Moon formed from the solar nebula.

As the sun’s nebula condensed, conservation of angular momentum caused a disk to form and within the disk, eddies or whirlpools developed. At the center of these, the planets formed.  Secondary eddies led to satellites or moons of the planets.  The Earth and the Moon supposedly formed in an eddy and a secondary eddy. Again, the current, strange Earth-Moon orbital-inclination would not result — the Moon’s orbital plane and the Earth’s equator should coincide.

Theory Three. Lunar-Capture Theory.

A ring of dust around earth slows
the passing  Moon, but it can't be enough
for it to be captured by Earth's gravity.

Another theory is that the Moon was captured by the Earth as it passed by in an Earth-crossing orbit. One major problem with this idea is that capture is an extremely rare event!  And even if this unlikely event took place, the Moon would likely have swung by in a parabolic or an elliptical trajectory, which is a higher velocity orbit than is that of the near circular orbits of either the Earth or the present Moon.

The big question is what caused the Moon to slow down? If captured by the Earth, we would expect the present Moon to have a larger eccentricity and inclination. The resulting, fantastic tidal dissipation would have resulted in major distortions and destruction of the Earth. Also, if a near-collision brought the object within the Roche limit of the Earth, the Moon could have been shredded into rings.

Theory Four. Collision Hypothesis.

In 1976 astronomers Alastair G. W. Cameron and William R. Ward suggested that the Moon was formed by the tangential impact upon Earth of a body the size of Mars. Most of the outer silicates of the colliding body would be vaporized, leaving the metallic core of the two bodies. Hence, most of the collisional material sent into orbit would consist of silicates, leaving the coalescing Moon deficient in iron.²


A body the size of Mars collided with Earth, resulting in the Moon with core properties different from Earth.

This premise seems to solve all of problems of the earlier theories. except for the vanishingly low probability of such an event! In fact, it is much more improbable than is a near collision of a lunar mass dwarf planet, as in the capture hypothesis. To this theory's credit, the odd orbit of the Moon is easily explained by the initial orbit of the planet since it does not have to follow a particular path (except that it should be near the ecliptic, which is the plane of the Earth's revolution around the Sun).

A recent study of Moon rocks now puts even this model in doubt³. The research team confined their study to a rare form of titanium (using the 50Ti/47Ti isotopic ratio) which is known to occur in widely varying amounts throughout the solar system. After correcting for the difference caused by the continued exposure of the lunar surface to the Sun’s radiation, the scientists found that the isotopic abundance in Moon rocks was identical to that of the Earth.

This implies that the Moon came only from Earth materials and not an alien planet that collided with the Earth. Thus, there is no evidence of the Mars-mass object in these data.

In other words, the collision theory has failed.

The Real Explanation: the God Hypothesis



The sun and moon exert
gravitational forces on Earth
that influence tides, needed to
sustain life.

The real explanation of the Moon’s existence and orbital configuration is that God designed and created the Moon and set it in place, with a number of important purposes. These include the gyrostabilization of the Earth, cleaning of Earth’s shorelines by tidal forces, giving light in the evening, and the revealing of the Sun’s corona and chromosphere to scientists during solar eclipses. Helium was discovered because of the last listed design feature.

As we read in Genesis 1:16-18,

…God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Theory Five. Efficient Impact Ejection.

Of course, scientists who work for mainstream universities and government agencies no longer allow themselves to think that there is a Creator God who was directly involved in the formation of the Moon, or of anything else.

Complete mixing of
two colliding bodies?

Very quickly, at least one group has come to the rescue with yet another lunar formation theory, to make up for the defeat of the Collision hypothesis. Zhang et al.⁴ (2012) stated that the twin nature of lunar rocks and the Earth could be explained by an “efficient impact ejection” by “exchange of material between the Earth’s magma ocean and the protolunar disk.”

It is hard enough to imagine such an improbable event as a planet just the size of Mars ... impacting the Earth at just the right angle ... to result in a perfectly placed Moon ... that benefits life on Earth in such wonderful ways. It is even harder, though, to imagine that this involved ... such a thorough mixing of the alien planet and the Earth’s crust ... so that the two bodies have identical core materials.

The God hypothesis will ultimately be the only fully reasonable explanation!

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

References (selected)

1.  Britannica.com: Sir George Darwin, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/151966/Sir-George-Darwin, retrieved October 8, 2012.

2. Wikipedia.org: Giant impact hypothesis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis, retrieved October 8, 2012.

3. Meier, M.M.M. 2012. Moon formation: Earth's titanium twin. Nature Geoscience 5:240–241.

4. Zhang, J.,  N. Dauphas, A.M. Davis, I. Leya, and A. Fedkin. 2012.  The proto-Earth as a signifi- cant source of lunar material. Nature Geoscience 5:251–255

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.