I want to discuss a number of different features in the rock record that tell about the time over which they formed and the processes involved. In order to understand what they mean, it is important to understand what how various YEC flood geology experts interpret them. To get there, you need to understand what a stratigraphic column really is.
Part of the bachelor training in geology is a six-week summer field camp. It is a great experience in taking the classroom learning out into the field and try to put the theories into practice with real rock exposures. I went to Silver City, New Mexico for camp and it was a great experience. The first exercise was to use a meter stick to measure and describe the rock while climbing up a particular mountain where all of the rocks in the area were all found in an undisturbed order. This did two things. First, this gave us experience in measuring and describing a column of rocks. The second was that it gave us a stratigraphic column. We recorded the rock formations, and geologic ages and this provided a reference that we used again and again. When I measured and described the rocks up the mountain, it was not difficult to figure out which rocks were oldest. The oldest were on the bottom, getting young and younger to the top. I could not demonstrate at that location how many years it took the rocks to form, but the order that they formed was very clear. Studying columns such as this has allowed geologists to characterize rock formations around the world in terms of an order in which they were formed. Geologic columns show the relative age of the rock regardless of how many years were involved. As shown on the geologic stratigraphic column on my Age of the Earth page (https://jesusinhistoryandscience.com/?page_id=668), the rocks are described in terms of the different epochs, periods and eras during which they were formed, regardless of the time involved or the processes involved.
Modern “flood geology” (FG) traces its roots to the Seventh Day Adventist, George McGready Price (1870–1963). Price taught himself his own version of geology. Some of his arguments are still heard today though many are now recognized as undefendable even by YEC proponents. Price thought that the geologic column or the geologic scale was just a construct formed to build a case for evolution. Price ignored the fact that geologists were using the geologic stratigraphic column long before Darwin proposed evolution. Here are two quotes from Price’s 1913 book, “The Fundamentals of Geology and Bearings on the Doctrine of a Literal Creation” that give a flavor for his views:
“Huxley acknowledges that geology can prove nothing more than local order of succession; that when we come to deal with Large areas, -there is “not a shadow of proof” for saying that one type of rock in England was or was not formed at the same time as other rocks in America or Africa; and that all the paleontological notions about the general succession of life on the globe are “not proven and not provable.”
“From all this discussion it follows that the geological ages of successive types of life are not scientifically established, and have no scientific value. Hence the Cambrian fossils, for example, cannot be proved to be intrinsically older than the Carboniferous, the Cretaceous, or the Tertiary; in short, no one kind, of fossil, can be proven to be really older than another, or than the human race.”
Price’s influence was evident on John Whitcomb and Henry Morris in their 1961 classic book, “The Genesis Flood”. They too rejected the overall global column. Today more creationist have spent time looking at rocks and had geologic training. Most younger authors accept the stratigraphic succession, even if they reject the dates associated today with these ages. Here two quotes as examples:
Order of the fossils. One of the areas of contention between George McCready Price and Harold Clark concerned the sequence of rocks and fossils (often summarised in textbooks as “the geological column”). Price argued that this sequence was an artificial construct based on the assumption of evolution. But Clark was persuaded that there really was a consistent sequence, and sought to explain the order of the fossils as the order in which different ecosystems were inundated and buried during the flood. Whitcomb and Morris questioned whether the order of the fossils was as consistent as most geologists had assumed, but appealed to the ecological zones of the pre-flood world as one explanation of any order that did exist. Today there is still debate within creationism about these matters, although it is probably fair to say that most of the creationist geologists with field experience have sided with Clark. (Garner 2011)
“Foremost among these is the implication that just as the order of physical rock units throughout the whole geologic column is real, then so also is the sequence of different fossils and fossil assemblages found in the rock units of which the geologic column is comprised” (Snelling 2009).
FG interpreters who have taken the time to study the order of rock strata and how stratigraphic columns are developed repeatedly come to the conclusion that the order is valid. It was easier earlier to just throw out the inconvenient geologic data, but the case for doing so just didn’t hold up.
If FG is true, then the geologic understanding of the order of rocks should just be showing the FG column tab in a different way. The periods and eras of the geologic column must correspond to parts of the YEC stratigraphic column on the other tab. By the way, you should notice that in this figure, all of the rock units on the geologic stratigraphic units are given the same thickness. The vertical axis is just the stacking order of the different rock units that are recognized in the order we find them in nature. Geologist’s absolute ages are based on radiometric dating. I chose to not use scale the geologic units in years to highlight that the column is really based just on the order the rocks were deposited in, regardless of how many years that took.
On the left is the YEC creation model for stratigraphy. It is scaled to 6000 years, a common model for the absolute age of the earth. Most would agree that earth is less than 12,000 years old. To a geologist that difference is insignificant. On the right is the geologic stratigraphic column. Both flood geologists and conventional geologists recognize that sediment has been laid down in the order of this column.
If both the YEC stratigraphy and the geologic stratigraphy are both true, then they must correlate. A few things should help, providing anchors. The most dramatic event in geologic history according the YEC is the global flood, unit 3. Surely it must be recognizable. Recent deposits since the time of Abraham are recognizable as well, at least in general terms. Many YEC believe that the earth was created looking mature. That means early rock in this model might look as if they are old, but that would just be an appearance. However, no one suggests that rocks were created with fossils in them. Fossils should come in deposits after creation. As shown in this figure, all of the rock between creation and recent deposits should be part of units 2, 3, and 4 in the FG model. Lines from the top of interval 1 show two options. The lower line shows the earliest algal life, while the upper shows the top of complex animal life. Some YEC believe that rock could have been created with fossils from plant life, though this seems inconsistent.
The FG model proposes that the Genesis flood was a global cataclysmic event that resulted in most of the rock record that we see across the whole planet. It should be reflected by cataclysmic processes that acted over the course of 1 year. Genesis is really specific about the duration. Afterward, within a short period, the planet should have stabilized as evidenced by Noah’s activities. Some suggest that this may have taken a few years, but beyond that normal processes such as we have today should have been the rule. We should be looking for an interval with dramatic chaotic processes overlain by layers of normal processes. I would think that such a flood deposit should be really easy to pick out. Apparently not. Apparently both the top and base are not so distinct. The figure below shows some of the published interpretations.
Compilation of correlations reported by YEC papers and the geologic column. Some authors do not recognize the validity of the column at all. Whitcomb and Morris, 1961 do make general statements
that make it clear that they consider most of the Tertiary section to be the direct result of the Genesis flood. Some, such as Huse 1983 and Sherwin and Thomas break out early, mid and late flood deposits (E, M, L above).
The figure starts with Whitcomb and Morris, “The Genesis Flood” from 1961. Of course, they really didn’t accept the geologic periods, but I have taken the range in age for the units that they name as flood deposits. Each author has their own logic, but the differences show some of the problems with the models. For instance, geologists Carl Froede and John Reed tried to apply the YE models to the northern Gulf of Mexico and also predictably found that they wouldn’t work. They also don’t accept the standard stratigraphic column which they refer to as “global uniformitarian stratigraphic column” (GUC)and can’t reconcile it with predictions from creationists. In their paper “Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico”, they solve this by essentially proposing to throw out the stratigraphic column and somehow making high-energy deposits to have been directly from the flood and low-energy deposits to be considered post-Flood. The authors are one of the few examples of YEC authors recognizing the scale of the problem represented by the thick rock record along the Gulf Coast. The article does not have examples of how they would be apply this concept to the actual stratigraphy of the Gulf of Mexico, but presumably they would somehow separate the coarser grained, higher energy deltaic and beach deposits from the more distal slope deposits. It is however not difficult to show numerous seismic examples that demonstrate the time equivalence of the deepwater deposits with the deltaic and beach units.
Summary
Modern FG, when it is described by someone who has tried to actually examine the rock record accepts the geologic stratigraphic column as real. Their model then demands trying to fit their interpretation of creation, Noah’s flood and its aftermath into that stratigraphic column. This has proved to be very difficult. There have been almost as many declarations of various outcrops to be certifiable flood deposits as there have been predictions of Jesus’ eminent return. As with the Return, the definition of flood deposits has proven to be elusive. Jesus will return one day, but it not nearly so certain that anyone will succeed in showing persuasively what rocks represent the global flood deposits. Nevertheless, the last figure will be helpful when we consider what FG predicts about the geology of our planet.
BTW, more information on this in my book, “A Texas-Sized Challenge to Young Earth Creation and Flood Geology”.
Bibliography
Austin, SA, Baumgardner, J. R., Humphreys, D. R., Snelling, A. A., Vardiman, L., and Wise, K. P. 1994. “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History.” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (pp. 1–12). Pittsburg: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.
Froede, C. J., and Reed, J. 1999. “Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico.” Retrieved April 24, 2013, from The True Origin Archive: http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp
Garner, P. 1996. “Where Is the Flood/post-Flood Boundary? Implications of Dinosaur Nests in the Mesozoic.” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 101–106. Retrieved from https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_1/j10_1_101-106.pdf
———2011. “The Genesis Flood” 50 Years On”. Retrieved 03 09, 2013, from the Biblical Creation Society: http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/Garner_The_Genesis_Flood_50_Years_On.pdf
Huse, S. 1983. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.
Oard, M. 2007. “Defining the Flood/post-Flood Boundary in Sedimentary Rocks.” Journal of Creation. Retrieved from Creation.com: https://creation.com/defining-the-flood-post-floodboundary-in-sedimentary-rocks
———. 2010. “Is the K/T the Post-Flood boundary?—part 1: introduction and the scale of sedimentary rocks.” Retrieved from Creation.com: https://creation.com/kt-boundary-flood-1
———. 2010. “The geological column is a general Flood order with many exceptions.” Journal of Creation 78–82.
———. 2013. “Geology indicates the terrestrial Flood/post-Flood boundary is mostly in the Late Cenozoic.” Journal of Creation 119–127. Retrieved from https://creation.com/late-cenozoic-flood-boundary
Price, G. 1913. The Fundamentals of Geology and Bearings on the Doctrine of a Literal Creation. Pacific Press Publishing.
Scheven, J. 1990. “The Geological Record of Biblical Earth History.” Origins, Journal of the Creation Research Society pp. 8–13.
Sherwin, F., and Thomas, B. 2010. Understanding Evidence for the Biblical. Retrieved from Institute for Creation Research: http://www.icr.org/article/understanding-evidence-for-biblical/
Snelling, A. 2009. Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 1 and 2. Dallas: Institute for Creation Research. Walker 2014
Whitcomb, J., and Morris, H. 1961. The Genesis Flood. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
Recent Comments