Creation Science Reviews

    In providing answers to feedback submitters, the purpose of Creation Ministries International is to provide a thorough rebuttal to an old earth idea (or atheistic idea), so that their own young earth believers will be edified and emotionally pumped up.  Before Answers in Genesis split into two organizations earlier this year, their main feedback reviewer was Jonathan Sarfati, who was ruthless in his treatment of feedback submitters.  We see him continuing his lack of respect for people in this article.  He is aided in this article by a geologist, Tas Walker.

     In this case, it is not entirely unexpected, given the negative attitude of the feedback submitter.  However, the submitter brings up some valid points.

     The first issue deals with the amount of time it takes for a fossil to form.  We all agree that fossils can form quickly, and this is recognized by most geologists.  However, it would be misleading to say that ALL fossils form quickly.  Clearly, many take thousands of years, if not longer, for the process to be completed.  In some cases, such as the T-Rex with soft tissue from last year, fossilization is not complete, even after 67 million years. 

     Sarfati/Walker say all we have to do is look at the text books, encyclopedias, and websites to find many examples of the millions of years claim for the formation of fossils.  I agree in part with these sources, as some fossils do take this long.  The textbooks, if they have not already done so, also need to make the point that in certain circumstances, some fossils can form quickly.

     The feedback submitter makes an excellent observation, in saying the rocks which contain the fossils do take millions of years to weather, erode, get deposited, and lithify.  Of course, Tas and Jon take issue with this claim, saying "Contrary to our cultural conditioning, under appropriate conditions, all these can happen quickly."  All of us geologists agree with this statement, but it is just like the previous claim with the fossils.  It can happen quickly, but MOST do not.  In referring to examples of quick deposition, the creation scientist is pointing to a handful of observations to prove his point.  However, in doing so, he is ignoring the mountain of evidence behind him.  The data still clearly favors slow deposition in most cases.

     One example that the authors give to prove their point is Mount Saint Helens, and the pyroclastic flow from this volcanic event.  We all agree, this was deposited quickly.  However, the rock layers of the earth are not all pyroclastic flows.  If they were, they would have a good argument for rapid deposition of all the earth's rocks.  Over 99 percent (probably over 99.9 percent) of all the earth's rocks are not pyroclastic flows.

     Next, the authors try to rebut the lithification argument.  Walker and Sarfati point to the Petrified Flour argument (click here for more).  They also point to rapid cooling of Granite.  The flour argument is faulty, and the granite argument is one of opinion, as nobody has observed the process.  The cooling of granitic batholiths is estimated via computer simulations.  In addition, the young earth argument is based on rapid cooling of the granite from water.  But a large body of granite is not addressed by the article they reference.  They say the picture of large blobs of magma are incorrect, but that the granite is squeezed through fractures. 

     Half Dome, the large granite body in Yosemite National Park, is one of these granite "blobs."  That must be one huge crack that the granite that formed Half Dome squeezed through! 

     In the referenced article, they say all granite bodies are full of cracks.  True, but this does not help them.  In order to cool a body such as Half Dome, the cracks would have to exist while the body is molten.  Obviously, this is not possible.  The cracks therefore must have occurred AFTER the body cooled, not during the cooling!  Enough said about this silly claim.

     Next they use the faulty "concrete argument," saying that concrete shows that lithification can occur rapidly.  Concrete lithifies via a chemical reaction.  Most rocks do not.  This is comparing apples and oranges.

     Next, they use the folded strata argument, saying that some rocks are so brittle that they would break under any pressure.  This ignores the basic mechanics involved.  The argument makes a good sight-picture for their young earth believers, who accept their words without question, but it is not based on science.  For more, see Plastic Deformation.

     Concerning fludisation pipes, they present no problem, since the basic understanding of their formation is similar within both old and young earth interpretations.  Of course, it makes a good sight-picture for the young earth creationist.

     The next proposal is for massive erosion at Mount Saint Helens.  Again, if the entire world were a volcanic system, they may have an argument.  Geologists recognize, and accept that this type of rapid erosion can occur, and it fits well within a uniformitarian framework.

     Next they say that even secular geologists recognize the role of catastrophic floods in the geologic record...no problem with that.  They go right into some Carbon-14 dating problems...the supposed Triassic wood sample which contained detectable trace amounts of C-14, and C-14 in Coal.  None of these provide any solid proof for a young earth however.  The Triassic wood is particularly susceptible...even the young earth scientist examining it could not be certain it was wood, and the laboratory dating the sample said it was an iron concretion.  It also presents other problems.  Click here for more.  As for coal, this article dispels this young earth myth.

     Next they use an argument that I have beat to death many times, the Coconino Sandstone.  For this issue, see Coconino Sandstone.

     The Baumgardner/Barnette study is an excellent study of what would happen in a globe full of water...therefore, there must not have been a globe full of water!  Instead, a local flood for Noah is a perfect fit with the evidence, evidence that was provided by young earth creationists!

     The next to last point has to do with salt.  This short article, with a link, will answer this young earth claim.

     Finally, the last issue is erosion.  Young earth creationists claim that at present rates of erosion, the land masses would have all eroded away.  For a discussion of this claim, see Eroding Continents.

     One more issue bears comment.  The feedback submitter says they should do some actual research in scientific journals, rather than quoting their own journals.  As expected, Sarfati/Walker claim that their Journal of Creation is a scientific journal.  However, it fails the peer-review test.  It is only reviewed by other creation scientists who already agree that the earth is young.  They also claim that their scientists do publish works in secular journals.  How do they do this?  Let's look at a famous young earth geologist, Andrew Snelling, who works for the Institute for Creation Research.  How does he get published?  He claims the rocks are millions of years old!  If he knows they are not, then he is lying, thus his integrity must be questioned (see this article for proof).

    Still others mislead, or simply omit the dates, such as creationist Leonard Brand in this article.

Conclusion

     Most of the points brought up by this student of geology prove to be the undoing of the young earth theory.  None of the rebuttals provided by Dr. Sarfati and Dr. Walker give valid reasons for doubting the old age of the earth.  Thus, two doctorate-level creation scientists do not even equal one geology student!   

¹  Feedback for 24 March 06, by Jonathan Sarfati/Tas Walker, published at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3658/

   Want to learn more about creation science?  Are the claims of young earth creation science ministries truthful?  Visit the young earth creation science ministry rebuttal home page for more truth in creation science.