As I’ve explained to you before, the evidence that is

Comment on Scientists and the Temptation to Bias Results by Sean Pitman.

As I’ve explained to you before, the evidence that is actually in hand does not really suppose the “eolian” origin of any of the layers within the Grand Canyon. The Coconino sandstone, for example, shows many features that are much more consistent with deposition by water.

As far as the “substance of the Earth”, I’m fine with it, as well as the universe itself, pre-existing “creation week”. It is just that the basic material of the Earth doesn’t include fossils – which are contained within sedimentary rock. This sedimentary rock is much more reasonably explained by a recent catastrophic model of origins that is very much in line with the Biblical description of a Noachian Flood. Also, as mentioned before the C12 levels before this Flood would have been much much higher in the biosphere than they are today (which would make pre-Flood organisms appear to have much older radiocarbon ages compared to their true ages).

As far as God’s creation, He obviously uses both miraculous power as well as natural processes. In fact, generally speaking, God tends to favor using natural processes most of the time. Only occasionally does He step in an directly manipulate things beyond the natural laws that He originally created. Because of this, there is absolutely no problem believing in a universe that pre-existed the creation week for this planet – which is very much in line with the claims of the Bible and of Ellen White. Yet, you write:

Gap theorist to me are neither fish nor fowl. They are stuck between acknowledging old ages for some of the creation because of the science and incredibility of all geology being recent but affirming a recent creation of life and sustaining it all by a slippery biblical literalism that is not faithful to the Fundamentals.

Not true. Young-life Creationism is quite faithful to Biblical fundamentals since the Bible itself claims that the universe pre-existed the creation week of this particular planet. Also, it is quite possible that the basic material of the Earth pre-existed creation week. There is nothing anti-Biblical about that concept. The Bible is, however, quite clear that life on this planet is very young. And, this claim is consistent with both the geologic and fossil records which consistently show features of recent and rapid deposition. The various radiometric dating methods that suggest otherwise are often inconsistent with themselves and are based on too many untestable assumptions of closed systems and the like…

I accept a God of process as the best explanation which does involve accepting standard chronologies.

That’s not entirely true. Even you have cited evidence for the miraculous actions of God behind the fundamental constants of the universe and other such features of God’s existence that are, in your own words, miraculous. So, even you recognize that not everything can be explained by an appeal to natural “process”. The only difference between me and you is that I see that God performs more obvious miracles than you do…

Having done so I have to say I was a little skeptical of Mary Schweitzers original observations on fossils. That she has now presented her data in the only place that counts the peer reviewed scientific literature I think it is likely she is right. But I accept her observations but interpret it like she does as indicating preservation over much longer times than previously understood.

Which is itself a conclusion that flies in the face of the weight of scientific evidence that is currently in hand regarding the kinetics of the decay of soft tissues, proteins, and DNA. Also, there is very good evidence, so far, for the existence of non-contaminant C14 in these dinosaur soft tissues. This, together with the catastrophic evidence for the formation of the geologic column strongly favors the young-life position – not the mainstream secular position on the origin of life on this planet.

Finally, as far as Kurt Wise is concerned, I’m not a fan of his fideistic faith – as you well know. For me, it is more honest to go were one thinks the evidence itself is actually leading. I think that is what God Himself would prefer we do.

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Scientists and the Temptation to Bias Results
Oh please. There’s lots of evidence to support the catastrophic concept of the formation of the layers surrounding the Grand Canyon. At least 30% of the Grand Canyon layers are thought to be turbidites and up to 50% of the world’s sedimentary rocks are thought to be turbidites. Turbidites can flow hundreds of kilometers – even over very shallow gradients (1:1000). The “stacked forests” in Yellowstone were also buried by turbiditic mud flows coming from different directions over a short period of time. And turbiditic flows can form very very fast – and thick. One turbiditic flow traveling at up to 100 km/h broke 12 underwater telegraph cables as it stretched from the coast of Grand Banks, Nova Scotia to Europe (1929). These cables were miles apart and snapped in succession one after another as the turbidite spread its layer across the ocean floor. The layer it laid down was hundreds of meters thick.

As far as impact craters are concerned, I’m not sure what you’re asking for? These objects are found throughout the geologic column, even in Precambrian layers. Dozens of impact craters have been found from the pre-Cambrian to Pleistocene throughout almost every layer of the geologic column. The problem for uniformitarian thinking, of course, is that there simply aren’t the numbers of meter impacts that would be expected if the geologic column were truly as old as neo-Darwinists claim. It seems like these meteorites are more difficult to find than expected if the geologic column does indeed represent hundreds of millions of years of elapsed time. The current rate of meteor impact over the entire globe (for meteorites greater than 100g in size) is about 14 per 10 km^2 per year. That’s 1,400 million meteorites per 100 million years (i.e., 140 million kilograms or about 280 million pounds) per 10 km^2. You’d think then that they’d be a bit more common. But, they’re not.

For example, looking at the layers in the Grand Canyon in particular, according to mainstream geology, it would take an average of 100 million years to deposit about 100 feet (~30 meters) of sediment. Sandstone weighs about 2,323 Kg/m^3. There are 3 billion cubic meters in a 30 meter layer of sediment covering 10 km^2. That’s a total weight of almost 7 trillion Kg. Of this, 140 million Kg should be made up of meteoric material ( 0.002%). Another way to look at the same problem is that there should be enough meteoric material to make up about 60,000 cubic meters of sediment in 100 million years (0.002%).

Now, this might not seem like a significant percentage, but it is quite significant given that only a handful of meteoric rock fragments have ever been found in the layers of the geologic column. There should be literally tons of them. Yet, geologist Davis Young (1988, p.127) writes that, “The chances of finding a fossil meteorite in sedimentary rocks are remote. It is not to be expected.” G. J. McCall, in Meteorites and Their Origins (1973, p.270), said, “The lack of fossil record of true meteorites is puzzling, but can be explained by the lack of very diagnostic shapes and the chemical nature of meteorites, which allows rapid decay…”

It seems that rapid decay would have to be very rapid indeed – especially since far more delicate fossils are discovered far more commonly than are meteorites within the geologic column and fossil record.

As far as being responsible for the Noachian Flood, it wouldn’t take much. A few moderately sized meteors is all it would take to significantly shake up this planet, break up the thin crust, and cause worldwide flooding of Noachian proportions.

Scientists and the Temptation to Bias Results
That’s what I think too…

Scientists and the Temptation to Bias Results
Repeated waves of sediment could be carried by tidal actions as well as massive repetitive tsunami-type waves which traversed the entire globe over and over again. Each one of these sediment-baring waves would have laid down another layer quite rapidly – and from different directions given that multiple separate impact events took place during this time (accounting for the different types of sedimentary layers coming from different regions of the globe). This also means that there would have been periods of time when the freshly-deposited sedimentary layers would have been exposed to air (allowing for raindrops, dinosaur eggs that were very hastily laid, sometimes on multiple layers within the same hatch of eggs, and the like to be finely preserved). As the next wave started to return to such an area, the water level would have gradually risen at first, filling in these delicate trace fossils without destroying them. Also, underwater turbiditic flows of sediment are known to be able to cover and preserve fine details along the surface of the underlying soft sedimentary layer.

These concepts are not nearly as far fetched as trying to explain the Coconino as a long-standing desert environment – where the creatures only walked uphill all the time and where no traces of plant material existed… etc.