Does Flood Geology explain the rocks in the Grand Canyon?

by | Aug 16, 2024 | Age of the Earth, Geology and the Flood, Jesus and Science

Select as Link to File on Peaceful Science Website

Modern geology interprets the Cambrian rocks from near the base of the Grand Canyon to have been deposited over 500 MYA and to have been deformed slowly over millions of years.  Can the Cambrian aged Tonto Group be interpreted to fit within a young earth creation (YEC) flood geology (FG) model?  YEC geologist, Dr. Andrew Snelling with Answers in Genesis (AIG) challenges the modern geologic interpretations.  Dr. Snelling has been using the folded Tapeats Sandstone in the Carbon Canyon fold as an example of a fold that was folded quickly while the sands were still soft (unlithified).  He proposed that this as one of his “10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth”. (Snelling 2012)  It was Number 2.

After a court battle, Snelling was allowed to collect and study 53 rocks from the Cambrian aged Tonto Group. (Snelling, Andrew A. 2021)  He has since written 6 articles and almost 850 pages in the AIG publication, Answers Research Journal, describing how these rocks confirm his model.  The articles include a lot of repetition and references, but this is still an impressive effort.

To be clear, YEC, including Andrew Snelling, believe that the Earth is a few thousand years old and that most of the geologic record was deposited during Noah’s flood because of their particular interpretation of Genesis.  It might be difficult to get all Christians to agree on how this part of the Bible should be interpreted. Importantly, Snelling, as with most of the leading YEC authors are definitive in claiming that the scientific data from nature support their age model. Snelling is indicating that the interpretation of the Bible and the interpretation of nature and science should agree. Here we certainly agree. Data from the natural realm should agree with scripture because the natural realm is actually God’s work as well.  This is not to say that scripture is providing detailed science, but based on Romans 1, God reveals himself in nature.  The proposals of a young Earth and his flood model can be tested. We make the case that thus far Snelling is unable to demonstrate that the data from the Grand Canyon can be interpreted in a YEC timeframe or that the rocks were formed rapidly by processes that might have occurred during a global catastrophic flood.

My co-author, Dr. Kennen Tillman and I have written a three-part series in response: “Examining Young Earth Creation Claims for Tonto Group, Cambrian, Colorado Plateau”. Click on the Titles above for the separate articles in our series. The series deals in most detail with three of Snelling’s articles:

Snelling, Andrew. “The Petrology of the Tapeats Sandstone, Tonto Group, Grand Canyon, Arizona.” Answers Research Journal 14 (2021): 159–254.

Snelling, Andrew. “The Petrology of the Bright Angel Formation, Tonto Group, Grand Canyon, Arizona.” Answers Research Journal 14 (2021): 303–415.

Snelling, Andrew. “The Petrology of the Muav Formation, Tonto Group, Grand Canyon, Arizona.” Answers Research Journal 15 (2022): 139–262.

 

Other Related Posts:

Should Young Earth Creation be promoted?      An analogy from Oil Exploration

Dr. Snelling must answer some basic questions in order to make the case that these Cambrian aged rocks in the Grand Canyon can be explained by Noah’s flood and then by extension, most of the rocks in the geologic record also could be explained similarly.  

  1. How long did it take the unit to be deposited? Thousands to millions of years vs. a few days
  2. What depositional processes were dominantly involved? Fluvial, tidal and normal marine processes vs. catastrophic flood processes
  3. How were the rocks deformed? Slow tectonic processes over millions of years vs. rapid soft sediment deformation over days
  4. What is the general age model for when the rock was formed? ~500 million years ago vs. less than 10,000 years ago

    While the differences between these two models are drastic and one or the other should fail, it is worth pointing out that for this particular unit, much more is at stake for the flood geologist than for the proponents of old Earth explanations for the units. Every hill is a hill to die on for FG (Figure 1). If any of these questions ends up being answered in ways that don’t fit the model then Cambrian rocks could not have been part of any global flood deposits. Looking at the above areas of disagreement:

     

    Figure 1  A Hill to die on: Masada, Israel.

    1. If any or all of the units are demonstrated to have been deposited by orders of magnitude more quickly than typically proposed, that would be very interesting to geologists. It would no doubt lead to much discussion and many interesting articles. Even so, it would have little impact on the understanding of most other units, either in this area or in other areas. However, if deposition of this unit took place over even as long a period as one month, this would mean the unit was not part of deposits from Noah’s flood and it would challenge the Young Earth models. If it took years to be deposited, this would be irreconcilable with FG explanations. Every pause in sedimentation becomes a potential deal breaker for Snelling’s model (or ICR’s model.)
    2. If geologists were to recognize that any of the formations of the Tonto Group were deposited in some very different setting than generally accepted, with processes dominated by rapid moving water, it would be an interesting find that would certainly make them eager to re-evaluate some other units. However, again, it would say nothing about how most other units were formed. Many processes would be incompatible with FG models. For instance, thick alluvial fan deposits conceivably might have formed quickly, but not during a global flood because they would not have formed with rising flood waters. In this particular case, normal processes, whether fluvial, tidal or marine would eliminate this interval from the flood model and again challenge FG models in general.

    Other related posts:

    Ancient Reefs confirm Deep Time and sink Flood Geology

    1. If geologists were to be convinced that the folding in the formations took place as soft sediment deformation, that would make them re-examine how these folds developed, but soft sediment deformation is widely recognized in many settings. If, however, these rocks were folded as hardened rock, that would have demanded periods of time far longer than available in the YEC models. In articles such as the Top 10 Evidences article referenced above, Dr. Snelling used the catch phrase: “Bent, not Fractured”. As our article shows, this claim is misleading. The folds in the Tonto formations are all quite fractured.  The issue is when did these fractures develop.  Dr. Snelling must make a convincing case that the rocks were fractured after the rocks were folded. He needs to show when the rocks were lithified and the fractures developed.
    2. The timescale commonly accepted by geologists is based on radiometric dating. However, many years before radiometric dating was developed, geologists recognized that the rock record on Earth took far longer than 10,000 years to form. If the Tonto Group was somehow proven to be less than 10,000 years old, the conventional geologic model for rock formation would be proven very wrong. Smaller adjustments in age would not really be major changes. Young Earth models would essentially collapse if the Earth is significantly older than 10,000 years.

    Related Post:

    Tidal Clocks and Flood Geology

    Dr. Snelling makes many good geologic observations, particularly in the descriptions of the thin sections of the rocks he sampled.  He has referenced most of the important geologic literature on the Grand Canyon relating to the Tonto Group.  Does his data and the other data available demonstrate that his interpretation is legitimate?  In our response, we will point out many issues that are problematic for his explanation.  For FG to be valid, Cambrian around the world should also fit.  In fact, much more than the Cambrian must fit.  There are a lot of hills to die on.

     

    I also want to point out that while this series of articles demonstrates many potentially fatal flaws in the YEC timeline and models, these in no way impact the Christian faith or the validity of Genesis.  Several other options have been proposed that allow the books of Scripture and nature to be reconciled.  At this point, I don’t see a way forward for young Earth creation, but this is not salvation issue.  We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ as resurrected deity, not by how we interpret Noah’s flood or the geologic record.

     

     

    References cited:

    Snelling, Andrew A. 2012. “10 Best Evidences That Confirm a Young Earth.” Answers in Genesis. 2012. https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/10-best-evidences-young-earth/.

    Snelling, Andrew A. 2021. “The Fight for 53 Rocks.” Answers in Genesis. 2021. https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon/fight-53-rocks/.