Time Immortal

Andrew Lamb writes in with a response to this article.

Hi (Kenneth ?)

In your posting on the biblical Flood you briefly mentioned geological evidence.

The sedimentary strata of the world have features that are highly consistent with rapid deposition by a global Flood, but hard to reconcile with slow-and-gradual scenarios.

These features include deep cross-bedding, uneroded interfaces between strata, the regional and even continental extent of some strata, the presence of fossils (without deep rapid burial dead organsims are scavenged and decay), the roughness of the constituent grains in many sandstones, etc.

One especially telling feature is the tightly bent yet still parallel strata in many mountain ranges. This indicate that the thick layers of sediment were wet and soft at the time they were deformed.

Other geological evidences for a global Flood include the ubiquitous phenomena of ‘water gaps’ and ‘underfit rivers’.

For details on these are other geological evidences of the global Flood, see the articles listed under the topic “Geology” in the Frequently Asked Questions index on the Creation Ministries International website, at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/21.

Andrew Lamb

With apologies to both Andrew and Inigo Montoya, let me begin by saying: this evidence does not mean what you think it means. The plain fact is, while Andrew has furnished us with a wealth of evidence, he has ultimately furnished us with evidence that supports the conclusion that the Earth is old; it is only by twisting, misrepresenting, or misunderstanding the evidence presented that we can arrive at the conclusion that the Earth is young.

Let’s look at the different pieces of evidence provided, and see if they actually demonstrate what Andrew asserts that they do.

Extent of Strata

I’m not sure how the fact that some geological strata are very expansive is supposed to help the Young Earth position — if there were only one such layer, then that might be an argument for a flood deposition layer depending on the composition of it. Or, it might be an argument for, say, a fallout layer from a meteor impact long ago, again depending on the composition of it.

That more than one layer exists, however, and that these layers are often separated by other, more localized layers, actually argues against a global flood theory.

Fossils

The presence of fossils certainly doesn’t prove that the Earth is young. While it is more or less true that fossils can only form when creatures are rapidly and deeply buried, this hardly implies that a global flood is the cause of all or most fossils. Local mudslides would have a similar effect, as would other catastrophes in which large amounts of earth were suddenly shifted about. Many environmental catastrophes can set up the necessary conditions for fossilization.

What is more, other Young Earth arguments are imperiled by the argument Andrew makes above. If, for instance, the many dinosaur fossils we have discovered are the result of rapid sediment deposition during a global flood, then why do we not find human fossils in the same geological layers, apart from a handful of intances where a burial ceremony has resulted in a body being embedded, much later, in an ancient geological layer?

The fossil evidence argues — strongly — against the Young Earth position, and Young Earth fossil theories are often mutually contradictory.

Water Gaps

Water gaps are narrow openings or notches in mountain ranges through which a river once flowed.

A water gap is usually an indication of a river that is older than the current topography. The river likely established its course when the landform was at a low elevation, with a very low stream gradient and a thick layer of unconsolidated sediment. The river therefore established its channel without regard for the deeper layers of rock.

A renewed period of uplift caused increased erosion, removal of the overlying sediments and exposure of the underlying rock layers. Rejuvenated drainage caused streams to follow weaker layers of rock, but larger watercourses, as long as the uplift did not exceed the rate of erosion, were able to cut through the harder rocks which generally became ridges. Water gaps are common in the Ridge-and-valley Appalachians of eastern North America.

Alternatively, a water gap can be formed through headward erosion of two streams on opposite sides of a ridge, ultimately resulting in the capture of one stream by the other.

This is a process that would play out over a long period of time. As I previously noted: the evidence of water gaps does not mean what Andrew thinks it means. The presence of these gaps — the products of millions of years of erosion — is actually an argument for a very old Earth. A quickly-receding global flood could not have carved these gaps; there is simply no means by which water could displace that much rock and sand in such a short amount of time, unless we are to assume that the entirety of the world’s surface was essentially loose soil and sand a few thousand years ago.

Plastic Deformation

Consider the issue of “plastic deformation,” the “bent yet still parallel strata” to which Andrew refers. The argument goes that had these rock layers been subjected to the pressures necessary to fold them when they were solid and “dry,” they would surely have fractured (and show signs thereof). The absence of any evidence of fracturing in the strata, then, is taken to be a sign that the rock layers must have been folded while still wet and soft, during the rapid deposition of sediments following a global flood.

It sounds like a reasonable conjecture, but there’s one key flaw to it: solid, “dry” rock can actually bend — without breaking — even into sharply folded arrangements.

Okay, so what is plastic deformation? In a nutshell, it is the capacity for a rock layer to bend without breaking. The above graphic illustrates the principle.

As the Reader can hopefully see, a rock layer can bend or distort with different levels of severity. The “overturned fold” pictured on the right end of the diagram is the most severe sort of bend possible, in which a rock layer actually folds back on itself. It is this phenomenon to which Andrew is referring.

To better understand what’s going on here, we need to ask what the actual process of rock deformation entails. As it happens, rock deformation is, in essence, a three-stage process. In the first stage — the elastic stage — the rock layer experiences stress from some factor (e.g. heat, pressure) and, like any material which is subjected to stress, deforms in response. Even a solid block of steel will deform when a sufficient stress is applied to it, and although those deformations may be small, they are detectable if one has the proper instruments. Keep in mind, also, that the rock layer is cushioned by the surrounding geological layers, a fact which serves to distribute and arrange forces on the layer in such a way that it can, in fact, deform without breaking.

With elastic deformation, the rock layer will return to its original shape once the stress is removed from it, in the same way that springs and elastics will tend to return to their normal shapes when released. Strain and stress are proportional, as per Hooke’s Law. Unless, that is, they have been over-stretched.

And so we come to the second stage. Every material — be it the rubber in an elastic or a granite slab — has what is called an elastic limit; if the material is stressed past this point, it cannot regain its former shape…at least, not entirely. This is what we call plastic deformation. If the stress on the material continues to increase, the third stage — rupture — will eventually be reached, and the material will break.

Obviously, depending on the material under consideration, where the plastic and rupture points exist will vary. An elastic band has very different deformation properties than does a granite slab. But where Young Earth Creationists tend to go wrong is that they either misrepresent, or misunderstand, the fact that even solid, possibly brittle substances (such as rock) can undergo quite a lot of plastic deformation before they will rupture (that is: break).

Grey Neyman, in an article at Answers in Creation, gets into detail about just how this can be.

Most rocks at room temperatures and pressures fail by rupture before attaining a state of plastic deformation. However, at high temperatures and confining pressures, rocks deform plastically. This can happen in a laboratory setting even under short time durations. Given the longer times in the real world, and you can see the possibilities of deforming/folding rock layers without breaking. To understand this more fully, let’s consider what features of a rock allow it to deform plastically.

How can solid rocks change their shape without fracturing? There are three processes at work; intergranular movements, intragranular movements, and recrystallization.

Intergranular movement is the displacement between individual grains. If rocks are subjected to stress, the individual crystals and grains can move independently of one another. A greater range of movement can occur in sedimentary rocks, as igneous rocks tend to have grains that are interlocking, thus limiting their movements. Where the rocks fold, and the distance between the grains increases, the rock thins, automatically adjusting for the space in between the grains.

Intragranular movements, for which much experimental work has been done, occurs within the individual crystals by gliding and dislocations. Some minerals have no glide planes, some have a single glide plane, while others have multiple glide planes. The atomic structure controls the position and number of glide planes present within a mineral. Gliding consists of two types, translation-gliding and twin-gliding.

In transitional gliding, deformation occurs along horizontal glide planes… In twin-gliding, the layers slide relative to adjacent layers…[t]his provides a symmetrically altered shape with respect to the lower, undisplaced part.

Several factors contribute to the deformation we see in folded strata. These factors are confining pressure, temperature, time, and solutions. Pressure and temperature are simple and need no explanation. Laboratory experiments of different rock samples under pressure show that you can bend limestone up to 15 percent, and sandstones and shales, up to 25 percent, before they fracture…

Obviously, rocks are folded much more than 25 percent in the real world. That is where time, temperature, and solution come into play. In the laboratory experiments, only pressure was measured, and that was done over a brief period of time. In the field, obviously we have millions of years to work with, not just hours. With the burial of rock layers within the earth, the temperature is also higher, a result of the layer receiving heat from the earth, which insulates it, and heat built up due to the increased pressure. The slow, continuous deformation with the passage of time is known as creep. Creep can be measured on a creep curve…

You can see that the more time increases, the greater the folding of the rock without rupturing. In addition to time, solution can also play a part in aiding deformation. Rocks by their very nature are porous. There may be chemicals present in the pore spaces that are capable of reacting with the minerals in the rock. This is especially true of metamorphic rocks. Creep experiments have been conducted on rocks to demonstrate the effectiveness of a solution in deforming the rocks.

This goes back to what I said before, then: the evidence of folded rock layers does not mean what Andrew thinks it means. The presence of “tightly bent yet still parallel strata in many mountain ranges” is actually an argument for a very old Earth, in which some rock layers have been shaped by high temperatures and pressures over millions of years into the folded, twisted arrangements that one can see in many places.

Cross-bedding

What is cross-bedding? A basic geology course might explain cross-bedding in this way:

The second feature of sedimentary rocks is called cross-bedding. As clastic sediments are transported by water or wind, they form sand waves. The image [above] shows this process for wind-blown sand. In figure 1, the sand wave can be observed. As the wind blows, it picks up sand particles from the rear of the wave, and deposits them over the leading edge of the wave. This process can be repeated, making a wave on top of a wave, as in figure 4. These waves can range in size from small ripples only a centimeter high, to giant sand dunes hundreds of meters high.

The structure of the bedding tells us the direction of the wind that deposited the sand. Figure 7 in the above diagram shows the wind direction for each cross-bedded sand wave. By the size of the cross bedding and the angle of the bedding, you can also tell if it was a beach deposit or a wind deposit in a desert environment.

Seems pretty straightforward, doesn’t it?

One typical example of cross-bedding that Young Earth Creationists point to is the Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon. The argument, as I understand it, is that the angle of the cross-bedding is a bit lower than one might expect were it the result of wind deposition — the Coconino cross beds are inclined at about 25 degrees, while most wind-deposited cross beds are at 30 to 34 degrees.

Of course, what isn’t mentioned on, say, the Answers in Genesis explanation, Young Earth explanation the cross-bedding is that water-deposited cross beds rarely exceed an angle of 10 degrees. And upon closer examination of the specific sand which forms the Coconino cross beds, one observes that the authors of the Answers in Genesis article ommitted more information than just this

[Steven A. Austin] argues that the angle of the slope of the cross beds indicates an origin other than eolian [wind-based processes -- Ken]. He claims the average angle for Coconino cross beds is about 25°, which is less than the average angle of slope observed in sand dunes today. He states that sand dunes today exhibit angles as much as 30°, and even up to 34° (notice he doesn’t actually give the average angle observed today). By contrast, oceanic sand waves are less. However, as one of my readers has noticed (thanks David), a casual reading of geologic literature shows records of wind-deposited cross beds which are as low as 10°. They have been found to range from 10° to 34°, but typically, they average between 25° and 28°.

Austin fails to tell the reader all the information (a typical young-earth tactic). By contrast, water deposited sand is rarely steeper than 10°. When he claims that water-deposited cross beds are less, he fails to tell the reader by how much. Since the Coconino’s cross-bedding is 25°, they are obviously wind-deposited. They fall within the average for eolian cross beds (25°-28°), but are far from the angle expected for water-deposited cross beds (less than 10°). Had Austin included the actual cross-bed angles for water-deposition, it would have ruined his argument. Thus, we see the trickery that he has to resort to in order to deceive his readers.

Indeed, to believe Austin’s Young Earth model of sand deposition at Coconino, one would have to believe that “a 30 foot tall sand wave can be moved over 400 miles in less than a week, with a current of only 5.5 feet per second.” This is more or less impossible, even if one only pays lip service to the laws of physics in one’s calculations.

And that doesn’t even begin to get into the discussion of how water, moving at about the same speed that human beings can walk at (if the water’s speed was faster than about 5.5 feet per second, cross beds would not be formed), could have eroded the 11,931 cubic miles of sand from other places and deposited it in the Coconino beds in the short amount of time that it took for the flood waters to recede, per the Book of Genesis. By that kind of logic, Hurricane Katrina should have re-located New Orleans to Arkansas.

So let’s go back, again, to what I said before: deep cross-bedding (Coconino is a large geological formation) does not mean what Andrew thinks it means. The presence of deep cross beds is actually an argument for a very old Earth, in which wind deposition of sand has shaped, over millions of years, some truly impressive geological formations.

Now, I haven’t addressed all of Andrew’s points, but I have covered the substantive ones. I’m sure that were I to dig into what claims I have left unanswered, I would find still more examples of this pattern…but I think this post is getting long enough as it is. Be that as it may; within the scope of what I have covered, we can see a consistent pattern emerging: each argument which Andrew asserts is demonstrative of a young Earth is, in fact, demonstrative instead of a very old Earth, and then one in which a global flood did not occur.

This does not, however, undermine the validity of the Bible or the message of faith which is imparted to humanity through the flood accounts.

“To conclude, Scripture and science do not support the historicity of [the flood] as described in Gen 6-9. Of course, every Biblical author believed that [Noah] existed and survived a world-destroying flood on an ark. But this was the history-of-the-day for the Jews and early Christians. At best, Noah points back to an obscure individual/s who lived through a local deluge/s, most likely in the Mesopotamian flood plain. But more importantly, the [B]iblical flood is an incidental vessel that reveals the inspired message that God judges sin and saves righteous individuals from His wrath.” (taken from: Dr. Denis O. Lamoureux, Evolutionary Creation, pp. 280-281)

The exact historical details aren’t the important aspects of the flood accounts in Genesis. Yes, the authors of the text of Genesis believed that these were real events which had transpired, but the authors themselves weren’t present for the flood even if it did happen, so how could they be sure? Moses, traditionally held to be the author/redactor of Genesis, was not present for the flood even if it did happen, so how could he be sure? He would have had to rely on the oral traditions of the Hebrew people, oral traditions which were informed by ancient, experientially-derived primitive science, which could not perceive even that the Earth was in orbit around the Sun, let alone the subtle clues as to the Earth’s actual age.

And here’s another consideration: from what we know from Scripture, even if Noah did exist and did survive a catastrophic flood of global proportions, he didn’t seem to bother taking any extant historical records with him into the ark; to assume otherwise is eisegetical. So if the Young Earth Creationists are correct, and if the flood that Noah weathered actually did happen, the assumption that the earlier chapters of Genesis give an accurate historical picture must be discarded, since no records from before the flood could have survived. Only oral tradition and word-of-mouth would have existed to pass along the pre-flood history to later generations.

I trust that the good Reader has played the telephone game before.

For the Spirit, who inspired the authors of Scripture, though, the fact that the authors were retelling an ancient historical legend rather than the actual history of the world wasn’t the important part. The Spirit, accommodating to human ignorance, worked through those historical legends to impart to humanity a message of faith.