The Geologic Columns Conundrum Beth Haven Creation Conference May - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Geologic Column’s Conundrum Beth Haven Creation Conference May 13, 2017

Limits of empirical knowledge Galaxies 22 20 Man created to have dominion Solar over nature starting with the 18 System correspondence God created 16 between many of man’s Deductions empirically-based conceptions 14 Telescope Spatial Domain of Nature Sun and nature’s design 12 10 8 Mountains Space: Log 10 (cm) 6 4 Man Conjecture 2 BUT the scientific method Ultra-speed 0 One cm filming requires special additions -2 (worldview dependent Bacteria Microscope conjectures) in order to -4 penetrate unobservable Deductions -6 past and future domains -8 Deductions -10 Atom Molecules Temporal Domain of Nature -12 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Visible Light Historical Sound One Second Beginning Universe X-Ray One Hour One Year Age of Period Period Period Life Period Time: Log 10 (seconds) 26

Shall I bow to my Creator? • NO! • YES! – ancient myths – ancient monotheism – eastern religions – ancient Israel – western philosophy – Bible – modern theology – fundamentalism • Continuity of Being • CREATOR/creature – nature > gods > man – God || man | nature – transmutation / evolution – everlasting distinctions • IMPERSONAL FATE & • PERSONAL CHANCE SOVEREIGN – ultimate victimization – ultimate responsibility 27

Standard geologic column Usual Upward Sequence Usual Ages CENOZOIC 66 millions yrs to (Tertiary and Quarternary) present MESOZOIC 245 to 66 million yrs (Triassic up to Cretaceous) PALEOZOIC 570 to 245 million yrs (Cambrian up to Permian) 28

The geologic column White areas: all 10 geologic periods present Woodmorappe, CRSQ June 1981 29

Naturalism’s interpretation of the geologic column “Naturalism’s control of origin science did not begin with Darwin’s theory of evolution, but over 50 years earlier with the idea of millions of years in geology. In the late 18 th and early 19 th centuries, deist and atheist scientists attempted to explain the origin of the world and unravel the history of the rocks and fossils. They did so by rejecting the truth of Genesis 1–11 and using the assumptions of naturalism.” Terry Mortenson, Naturalism (Answers in Genesis blog on World Religions, 2017) Chapter 12 30

Lyell’s uniformitarianism & Charles Darwin “The physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence. . . . [To a fellow uniformitarian geologist, Lyell wrote he wanted to] ‘free the science [of geology] from Moses.’ ” Darwin wrote: “He who can read Sir Charles Lyell’s grand work on the Principles of Geology , which the future historian will recognize as having produced a revolution in natural science, yet does not admit how incomprehensibly vast have been the past periods of time, may at once close this volume.” Terry Mortenson, Naturalism (Answers in Genesis blog on World Religions, 2017) Chapter 12 31

Uniformitarianism decoded Lyell used the term “Uniformity” as purposeful equivocation in 1830 S. J. Gould first exposed the equivocation in 1980—150 years later! Different meanings Explanation Uniformity of law Presupposition of all science Uniformity of process Past processes no different kinds (actualism) from presently observed processes Uniformity of process Processes common to past and rates (gradualism) present have same rates 32

Empirical challenges to uniformitarianism Empirical Challenge Explanation Polystrata fossils rapid deposition of multiple layers of material gradualism Clearly catastrophic event: rapid, massive simultaneous erosion Lake Missoula flood (Pacific gradualism Northwest) Clearly catastrophic event: rapid (photo documented) deposition and Mt. St. Helens eruption later erosion actualism, gradualism Clearly catastrophic event: rapid, massive deposition and later fast Grand Canyon with nearly the erosion while sediments were soft same radioactive decay dates at gradualism bottom and top layers 33

Problems of uniformitarianism acknowledged by the “Establishment” “It can be said that the geologists’ knowledge of the past is based upon pretheoretical assumptions, often of a metaphysical nature, not susceptible to logical or empirical proof. In a certain sense, they are the products of the geologists’ imagination.” Gadi Kravitz in Rethinking the Fabric of Geology (2013), 21 34