In my original post I had suggested that records of ash falls were "created"
for the purpose of helping us to predict future volcanic eruptions. This
record was given to as a series of ash layers separated by layers of other
sediments and we use our knowledge of sedimentation rates, pollen profiles
and various dating methods (radioactive, fission-track, bioluminescence) to
determine the time intervals between ash falls. Many of these records of
ash fall are in places like Washington state, Wyoming, France (my Praclaux
crater example).
The standard creation science explanation would have these "records" be the
result of catastrophic rapid deposition and multiple volcanic eruptions in
only a couple of years. If this is the case (and I don't think any of the
evidence warrants that it is) then the this record of ash falls is worthless
to us as a predictor of the future. What can I possibly hope to learn from
reading this geological record. I would simply be studying something that
one would not expect to have any practical application to today's processes
and events. It would be like trying to study the events at the Wedding
feast (water into wine) and hoping to extract some sort of knowledge of
wine making from it. This is the reason I think that the whole scientific
creationist's (SC after this I am tired of typing it out) effort is reduced
to nothing but trying to prove the existence of a global flood. What has
this to do with how we use science, and how we take dominion over our
environment.
Problem: Most of these "records" I am talking about are in the upper
layers of rock and sediments that one would think must be the result of the
flood. Two possible resolutions: 1) God created these layers, including
datable rocks and organic material in situ during the flood though not by
anything approaching natural means. or 2) The flood didn't seriously alter
the landscape and so nearly all the layers of rock and sediments we observe
are from the original Creation.
I suggest #2 in my hypothesis because I don't see warrant for God's having
created with the appearance of age during the flood, but that may just be
me.
Another example: Hawaiian Islands
The active volcanoes on the island chain are at the tip of the eastern most
island. In fact a new island is forming about five miles off the coast, it
is over 18000 feet high (above the ocean floor) and at its present rate will
appear above the ocean 50,000 years from now. Just a couple of months ago a
large portion of the side of this underwater mountain slid down causing over
a 1000 foot drop in the peak of the mountain. Radar images of the bottom of
the ocean show that this has probably happened over 10 times (massive slumps
are visible surrounding the base of the mountain) in the development of just
this
one mountain. All the islands show signs of hundreds and hundreds of slumps
on their sides just like the active one today. Lava exhibits particular
characteristics depending on how it fast it cools, if it was exuded under
water or on land, how fast it came out etc.. An examination of the Hawaiian
Islands shows that all the lava that makes up all the islands
is roughly the same composition and type indicating
that it was all produced in a similar manner (similar to how it is produced
right now). Obviously at the present rate in which lava is extruded or even
if we assume continuous actively night and day everyday, it would take 100s of
thousands of years to produce. In
addition many of the islands (as you go west each island gets older, this
isn't just from radioactive dating but was widely held long before
radioactive dating because each island is obviously more and more worn/eroded.
Even more apparent what about the 18,000 foot mountain rising right now was
it 14,142 feet and 2 inches of it created in the Creation week and then
just been adding on since?
Continuing with the same area, the theory is that there are hot spots in the
earth's crust and at such a hot spot magna wells up and can shoot out. As
the plate that the Hawaiian islands is on passes over this hot spot the
volcano shoots up and eventually an island is formed and grows. Then as the
plate moves on the island moves away from the hot spot and the volcano shuts
off. The island then ceases to grow but rather starts to shrink due to
erosion. There is a whole chain of islands that have been formed and then
moved on and if you go up the chain you find a group of sea mounts of eroded
islands. The plate is moving we know at about 9 cms a year (from satellite
measurements now) and so the furthest island would be about 5 million years
old (assuming constant speed) and the most distant sea mounts 70 million
years old. Above I pointed out that a new island (underwater still) is
forming to the east of the tip of the "youngest" island. Assuming that the
islands are moving away from the west coast at 9cms a year for 6000 years
this would mean that only Mt. Kilauea and the tops of some of the other
volcanoes on that end of the island were produced after the creation. One
can be walking over lava at one moment that was extruded from a volcano and
solidified and the next moment might be walking on lava created by
extraordinary means and might not have been melted rock at all.
If I read Mr. Jordan correct he might say that the volcanoes were created on
the third day when the land and sea were organized very "fast." This might
entail an actual "process" whereby the volcanic islands were created very
quickly. Nevertheless, they were still created with the appearance that
they were created slowly (i.e. with the appearance of age). This can be
derived from the presence of the hundreds of slumps (which can be dated to
different ages and which I read somewhere that the ocean drilling project
has drilled through and found limestone - fossiliferous rock - below!), the
fact that each island is dated to different ages, the appearance that the
lava was extruded above ground at a particular rate (much faster rates would
not have resulted in the type of lava formations seen). So even if they
were created quickly they must have been given the appearance of being
created slowly. Now within the framework of my hypothesis this isn't
necessarily a problem because again he has given us a history of the island
chain for a reason, though I might not understand fully, at present, what that
reason is.
Several people I know do accept this hypothesis that the Hawaiian volcanoes
were created during the creation week with the appearance of age just as the
moon, light, and stars. One problem though: WHAT ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF THE
FLOOD?
When I ask this question it comes as a complete stumper to those who haven't
thought about it. If the Flood was this great world transforming event, why
is it then that the Hawaiian Islands, part of the original creation, appear
undisturbed by the Flood. There are no Flood deposits on the Islands and
more importantly, there are not Flood deposits covering the huge slumps of
lava on the ocean floor (there is some sediment covering the slumps that
goes from nothing over the newest slump to small amounts over the other
slumps of the newsest mountain to more and more sediment covering the
slumps as you get farther and farther from the active island - Gee I wonder
what that could mean!). This is the reason I am sure the SC's like
Baumgardner attempt to explain nearly all volcanic deposits as post (or
during) flood.
The other explanation would be to say that the Hawaiian Islands were formed
post-flood by extraordinary means and were given the APPEARANCE of age in
the same way that appearance of age was built into the original creation:
This is the concept that I am balking at. I don't have that big of a
problem with God creating with the appearance of age in the creation week
but it seems a different thing to be creating the appearance of age in
things he created during the year of the Flood. You can also see why in my
hypothesis I am suggesting that the Flood had little effect (even if it was
global) on the physical topology of the earth. In this way we can posit all
the geological features as parts of God's original creation and the
appearance of history in them as tools for us in the present for future
dominion.
To the two or three or more (hopefully) of you that are still following this
long winded post:
Here is a brief summary of the proposed hypothesis:
1) God created the universe/world with the appearance of age
a) this includes starlight in transit, daughter elements of radioactive
elements in the rocks in their particular ratios, nearly, if not all,
geological strata (eg. Grand Canyon).
b) nearly, if not all, fossils were created in the rock and do not
represent formerly living things (see my response to Mr. Jordan's post for
more on this)
2) The Flood was global but had little effect on the actual surface of the
earth. God caused the water to come on the earth and took it away.
Essentially I am proposing a completely miraculous event, part of which is
the lack of disturbance it caused aside from the destruction of the people
and animals with breath.
Some of the result of this hypothesis ought to be obvious:
By hypothesizing that all of the strata and fossils are the result of
God's creative work we can use the record of that work to understand our
world and apply those principles to future practices. If what we see in the
geological record were explainable by natural processes by a global flood as
many SCs suggest then the usefulness of this record is virtually lost. At
the same time if my hypothesis is correct it should be obvious that one
result would be that the work of the SCs is just an attempt to fit some
square data into a round hole - a round hole based on erroneous
presuppositions.
North, in "Is the World Running Down" (pg. xv) states in a footnote that:
"If six-day creationism (JD: read - flood geology) could be used to locate
oil and mineral deposits less expensively than the methodology of
evolutionism does, we would begin to see the abandonment of evolutionism,
and also see last ditch efforts of university evolutionists to explain the
creationist's success in terms of some other evolutionists theory. What we
need is for evolutionism to start drilling more dry holes than we do. If
nothing else, we could at least afford to fund a lot more creationist
research projects."
Exactly! And I say that flood geology has very little promise in terms of
providing a cohesive theory that has any predictive value. Either the
flood was miraculous and so no scientific theory can encompasse it anyway,
or if it was primarily a "natural" event it is some thing that is without
precedent and its effects don't help us understand today's or tomorrow's
happenings (thus no need to waste money on this research!). I must say I
am somewhat perplexed by North's position on scientific creationism given
he does an excellent job of criticizing many of their theological positions
and their methodology. He very effectively attacks one of the central
positions of the scientific creationists: "that the impostion of the second
low of thermodynamics were God's irrevocable curse on Adam." In the end he
is very skeptical of their reaoning and yet he consistently states his
acceptance of their conclusions: "Certainly my own thought has been shaped
by Scientific Creationism's conclusions regarding the inapplicability of
Darwin's hypothesis to to the earth's geological record. I read and
generally accepted _The Genesis Flood_ in 1963."
In short, what I was really asking for in my original post was a Biblical
argument for believing in appearance of age being introduced into the
events of the Flood year rather than the orginal Creation. If not then I
see great inconsistences in peoples arguments. It strikes me that many use
it to extract themselves from difficult positions but have not sat down to
think through the more far reaching effects of such explanations.
Sincerely,
Joel Duff
**T**E**N**N**E**S**S**E**E**V**O**L**U**N**T**E**E**R**S**
,-~~-.___.
Joel and Dawn Duff / | ' \ Spell Check?
Carbondale IL 62901 ( ) 0
e-mail: duff@siu.edu \_/-, ,----'
or virkotto@intrnet.net ==== //
or nickrent-lab@siu.edu / \-'~; /~~~(O)
* * * * * * / __/~| / | * * *
\\\/// \\\/// =( _____| (_________| \\\///
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/_/_/ homepage: http://www.intrnet.net/~virkotto _/_/_/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/