"How Old is the Earth?"
Response to Desmond Ford's Arguments
The Genesis Debate
Dr. Desmond Ford
The Genesis Debate
Sean D. Pitman, MD
August
2008
www.DetectingDesign.com
Ford (thick chalk deposits):
Is it quite certain that the earth is old as geologists declare? Yes, it is quite sure. Even the
Geoscience Research Institute of SDAs now admits this (after denials of decades). The proofs run
into scores, of which perhaps five percent are questionable. For example, under the South Downs
of England lie about 800 feet of chalk. These deposits are composed of tiny organisms, which
sank to the ocean floor after death, taking about 1,000 years to form one inch of chalk. Think of
the White Cliffs of Dover. Every microscopic fragment of it was once living. The present color
testifies that these cliffs were not the product of a catastrophic flood.
Pitman:
Thick chalk deposits, such as those as dramatic as the White Cliffs of Dover, are actually
evidence of catastrophe on a massive scale - not the slow uniformitarian interpretation
so common in mainstream literature.
These white chalk deposits are a very pure type of limestone composed almost entirely
of calcium carbonate, which originally belonged to trillions upon trillions of
microorganisms to include foraminifera, calcareous algae, coccoliths, and rhabdoliths.
While living, the habitat of these creatures is in the upper 100 to 200 meters of the open
ocean. When they die, their calcium-rich shells settle down on the bottom of the ocean
floor up to 5 km below the surface of the ocean. Below this depth there is little
accumulation due to the dissolving of the calcium carbonate into the ocean water before
it reaches the bottom. That is why tall underwater mountain peaks have a "snowcapped" look to them. When they die, it is estimated that it takes up to 10 days for the
microscopic bodies to settle onto the bottom of the ocean floor with an overall average
accumulation rate of 1 to 8 cm per thousand years.
Now, given that the White Cliffs of Dover are about 400 meters thick, it would seem to be
a matter of simple math to establish the hypothesis that this much chalk would take at
least 10,000 years to produce just one meter of chalk - - or over 4 million years to
produce a layer 400 meters thick! In fact, mainstream geologists suggest that it took
around 10 million years to form the Cliffs of Dover. Obviously, that's a very long time.
How then can the Cliffs of Dover really represent catastrophic conditions and extremely
rapid formation?
It gets worse than this. Some geologists have
estimated that if all of the creatures that form the
chalk beds were living at the same time, they would
cover the entire planet to a depth of at least 45cm.1
It is argued that there wouldn't have been enough
energy from the sun to support such a biomass or
enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to
enabled the production of all the calcium carbonate
needed by that many microorganisms.2
How are these challenges answered by Young
Earth Creationists (or Young Life Creationists like
myself)?
Well, under certain conditions these microscopic
creatures are able to mass-produce themselves in
truly enormous quantities - hundreds of thousands
of times more than usual. These masses of
microscopic life are called, "algal blooms".
Usually, these blooms are associated with significantly increased nutrients that enrich
the water as the result of some sort of contamination/pollution event or catastrophe or
when the water becomes exceptionally warm. Sometimes these blooms become so
massive that they can be seen from outer space (see illustration; Link). These bloom
conditions produce up to 10 million organisms per liter of ocean water.6
Now, consider that calculations that assume only 100 organisms per liter of ocean water
show that the entire thickness of the White Cliffs of Dover could be produced within
1,000 years.3 What would a concentration 100,000 times as great due to this time span?
But what about the sheer mass of chalk-type calcium carbonate produced? All the
limestone contained within the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary layers form around 17.5
million cubic meters of rock. Not all of this is chalk, of course, but let's just assume that it
is for a minute. Some fairly simple calculations show that only 12.5 million square
kilometers of ocean area (only 2.5% of the Earth's surface) is needed to produce 17.5
million cubic kilometers of chalk within 1,700 years given a concentration of only 100
organisms per liter.4 Again, given the nutrient-rich bloom conditions described above,
that certainly doesn't seem all that overwhelming to the concept of a young geologic
record - does it?
The problem with anti-catastrophist arguments
is that many of them assume that these chalk
beds had to have been formed within the one
year of the Noachian Flood. That's not true at
all. The Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary layers
likely followed the main flooding event before
the continents had been split apart and started
formed large mountain chains and ocean
trenches. The ocean basins immediately after
the main catastrophe of the Noachian flood
would have been fairly shallow and filled with
massive quantities of nutrients. The
microorganisms would have gone wild
producing diatomaceous blooms larger than
can be imagined - large enough to bury and
preserve very large creatures, like articulated
whales! How does one bury a whale in chalk
at a rate of a few centimeters per thousand
years?
In this line, the fairly recent discoveries of fossil whales (Miocene/Pliocene) in western
Peru are quite interesting. Leonard Brand (Ph.D. in Paleobiology from Cornell)
comments, "In our survey of the area, we found the fossil remains of more than 100
whales in an area of less than two square kilometers… What was even more exciting
was the well-preserved nature of the fossil remains. . . Typically, when a whale dies at
sea, the carcass falls to the bottom and becomes the source of a rich ecosystem. Many
species of sea life benefit from the decaying remains at each stage of the process.
Within four to six months, the whale carcass has been mostly stripped down to the
bones. At that point, other species of organisms burrow both into the bones and the
surrounding sediment. Within a year or two, the whale bones show much evidence of
these burrowing animals." 5
So, how did the whales in western Peru meet their end? "These whales were incredibly
well-preserved," Brand observes, "suggesting that they were covered quickly." Brand
found that the whale remains were blanketed by a thick layer of diatomite (silica remains
of diatoms). These tiny creatures, known collectively as plankton together with
dinoflagellates, are part of the food source for whales. In modern times, diatomite
normally accumulates on the sea bottom at a rate of a few centimeters per thousand
years. "We also found beautifully preserved baleen," he adds. Baleen refers to the
filtering feather-like structures in the whale's mouth that are used to strain out food
(plankton) from the water. "Whales feed by gulping in water and forcing it out through the
baleen, trapping the tiny plankton." Baleen is actually more akin to the human fingernail
or toenail in its structure. "The well-preserved baleen supports the theory of a quick
burial to an even greater extent." 5 Other similar though arguably less dramatic
discoveries have also been published in earlier papers.7
But why did these whales (and other kinds of preserved creatures) die in the first place?
"There is more and more evidence that red tides--blooms of diatoms and dinoflagellates-produce toxins which can kill large animals and fish," he says.5 These massive blooms
were so large that they not only killed the whales, but buried them in thick layers before
any significant decay could set in. If this find does not prove the reality of rapid chalk
deposition, I don't know what does?
The very purity of these chalk beds should cause one to question the uniformitarian
paradigm. It is very hard to imagine how the very high level of purity of calcium
carbonate could have been maintained over millions of years without the incorporation of
significant amounts of contaminate material? Rather, given a period of relative calm
following a series of shortly spaced massive watery catastrophes on a global scale (as
indicated by the Biblical account and numerous extra-Biblical cultural legends of a
Noachian Flood), the oceans would have been both relatively warm and nutrient rich
(from all of the killed, buried, and floating organic material). Such a situation would have
produced massive algal blooms on a global scale such as the world has never seen
before or since.8
1. Schadewald, R.J., 1982. Six 'Flood' arguments creationists can’t answer.
Creation/Evolution IV:12–17 (p. 13).
2. Morton, G.R., 1984. The carbon problem. Creation Research Society Quarterly
20(4):212–219 (pp. 217–218).
3. Roth, A.A., 1985. Are millions of years required to produce biogenic sediments in the
deep ocean? Origins 12(1):48–56.
4. Woodmorappe, J., 1986. The antediluvian biosphere and its capability of supplying the
entire fossil record. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, R.
E. Walsh, C.L. Brooks and R.S. Crowell (eds), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, Vol. 2, pp. 205–218.
5. Leonard Brand, Taphonomy of fossil whales in the Miocene/Pliocene Pisco Fm., Peru,
Dept. of Natural Sciences, Loma Linda University, 2004 (
http://www.llu.edu/llu/grad/natsci/brand/whale.htm )
6. Seliger, H.H., Carpenter, J.H., Loftus, M. and McElroy, W.D., 1970. Mechanisms for the
accumulation or high concentrations of dinoflagellates in a bioluminescent bay.
Limnology and Oceanography 15:234–245.
7. (Reese, K.M. 1976. Workers find whale in diatomaceous earth quarry. Chemical &
Engineering News 54(42):40.).
8. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/chalk.asp
Ford:
Think of the varves that run sometimes into millions in some geographic locations, such
as the Green River district in USA. Each varve (a varve is a pair of distant layer of
sediment) represents the climatic changes of a single year . . .
Pitman:
Varves are sedimentary layers generally interpreted as being laid down in a yearly
banding pattern with one varve being laid down once per year, like tree rings. A true
varve consists of a couplet of summer silt and winter clay, a period that is difficult to
demonstrate. It is thought that by counting the varves in a lakebed, one can determine a
fairly accurate age for that lakebed. Ancient dates are calculated for these lakebeds
using varves, sometimes into the millions of years based on varve estimates. In the fall
1994 issue of Science Speaks, Don Stoner (1994) stated that the Green River Formation
of Utah, Colorado and Wyoming "contains more than four million annual layers." He then
says, "Obviously, this means that the lake existed for millions of years before it
disappeared."
This is a great theory. It certainly sounds reasonable at first glance. However, there are
just a few problems with this theory. Multiple varves are now known to form very rapidly
in certain situations.
Buchheim and Biaggi (1988) measured Green River Formation "varves" between two
volcanic tuff beds each two to three centimeters thick. Geologists consider each tuff bed
a synchronous layer, i.e., every point on that tuff bed has the same age. The two tuff
beds thus represent two different reference times. If the laminations in between these
two beds are annual layers, the same number of layers should be present everywhere
between the two beds. Buchheim and Biaggi found the number of laminae between the
tuff beds ranged from 1160 to 1568.
Lambert and Hsà (1979) measured "varves" in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and found
up to five laminae deposited during one year. From 1811, which was a clear marker
point (because a newly built canal discharged into the lake), until 1971, a period of 160
years, they found the number of laminae ranged between 300 and 360 instead of the
expected one per year or 160.
Some rather interesting experiments with varve formation have also been done. Julien,
Lan and Berthault (1994) experimentally produced laminations by slowly pouring
mixtures of sand, limestone and coal into a cylinder of still water. Using a variety of
materials, they found that laminae formed if there were differences in size and density of
the materials and that the thickness of the laminae depended upon differences in grain
size and density.
Fischer and Roberts (1991) state, "In some cases the observer counting varves is left in
doubt as to which couplets are varves and which are subvarve units, a matter that was
handled in our image analysis varve counts by arbitrarily counting only variations above
the 30 micron level." In other words, they arbitrarily chose 30 microns as the minimum
thickness to be used for computer analysis. However, many laminations are less than 30
microns thick. Also, many of the "varves" consist of organic layers squeezed together
with very tiny carbonate laminae in between. There is no consistency in varve structure.
Geologists have suggested other causes of lamination as potential contributors to
varves, including storm events, turbidites and glacial meltwater. Each one of these is
aperiodic, producing laminations with no relation to annual or other cyclic processes. For
example, turbidity currents from melting snow or heavy rain produce extra couplets.
Our investigations supported de Geer's first contention that sediment-laden
floodwaters could generate turbidity underflows to deposit varves, but threw doubt
on his second interpretation that varves or varve-like sediment are necessarily
annual. (Lambert and Hsa, p. 454)
Turbidity currents can mimic varves, especially at the end of the flow that is farthest from
the source or sediment. (Hambrey) Many supposed varves are multiple turbidity current
deposits and do not represent seasonal changes.
It is very unfortunate from a sedimentological viewpoint that engineers
describe any rhythmically laminated fine-grained sediment as 'varved.' There is
increasing recognition that many sequences previously described as varves are
multiple turbidite sequences of graded silt to clay units...without any obvious
seasonal control on sedimentation. (Quigley, p. 151)
Turbidity flows have the surprising ability to deposit silt and clay quickly in equal
thicknesses. Under normal conditions, silt usually settles in a few days and clay can take
years to settle.
As both clay and silt fractions are transported to the site of deposition at the
same time, successive surge deposits are likely to have similar proportions of silt
and clay. In other words, thick silt layers will have thick clay layers, and thin silt
layers will have thin clay layers. (Smith, pp. 198-199)
Turbidity flows are independent of season and can continuously deposit microlaminae
throughout the year, including the winter:
In many cases where large ice lobes or glaciers sit or float in lakes, there is
year round delivery of sediments and turbidite activity occurs almost continually
resulting in graded laminae that are not true varves. (Quigley, p. 152)
How many varve-like layers form from year to year becomes anyone's
guess. Wood (1947) describes peak river inflows after light rain that deposited
three varve-like couplets in two weeks. Just as we have seen in many situations,
e.g., stalagmite and canyon formation, strata deposition, and fossilization, time is
not the essential factor for their development, although evolutionists insist that such
things took much time to form. While evolutionary catastrophists admit rapid
formation, they almost invariably propose long periods of tedium between
catastrophic events. (Ager)
Steve Austin, who has done much field work at Mount St. Helens, documented in
his new book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (see announcement on last
page) that the volcano eruption produced 25 feet of volcanic ash varve-like deposits
from hurricane-velocity surging flows in five hours.92
To summarize the above findings:
1). Controversy exists as to the source material comprising varves as well as the
mechanism of their cyclic formation.
2). Lamination counts in historically known sections have been demonstrated not to
correspond to elapsed years or counts are inconsistent.
3). There is frequently uncertainty as to how many laminations constitute a varve
and the use of arbitrary minimum sizes may lead to erroneous conclusions.
4). There are many nonseasonal mechanisms for producing laminations such as
storms, floods, turbidites, glacial meltwater and spontaneous segregation of
dissimilar materials. All of these causes of laminar deposits indicate that varve-like
laminations are a common effect of many nonseasonal processes.92
5). Various materials that decay rapidly over time, such a delicate leaves, have
been found extending through many "annual" varve layers (see above photo).
For references and additional information see Link.
Ford:
. . . and a multitude of other features of earth give the same testimony as radiometric
dating.
Pitman:
The problems with radiometric dating are legion. It might not seem like it at first glance,
but the whole process is highly subjective. Many of the methods do indeed "agree" with
each other - but this is not an objective agreement because they are calibrated against
each other. I go into the problems of calibration, 'tuning', and other problems with
various radiometric and other related dating techniques at:





http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html
http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html
http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html#Tree
http://www.detectingdesign.com/aminoaciddating.html
http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html#Dating
Ford:
"God spoke, and it was. He commanded, and it stood fast," refers to the certainty of his
creative work, not its duration.
Pitman:
I suppose that is why God took the time to repeat himself so often by describing his act
of creating life on this planet "in six days"? - - to include the additional description of
"evenings and mornings"? I find it hard to imagine how one could describe literal days
of creation any more clearly if one wanted to? If all God wanted to convey to us is the
certainty of his work, why all the extra filler detail describing spans of time and other
specifics of his creative or miraculous activity?
You see, in order to establish a firm basis for belief in the certainty of God and his
creative work, we must have some sort of evidence of his activity that is actually testable
and consistent with his own claims of what he has done. Otherwise, where is the basis
for a reasonable belief in the very existence of God - much less the certainty of his
creative work?
Ford:
Other evidences of the earth's great age, which are almost universally accepted by
specialists in the earth sciences include the following:
The multitude of oil drills in the U.S. alone testifies to the reliability of accepted
geological data. A fortune is regularly spent based on this research. There are literally
hundreds of places around the world where the same sequence of strata appear.
Pitman:
The massive size of similar sedimentary layers covering major portions of continents and
sometimes the majority of the entire globe is actually more consistent with catastrophic
conditions acting over a very flat landmass. Notice that these sedimentary layers are
universally very flat relative to each other. The world millions of years ago must have
been a very very flat place indeed. Notice also that there is little erosion preserved
between these flat layers. The contact zones themselves are very flat as well. Strange
that such features should exist given the uniformitarian notions of those proposing such
long spans of time to explain these sedimentary layers.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html
Ford:
Think of coral reefs, sometimes forty miles long and of great height and thickness.
Pitman:
This is a common argument, which is interesting to me since these supposed "reef"
formations aren't really reefs at all. In other words, they do not represent in situ growth
and formation. Rather, they are conglomerate deposits of fragments of coral and other
materials into an embankment of sorts. For example, the Thornton Quarry 'reef', near
Chicago, does not match any of the characteristics of a modern reef. The 'core' of this
reef shows no growth structures and is the wrong shape. The angle of the reef is too
steep, reef binding organisms are absent, a solid foundation rock is absent, and the reef
is riddled with fossil tar, indicating rapid deposition, not slow growth.1 Also, investigations
of assumed 'reefs' in Australia2 and Europe3 also reveal that they did not grow in situ, but
were transported and dumped into place.
When investigated with more than superficial interest, fossil reefs really do not pan out
as true reefs, but are depositional structures much more consistent with catastrophic
flood models than with slow uniformitarian notions of formation. Rather than being a
problem for catastrophic models for the geologic column, these 'reefs' actually provide
very good evidence for the catastrophic model.
1. D’Armond, D.B., Thornton Quarry deposits: a fossil coral reef or a catastrophic Flood
deposit? CRSQ 17(2):88–105, 1980.
2. Roth, A.A., Origins: Linking Science and Scripture, Review and Herald Publishing
Association, Hagerstown, Maryland, pp. 239–241, 1998.
3. Scheven, J., The Flood/post-Flood boundary in the fossil record; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science
Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 247–266, 1990.
Ford:
The oilfields of the Great Lakes area, Texas, and Alberta were originally beneath the sea
and the thousands of feet of sedimentary rock that piled up contain multitudes of marine
fossils. On top of these sedimentary deposits coral reefs grew which ultimately because
fossilized into limestone. Some of these are many miles long and about a thousand feet
thick and required many thousands of years to develop. On top of these reefs are more
layers of sediment upon beds of mud - only after the sediments became rocks did coral
edifices begin.
The Bahamas Banks are underwater mountains of sedimentary rock enormous in size
and containing what has been described as "one tremendous stack of fossil material".
These banks have steeply sloping sides, evidence that the fossils grew in place and were
not deposited from elsewhere. Millions of years were required for these massive banks to
grow.
Pitman:
The coral reefs of the Bahamian Banks are tertiary reefs. Even according to mainstream
thinking these reefs are no older than 120,000 years old. No older in situ fossil corals, or
other subtidal deposits, have been found subaerially exposed anywhere in the Bahamas
(Link). Millions of years where not required for these in situ formations to grow - even by
mainstream thinking.
Beyond this, other reefs, like the Eniwetok Atoll (~4,600ft thick) thought to have taken
around 175,000 years to form, aren't really built entirely of coral. The Eniwetok Atoll
rests atop the surface of a submerged volcanic seamount. The entire thing is composed
of corals as well as calcerous algae, foraminifera, echinoderms, oysters and so forth,
which are cemented together to form the 'reef' (Link). In other words, the framework of a
coral reef can trap sediments and other materials. In this situation the live coral would
not have to build the entire mass of the reef, but only build a framework to hold the
sediments. This situation would allow for a much more rapid growth of a reef vs. that
suggested by coral growth rates taken from surface measurements (i.e., usually less
than 10 mm per year). In fact, actual soundings of reefs carried out during the 1930s
suggest that a reef framework can grow much more rapidly. Sewell (1935) reported 280
mm/year in the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal, and Verstelle (1932) reported a
maximum rate of growth of 414 mm/year in the Celebes (Dutch East-Indian
Archipelago). At such a rate, the entire thickness of the Eniwetok Atoll could have been
formed in less than 3,500 years instead of the usually suggested 175,000 years of
growth. Even by surface measurements, some species of coral can grow quite rapidly.
Lewis et al. (1968) found in Jamaica a maximum rate of 264 mm/year. Shinn (1976)
studied the growth of this species following destruction in a hurricane near Florida. He
estimated linear growth rates of 100 mm/year. Experiments also suggest that one can
nearly double such rates of coral growth by raising the temperature 5ºC or by increasing
the carbonate ion content of seawater (Link).
Even by conventional dating, the seas are supposed to have been over 100 meters
lower 20,000 years ago, before the "great ice melt", and, before then, the sea-level was
abruptly higher and the coral could not have survived. Therefore, a continuous coral reef
vertical development "for 175,000 years", according the uniformitarian calculations,
would be highly improbable.
J. Verstelle, ‘The Growth Rate at Various Depths of Coral Reefs in the Dutch
East-Indian Archipelago’, Treubia 14:117–126, 1932.
Ford:
Sedimentary rocks become metamorphic rock only under the combination of
tremendous heat and pressure - temperatures of about 600 degrees centigrade and
pressures of 30 tons per square inch, for long ages of time. . .
Pitman:
The creation of metamorphic rock does require great heat and pressure, but not great
periods of time. Given sufficient heat and pressure, metamorphic changes can be
realized in very short order. For example, fairly recent studies on Norwegian
metamorphic rocks have shown that their metamorphic condition must have been
produced in "ten years or less" - and this is according to mainstream thinking (see Link;
and references below).
 Camacho, A., J. K. W. Lee, B. J. Hensen, and J. Braun, 2005. "Short-lived
Orogenic Cycles and the Eclogitization of Cold Crust by Spasmodic Hot Fluids."
Nature, 435:1191-1196.
 Kelley, S., 2005. "Hot Fluids and Cold Crusts." Nature, 435:1171.
 Jamtveit, B., H. Austrheim, and A. Malthe-Sorenssen, 2000. "Accelerated
Hydration of the Earth's Deep Crust Induced by Stress Perturbations." Nature,
408:75-78.
 Austrheim, H., and W. L. Griffin, 1985. "Shear Deformation and Eclogite
Formation within Granulite Facies Anorthosites of the Bergen Arcs, Western
Norway." Chemical Geology, 50:267-281.
 Bjornerud, M., H. Austrheim, and M. G. Lund, 2002. "Processes Leading to
Eclogitization (Densification) of Subducted and Tectonically Buried Crust."
Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(B10):2252-2269.
Ford:
The Bible says nothing precisely about the age of the earth. Chronologies indicate
descent not a chronological line. Terms such as, "begat", and "son", do not in Scripture
always have the meaning we now give them. "Begat" can mean "the ancestor of," and
"son," can mean a distant descendant. Scripture begins its story of the human race at
the time when both writing and civilization began (and when earth's population was
much less than one percent of what it is now), and never attempts to convey
supernaturally any information man himself can find out by using the gifts God has richly
bestowed upon him. We see this truth best illustrated in the teachings of Christ himself,
and it was his Spirit that inspired the Old Testament writings.
Pitman:
I suppose that is why Jesus specifically referred to the prophecies as evidence of God's
hand behind the scriptures? He also specifically referred to the creation account of
Genesis, as well as the flood, as literal events.
If we could find out all of the truths listed in the Bible concerning us, our origins, why we
are hear, and where we are going, what is the point in having the Bible given to us by
the miracle of Divine inspiration? - a supernatural interference by God himself? Beyond
this, what evidence is there that God had anything at all to do with the creation of the
Biblical texts if they contain nothing within their pages that is actually beyond the
capability of human ingenuity and/or creativity?
I would like to ask Ford upon what basis does he rest his belief on other metaphysical
claims of the Bible that are clearly beyond our human ability to test or confirm - such as
the so called "virgin birth", the incarnation of God, the resurrections of the dead, the New
Earth, Heaven, and eternal life? Perhaps these notions are simply symbolic as well?
How do you know?
Ford:
Continental drift with its inconceivably slow movement also demonstrates the earth's
great age. Denied by scientists till after World War II, continental drift is now widely
accepted.
Pitman:
Even I believe that continental drift happened and is happening. The question is, did it
always happen in the past at the same rate as it is happening today? - in a uniformitarian
manner? The clear answer to that question is no. The drift was much much faster in the
past than it is today. In the same way that crashing cars slow down very quickly after
the initial point of impact takes place, the continental plates are slowing down very
quickly after their collision with each other.
Consider that it takes a great deal of energy to form great mountain chains and ocean
trenches. That energy is rapidly being dissipated. There is simply no known force that
can continue this sort of energy expenditure over hundreds of millions of years without
being rapidly exhausted. The current drift is simply the feeble remnants of the original
catastrophic release of energy, rapid drift, and massive continental plate splits and
impacts.
As evidence for a fairly recent separation of the continents consider the fact that they still
seem to fit together pretty well (see illustration) despite separating from each other some
200 million years ago? - really? Continental erosion and deposition rates along the
edges of exposed continental plates alone are far too great for the continents to fit so
well if at all after 200 million years of elapsed time.
For further discussion of continental drift see the following Link.
Ford:
It is estimated that ninety-nine percent of
coal seams are readily explained by the
burial of vegetation in tropical swamps to
be ultimately metamorphosed into coal.
Coal reserves equal approximately 65
pounds of coal for every square yard of
the planet, and yet a whole forest of fullgrown beeches can only yield a seam of
about 2 centimeters. No universal flood
could ever have produced the gigantic
coal contents of our globe. Most coal
seams are devoid of flowering plants,
trees, or the pollen found in recent
sediments. Most of earth's strata,
including the coal layers are finely
arranged and not at all what the
destructive work of a great flood would
have yielded.
Pitman:
Ford seems to forget that before the Noachian Flood there were no great oceans. The
Earth was one vast landmass watered by four great rivers and innumerable springs and
"fountains". It didn't need to rain because of this extensive watering system that turned
the whole world into one huge very rich garden paradise. There were no vast deserts of
either land or sea. All was rich and green and vibrant. The amount of animal and plant
life sustained before the Flood at the same time was truly enormous.
The notion that the massive coal seams that exist today can be generally explained by
slow burial over massive amounts of time in tropical swamps does not explain the
general purity seen throughout some of the worlds most massive coal deposits. Note
the following comments published in a 1993 article in Earth Magazine, "Powder River
Coal: Geologic enigma, environmental dilemma":
Powder River coal seams run remarkably thick and unsullied by other
material. Usually, unwanted sediment such as clay washes over a deposit
before coal seams can get very thick. But Power River coal is packed in
immense strips, some more than 200 feet thick. These seams stretch vast
distances up and down the basin. "They're hundreds of miles long. They're fifty
miles wide." says James McClurg, a geologist at the University of Wyoming.
"They're not little pods of an acre or two. They're immense things." McClurg, who
has studied the basin for more than a decade, says "No other place in the world
has as many seams 50 feet or more thick. But, the Powder River basin is not
only an economic resource. To geologists, it's also an intriguing scientific
enigma. Geologists have been studying the basin for more than a century,
largely to answer a baffling question: How did the seams get so massive? Or
more precisely, why weren't the seams diluted by influxes of clay and other
impurities before they thickened?" He adds, "It would be like blindfolding
yourself, spinning around, and hitting the center of a dartboard one-hundred
times in a row."
Rather than the sorted and purified features of coal being a problem for a concept of a
Noachian flood deposit, these features are very difficult to explain without the sorting and
concentrating properties of water on a massive catastrophic scale ( see Link ).
And, as far as pollen goes, does Ford not know that pollen, spores, and fragments of
vascular plants have been found in both Cambrian pre-Cambrian deposits? such as the
Salt Range beds in India? - and that these findings have been published, unchallenged,
in mainstream literature? (see Link )
Ford:
The Yellowstone Fossil Forests have in one place 44 successive forest layers that are
encased in rock that was formed by volcanic ash. Beneath the forests are thousands of
feet of fossiliferous rock. SDA paleontologist, Dr Richard Ritland, after considerable field
work at the site, wrote, "The transport theory for the origin of the fossil forests of the
region as suggested by Whitcomb and Morris is not in harmony with the facts." Creation
and Evolution, p. 130
Pitman:
What kind of argument is this? An argument from authority is simply not convincing
here. Where is the evidence to support the notion that these successive 'forest' layers
are actually forests?
What is interesting about these places (ie: Yellowstone National Park were up to 65
different layers can be found with trees in the vertical position) is that the trees are still
oriented in their positions with each other. Their “soil” is
also found to be water sorted (course to fine), and often
is found half way up a tree instead of at its base. This
organic material also averages only 3 cm in thickness
and, for many of the "forest" layers it is missing
altogether. In some areas, such as Mt. Hornaday, as
many as 43% of the forest layers have no organic layer
at all. The lower layers of Specimen Creek generally do
have organic layers (96%), but the upper layers of
Specimen Creek have far fewer organic layers. It turns
out that the average "forest" without an organic layer to
is about 24%. It seems rather strange for a forest to
grow into full bloom without forming an organic layer.
How is this explained?
Another strange finding of the organic layers is the fact that they are sorted in various
ways. Take for instance the fact that pine needles and leaves are not mixed together,
but are found in separate organic layers despite the fact that there are both pine and
hardwood trees "growing" from the same organic layer(s). Also, the are proportionately
less pine needles than there are leaves even in areas that are dominated by conifers. In
a real forest, conifers drop a much higher mass of needles than deciduous trees drop
leaves. And yet, in the fossil forests of Yellowstone, needles are relatively sparse even
at the bases of large fossilized conifers. This interesting fact has been recognized as far
back as 1899 when Knowlton remarked about the absence of needles in the organic
levels associated with the large fenced petrified tree near Roosevelt Lodge in
Yellowstone National Park. One would expect to find great numbers of sequoia needles
and some cones, since most of the upright trees are sequoia (70%). However, large
numbers of broad leaves and only a few pine needles are seen in the organic levels.
Sequoia needles were rare or absent. Although petrified sycamore stumps are not
common, leaves of sycamore are the most abundant broad-leaf fossils. It is also
interesting to note that, despite a heavy predominance of sequoia trees, fossilized
sequoia cones are very rare in the fossil forests of Yellowstone National Park. This
taxonomic sorting seems quite strange indeed unless one uses a catastrophic model
involving flood such as occurred during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. In water, pine
needles become saturated and sink before leaves sink.
Pollen is another problem. Trees with wind-transported pollen, such as walnut and
sycamore, should have left a pollen record in the forest floor, but little or no pollen of
these two has been found. Modern forest floors contain pollen in abundance inversely
proportional to the distance from the source trees especially trees for which wind is the
pollen-transporting agent. Research
done on four levels of Specimen Creek
Petrified Forest showed no positive
correlation between fossil pollen
abundance and the proximity of
possible source trees.
The organic layers themselves also
show no significant decay as one goes
from top to bottom. In a real forest
floor, organic material decays.
Evidently, this does not happen in the
forests of the past because the leaves at the bottom of organic layers are just as well
formed as preserved as the leaves at the tops of these organic layers. Also, the material
between the leaves is sorted, course to fine as one moves upward (Consider the figure
at the right). Evidence for such water sorting occurs in about 70% of the organic layers.
There is yet another problem with the intermittent burial of forests by volcanic activity
and mud-slides. If a volcanic mud slide buried only the lower parts of the trunks of the
trees of a growing forest (as might be suggested by the fact that some of the upright
trees penetrate overlying layers), the taxonomic composition of the new forest that grew
on this new surface would be similar to the composition of the forest that was buried.
The cones, seeds, nuts, and fruits would fall from the unburied branches and foliage and
repopulate the new surface with a similar forest. Such correlation between adjacent
levels of the Specimen Creek Petrified Forest has not been found.
The normal maturation of soil also involves the slow breakdown of feldspar and other
minerals into clay. Out of 65 layers of Specimen Creek in Yellowstone National Park,
only nine bands of clay were found among only seven organic layers. Horizontal
sampling of two of the clay bands at 2.5 - 3 m intervals for 30 m showed a constant
mineral distribution. Abundant unweathered feldspar is scattered throughout the
Yellowstone organic levels, suggesting repeated rapid burials. None of the 58 organic
levels outside the 9 bands of clay contained detectable amounts of clay. The apparent
absence of clay in the majority of levels (implying that normal weathering of soil did not
occur) raises questions about the passage of long time intervals between levels. This
datum also questions the validity of the assumption that the organic levels (upon which
trees with hundreds of rings sit) represent true soils. Furthermore, the sudden abundant
appearance of clay in a few horizontal bands that
included both organic levels and layers of clay in
the associated breccia beds between levels
suggests transport rather than in situ formation of
the clay minerals.
Despite much study of the Yellowstone Petrified
Forests, no animal fossils have been found. Why
are animal remains absent from the plant fossilbearing levels of Yellowstone? Because forests
would be expected to harbor a wide variety of
animals, some of which would be buried by the
successive mud slides, the absence of animal
fossils has been a mystery. Volcanic activity could
have caused larger forest animals to flee elsewhere, but flight cannot be used as an
explanation for the absence of all animal remains because many animals could not or
would not leave their forest habitats. Land snails, some amphibians and reptiles, many
insects, arachnids, and worms would not escape burial. Immature members of many
types would be unable to flee. In addition, bones, eggs, teeth, scales, molted skins,
castings, droppings, burrows, etc., would qualify as evidence of animal life. None of
these have been found in the fossil forest organic levels during a century of research.
Considering that delicate plant parts are excellently preserved, animal remains should
also have been preserved if they were present. Only one exception is known. Remains
of termites have been found in chambers within the petrified wood.19 If the petrified trees
are standing where they originally grew and if the organic levels are the growing
surfaces still intact and undisturbed, the absence of animal fossils is difficult to explain.
If, however, the trees and the organic debris making up the soil levels were transported
by water, the separation of animals from the plants before burial is much easier to
explain.
The volcanic ash found in the various layers is itself is quite interesting. The chemicals
that make up the ash are uniform throughout all the layers. In fact, there are only four
unique chemical patterns to be found in the ash of Specimen Creek. Spark source mass
spectrometry analysis of trace elements in the bands of ash revealed pulses of ash from
four source areas for the Specimen Creek Petrified Forest. The four trace element
profiles interweave in an irregular manner up the sequence of 65 organic levels of
Specimen Creek Petrified Forest. If these 65 ash layers (organic levels) were laid down
over a long time span, the ash that was laid down thousands of years later near the end
of the series of ash eruptions would have changed sufficiently to produce a new and
different trace element profile (a new "fingerprint"). This has not been the case. The
rapid burial of the whole sequence seems to be required.
The root systems of the upright stumps seems
to be a main argument in favor of their in situ
growth. Of course, some of the petrified trees
have broken roots; but when were they broken?
Even if a permit to collect petrified wood within
the park is obtained, excavation of stumps is not
permitted; furthermore, digging is difficult in the
hard rock. Consequently, to determine if the root
breakage seen is pre- or post-petrification is
difficult. Several examples of abrupt root
terminations from Mt. Hornaday, Mt. Norris, Tom
Minor Basin, and Specimen Creek strongly
indicate that, at least in some cases, the tree roots were broken before the trees were
buried by volcanic gravels and muds. This evidence supports the view that the trees
were transported. However, small rootlets can be located at the bases of upright
stumps, and this feature has been used to argue against transport. Observations in
Spirit Lake near Mount St. Helens and of trees uprooted by bulldozing operations show
that the small roots and rootlets are usually still intact, but the larger roots are usually
broken (See Figure). The presence of small roots extending from the base of a petrified
tree therefore is not evidence for an in situ interpretation unless large roots also extend
unbroken. Broken and frayed large roots could be the result of changing stream currents
eroding the bases of growing trees, but such activity should leave evidences in the
sediments. Furthermore, erosion must be limited; otherwise, trees would be removed or
toppled.
If a forest were killed by a mud flow that buried the bases of the trees, the tops of the
trees would extend above the new ground surface. They would overlap a new second
forest that would commence growing on the new surface. During the time of the growth
of the new second forest (before it in turn was buried by another volcanic mud slide) the
old first forest snags would have time to rot, to be infested with insects, and to break
drown. Even the tops of stumps that reached only to the root area of the second forest
level (no actual overlap) would also be expected to experience decay. The soil in which
the roots of the second forest grew would not be a good preserving medium for the tops
of the stumps extending up from below. One of the striking features of the Yellowstone
petrified trees is their good preservation. If pieces of the petrified wood are prepared as
microslides, the wood tissue may look nearly as fresh as tissue from a living tree.
Seldom do they exhibit any evidence of decay and weathering. This suggests that the
trees have not been subjected to these processes during the passage of time.
The parallel orientation of the horizontal logs, mentioned earlier, is better explained by
water or mud transport. The dip of the beds from which the trees arise seldom exceeds
7° which is not enough to cause all the trees to fall downhill. Prevailing winds or volcanic
blasts could align fallen trees, but they would not cause the long axes of the crosssection of the upright stumps to have a similar compass alignment. The asymmetry of
the cross-section of a stump, especially at its base, is usually a result of the influence of
major roots that cause flare to extend for some distance up the stump. Volcanic lahars
(fast-moving volcanic mud slides) or currents of water or mud could be the forces that
acted on roots and trunks to produce similar alignment for both stumps and logs. Modern
forests do not show the degree of orientation that the fossil forests of Yellowstone show.
This orientation seems to speak for catastrophic transport and against in situ forest
growth.
One of the first observations made when
research commenced on the petrified forests
was the barkless condition of both the horizontal
and upright trees. Subsequent examination has
revealed some thin layers of bark remaining on
a few of the trees. In addition to the trees being
mostly barkless, all the branches have been
broken off. Even large branches, 25 cm or more
in diameter, have been removed. Only scoured
stubs remain on the tree trunks. Trees buried
and later excavated by water erosion during the
eruption of Mount St. Helens did not have all the
bark or limbs removed. Trees floating for a
period of time in turbulent water would more
likely lose bark and branches due to softening of the bark and abrasion. Considering the
fact that modern trees often sink in water in the vertical position, a catastrophic model
seems to be the best explanation for these findings. A massive flood, burying layer upon
layer of sedimentary material in quick succession, seems to be at the very least,
plausible.
The eruption of Mount St. Helens and the resultant flooding in locals such as Spirit Lake
might offer some insights into how the stacked forests of Yellowstone might have
formed. The floating log raft in Spirit Lake does in fact provided some insights on
taxonomic sorting. Most of the stumps sitting erect on the bottom of Spirit Lake are Silver
Fir, Nolle Fir, and Hemlock. Douglas Fir, abundant in the surrounding forests, has only
2.2% representation. Sampling of the trees in the floating raft solved this discrepancy;
48% are Douglas Fir. Apparently this species is more buoyant and resistant to water
saturation. Cedar was represented by 2.2% of logs floating in the lake; yet the
surrounding forests contained a higher percentage of cedars. Sampling of the broken
wood pieces along a transect on the shore gave 11% for cedar. Some of the erect trees
floating in the lake or standing on the lake bottom are over 20 m tall. The argument that
tall petrified stumps must be in position of growth does not apply to a flotation scenario.
The flotation of organic matter (including trees in an upright position) as illustrated in
Spirit Lake at the base of Mount St. Helens provides a model for interpreting the upright
petrified trees of Yellowstone. Trees and plants will float vertically when there is
sufficient water and time. The research at Spirit Lake helps explain the presence of the
organic layer at the level of the roots. Saturated organic debris sinks to the lake bottom
to produce a layer of organic matter. Upright floating trees also have dropped out of
suspension onto the bottom of Spirit Lake in
a spacing pattern similar to that of growing
forests. They are not jumbled together in log
jams as might be expected.
Some have argued that Spirit Lake is not a
good analog for the Yellowstone Fossil
forests, because the large number of logs
accumulating on the bottom of Spirit Lake
very different from the more scattered fossil
logs and stumps in Yellowstone. However,
one important difference between the two
deposits is that Spirit Lake has not had
adequate sediment input to bury the sinking
logs and stumps. If the 1980 Mount St.
Helens eruption had been followed by a
series of volcanic breccia flows into Spirit
Lake, spaced long enough apart to bury
successive sets of logs and stumps as they
sank, it would likely have produced a deposit
very similar to the Yellowstone Fossil
Forests.
If this is not yet convincing, these same trees
were studied to see if they might have
matching patters of growth in a tree-ring
analysis. Matching patterns of growth would be highly unlikely if the trees lived
thousands of years apart in time. In 1991, Dr. Michael Arct presented such a study for
his PhD dissertation (building upon research that he had been doing since 1979). He
sampled fourteen fossil trees at different levels in a twenty-three foot section of the
Yellowstone formations. Analysis showed that all fourteen trees matched and that ten of
them died at the same time. The other four trees died seven, four, three, and two years
before the other ten died. The theories of ancient formation no longer seem to match
the facts available.
For references and further information on this topic see Link.
Ford:
But what about the universality of the Deluge? Because there is no geological evidence
of a worldwide deluge, most evangelical scholars believe that the Genesis Flood covered
the existing civilization, not the entire globe. Others believe that the inspired writers took
a well-known historical event of limited proportions and used it to teach theological truth,
transcending mere history, which is never an end in itself in the Bible. When John Morris
of the Creation Research Institute was asked if he had ever convinced a secular
geologist regarding flood geology, he answered, "No." Furthermore, flood geology is no
necessary accompaniment of belief in a universal flood.
Pitman:
This argument is like asking Ford if he had ever convinced an atheist of the existence of
God. The same could be said for the story of Noah - was the truth of Noah's claim of a
pending flood dependent upon the belief of the "expert opinion" of his day? Does a lack
of belief among mainstream "experts" today really mean there isn't any solid evidence?
Hardly. Take a look at the story of J Harlen Bretz for a striking illustration of what
mainstream bias can do to cause the experts of the day to ignore or misinterpret
otherwise overwhelming evidence (Link).
Beyond this, John Morris has been instrumental in convincing several secular scientists
of the relatively young age of the geologic and fossil records - even if he didn't realize it.
Walter Veith is an interesting example (Link). Walter J Veith obtained his doctorate in
Zoology from the University of Cape Town in 1979. While senior lecturer in Zoology at
the University of Stellenbosch from 1979-1987, he became convinced that the theory of
evolution he was teaching was fundamentally flawed - and that young life creationism
actually made more sense. This change of heart was in no small part due to the work of
John Morris.
As far as the Biblical story of the Noachian Flood goes, this story doesn't make any
internal sense at all unless it refers to a truly universal flood. It makes no sense to tell
Noah to build an Ark over the course of a hundred plus years if the flood is going to be
some local event. Why not just tell him to move out of the local area? It also makes no
sense to bring all the varieties of land animals into the ark for preservation if the flood is
going to be local. What about the wicked people? How is a local flood going to wipe out
all the wicked people described in the Genesis account? Is the building of the Ark
simple a decoy to get everyone concentrated in the same flood valley to wipe them all
out at once? The story simply makes no sense at all give the notion of a local flood - even without mentioning the fact that Jesus read it very literally and so did all of the
other Biblical writers that mention it (as does Ellen White who claims to have been
shown the Flood in vision and to have discussed it with her angel messenger).
Again, if Ford doesn't believe in the Biblical support for a world-wide flood, what kind of
support does he have to believe in any other non-verifiable statements of the Bible? like the Virgin Birth or the resurrection of the dead (both of which are scientific
impossibilities as far as modern science is concerned)?
Ford:
Is the geological column an established fact? It is, and has been so since 1849, by which
time correlations had been made between strata in England and European countries.
Pitman:
Agreed. The geologic column is a fact. The question here is not if it exists, but what
does it mean? Does it support slow uniformitarian ideas or a more catastrophic
interpretation? As it turns out, catastrophism is actually gaining some ground - even
within mainstream science. Consider the following statement of Robert Dott published in
a 1982 edition of Geotimes:
"I hope I have convinced you that the sedimentary record is largely a record of
episodic events rather than being uniformly continuous. My message is that
episodicity is the rule, not the exception. . . We need to shed those lingering
subconscious constraints of old uniformitarian thinking."
Dott, Robert H., Presidential Address to the Society of Economic Paleontologists
& Mineralogists, Geotimes, p. 16, Nov. 1982
Even in mainstream thinking, the huge amounts of elapsed time are no longer thought to
be recorded in the building of the layers themselves within the geologic column. The
majority of elapsed time is thought to have passed by in-between the layers - for the
most part. This is a big step away from uniformitarian thinking and toward a notion of
some form of "punctuated equilibrium". It isn't too much more of a leap to end up with a
rapid shortly-spaced sequence of massive catastrophic events to explain both the
geologic and fossil records.
Ford:
Do not evolutionary scientists reason in a circle when they date strata by the fossils and
vice versa? George McCready Price, that good and learned man, taught so. But he was
wrong, as almost all SDA scientists now admit. Radiometric dating and comparison of
the sequence of strata in all continents have made Price's views untenable.
Pitman:
Not if the assumptions of radiometric dating are themselves circular - and many of them
are. Consider the following report of a conference in which the whole concept of tuning
was attacked by Richard Muller.
"Muller scored the most points at the meeting when he attacked a standard
technique, called tuning, that oceanographers use for dating layers in sediment
cores. The task of dating these strata is difficult because sediments may
accumulate more quickly during some eras and more slowly in others. To tell the
age of layers between known benchmarks, researchers often use the
Milankovitch orbital cycles to tune the sediment record: They assume that ice
volume should vary with the orbital cycles, then line up the wiggles in the
sediment record with ups and downs in the astronomical record.
"This whole tuning procedure, which is used extensively, has elements of
circular reasoning in it," says Muller. He argues that tuning can artificially make
the sediment record support the Milankovitch theory.
Muller's criticisms hit home with many researchers. "He scared the hell out
of them, and they deserved it," says Broecker."
Richard Monastersky, "The Big Chill - Does dust drive Earth's ice ages?",
Science News, vol 152, October 4, 1997, pages 220-221.
(http://www.muller.lbl.gov/pages/news%20reports/ScienceNews.htm)
See also the discussion above on radiometric dating as well as the following Link.
Ford:
The geological column points to death long before the arrival of man. Did not death begin
at the Fall? Scripture teaches that all human death began with the Fall. In a creation such
as we live in, existence is protoplasmic--that is, acting upon existing life. Otherwise, the
sea would soon be solid fish, and the atmosphere a mass of insects. When Adam ate his
first piece of fruit, obviously he took its life. It may help to remember, as we look at
difficult questions, that God's work in creation is as mysterious as his own nature.
Indeed, mystery is a key word used by many recent scientists as they discuss both the
beginning of life and of humanity.
Pitman:
We aren't talking about orange peals here or some prick on the finger. We are talking
about the self-aware suffering of billions of sentient creatures over hundreds of millions
of years. Would anyone want to worship a God who would call such situation "Good"?
If even we in our fallen human condition have sympathy for sentient animals, what does
God feel when he sees even the suffering of a little sparrow as it falls wounded to the
ground? What is the need then to make everything new? - to notice that all sentient life
on this planet groans and travails in pain together until now? (Romans 8:22). Would any
of us actually feel absolutely at ease in a place where a lion is able to happily munch on
a lamb? How is that "Good"? Yet, according to Ford's argument, it seems like this sort
of thing might actually have to be a "necessary evil" in order for the current order of
things to continue . . . otherwise, "the sea would soon be solid fish" or the land solid
masses of lions, tiger, and bears . . . oh my!
I think Desmond Ford mistakes the current "order of things" for the way they have to be
or were intended to be. The sea would not be a solid mass of fish given a limited need
for reproduction given a complete lack of a need to replace the dead. The same
argument could be used for humans as well. Without death, even relatively slow human
reproductive rates would fill the planet to overflowing in very short order. Think about it.
Things will hopefully be very different than they are now in the New Earth - for humans
as well as all other sentient creatures in God's universe.
But what about the argument that when Adam ate the fruit of the garden, the fruit lost its
life? Therefore, there obviously is death - even in the New Earth and in Heaven as well!
I agree, but no one cares about the death of non-sentient things that are not self aware.
Plants, bacteria, and the like, while arguably alive, are essentially biosystem robots that
help maintain the place. They have no apparent sense of self and cannot experience
suffering or pain in any real sense of the word. That is why the diet of all sentient animal
life, to include human life, was originally limited to a plant-based diet. (Genesis 1:29,30).
This is also why Inspiration specifically points out that modern meat eaters, like the
ferocious lion, will no longer eat meat in the New Earth, but will "eat straw like an ox"
(Isaiah 65:25). What is the point of such a promise if it were not a painful aberrancy in
God's universe to have sentient creatures eating and being eaten by other sentient
creatures? - the Law of Tooth and Claw?
Now, I have had very intelligent people tell me that if a lion became vegetarian that it
would not longer really be a "lion". Well, I guess that all depends on how one defines
what it means to be a "lion". Certainly the current nature and dietary requirements of a
lion will not be the same in the New Earth - according to Inspiration. The old lion "order"
will no longer exist - that's true. That sort of lion will indeed be extinct. But will anyone
wish to trade the new vege lion for the old meat-eater version? Not me!
"He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or
mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
(Rev. 21:4)
- Desmond Ford, The Genesis Debate
- http://www.adventistreform.com/TheGenesisDebate.html