Chapter 6

Geologic Column

Modern examples of canyon formation and rapid erosion provide models to explain how many geological formations can be described by the Flood and its aftereffects—and all within a few thousand years.

Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters
increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above
the earth. The waters prevailed and greatly increased on
the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the
waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth,
and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.
The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the
mountains were covered.

And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle
and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the
earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath
of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.

—Genesis 7:17–22

What You Will Learn

The geologic column is a graphic representation of the layers of
rock that make up the earth’s crust. By compiling data from local
areas, scientists have constructed a composite picture of the earth.
Evolutionists would have us believe that this is also a picture of the
4.5 billion year history of the earth. Using a bit of circular reasoning,
the geologic column is used as support for biologic evolution,
which is then sometimes used to confirm the order of the layers in
the geologic column. The use of radiometric dating is also applied
to the layers of the geologic record to establish the absolute ages of
the layers and the billions of years indicated by the rock layers. In
order for life to have evolved, the earth must be extremely old, so
the assumption of long ages is applied to the geologic record to
support the evolutionary philosophy.

From the biblical creationist perspective, there are several
events that must be considered when interpreting the evidence
of the earth’s history recorded in the rocks. Just as evolutionists
assume that the earth began as a random, molten mass, biblical
creationists assume that the earth began with supernatural acts of
God—forming the original rocks and layers. These layers and rocks
were then catastrophically rearranged and redeposited during the
Genesis Flood. As the waters covered the earth, and later flowed off
the continents as the mountains rose, the major erosional features,
like Grand Canyon and Uluru, were carved out. Modern examples
of canyon formation and rapid erosion provide models to explain
how many formations can be described by the Flood and its aftereffects—and all within a few thousand years.

The real difference comes down to interpreting the evidence
based on man’s understanding of billions of years, or using the
Word of God as a starting point. There is no disputing the facts of
the geologic record, but the facts don’t speak for themselves. They
must be interpreted!

What Your Textbook Says about the Geologic Column

Evolutionary Concept

Prentice Hall

Glencoe

Holt

Articles

The fossil and rock records provide clues to the past and the future.

—

132, 553, 569

—

6:2, 6:3

Index fossils are used to identify rock layers and correlate layers that are disconnected.

337, 341–343, 345–346, 356–357

T551, T552C, 557–561, 568, T609, 609, 629

187–188, 197, 200, 211–213, 222, 232–233

6:1, 6:2, 6:3

Geologists divide the earth’s 4.6 billion year history into time periods represented by distinct rock layers

T92C, 342, 352–353, T354, 354, 364–365, 377, 382, 386–387

T550, T552C, 553–556, T591, T615, 626, 628, 635, 648, T649, T687

66, 152, 185, 208, T210, 211, 213–214, 217, 226

4:1, 4:3, 5:1, 6:1, 6:3, 6:5, 7:11

Major rock formations (Devils Tower, Uluru, etc.) formed in the distant past and have been constantly eroding.

298

T51, 153, 428, 635–636, 662

T123C, 191, 349

6:3, 6:5, 6:6, 6:7

Sediments have been deposited over millions of years and are used to calculate ages.

T345, T407, 408

226, 229, 429, 612–613, 627

188, 192

4:1, 4:3, 5:1, 6:1, 6:2, 6:3, 6:4, 6:5, 6:7, 6:8, 7:11

Canyons form over millions of years.

—

T522D, 553, 557

186, 364, T381

6:5, 6:6

Mountains formed millions of years ago and are gradually eroded.

317, T372, 379

526–527, 531, 537

256, 272, T282, 363

6:7, 6:9

Folding and deformation of rocks occurs gradually.

80–82, 308–309, 338

—

—

6:5, 6:7, 6:9

Limestone caves form gradually.

177

T245, 245

—

6:10

Ripples can be preserved in rocks.

—

127

188

6:8, 7:7

Salt and other minerals formed as ancient seas evaporated.

T412 T195, T624D, 649

496

5:1, 6:11

Ancient reefs formed major rock formations.

—

613–614

—

6:12

Note: Page numbers preceded by “T” indicate items from the teacher notes found
in the margins of the Teacher’s Edition.

What We Really Know about the Geologic Column

Before we begin looking at the geologic column, it is important
to understand the key differences between the starting assumptions
of young-earth geologists and old-earth geologists. These two different
beliefs are used to interpret the evidence found in the rock
record. Understanding these starting points is the key to understanding
the different views of geologic time.

Young-earth creationists start with the Bible to derive the
age of the earth: approximately 4,000 years passed between Creation
and the coming of Christ, which is added to the 2,000
years since the time of Christ. This gives an age of the earth and
universe of 6,000 years. They accept that God created in six
days, that the once “very good” creation has been marred by sin
(Genesis 3), and that a global Flood inundated the earth about
4,300 years ago (God’s judgment on the sin of mankind, Genesis 6–9).
They then interpret the evidence in light of these truths
revealed in the eyewitness testimony of the Bible. The events
of Creation Week (Genesis 1) and the Genesis Flood (Genesis
6–9) are the major shapers of the geologic record from a biblical
perspective.

From the uniformitarian perspective, the planet has evolved
gradually from a molten ball to a water-covered planet where
mountains are continuously eroded and uplifted, and rocks are
recycled through the earth’s crust and mantle over billions of years.
The use of radiometric dating is used to establish absolute dates for
the age of the earth. Uniformitarian geologists accept catastrophes
on a local scale, but reject any notion of global events like the Genesis
Flood. The Bible is rejected as authoritative, and the earth is
calculated to be 4.5 billion years old.

The major problem with uniformitarianism, from a scientific
perspective, is that it is an unverifiable assumption—the same
claim leveled against creationists and the Bible (except that creationists
have a written eyewitness account). There is no absolute
way to measure rates at which past events happened. Uniformitarianism
is a presupposition applied to geology and the rock record,
and also to biology, astronomy, physical chemistry, and many other
scientific fields.

Now that we understand those starting points, we can take a
closer look at the geologic record. There is no place on earth where
we can find every rock layer in a continuous sequence. The geologic
column presented in textbooks is a composite of many smaller columns
that can be identified from direct observation. However, the
presence of a general order in the rock record is undeniable. Questions
about the nature of the geologic column ultimately center on
the origin of the rock record. Those who start with a biblical view
see the layers as evidence supporting the Creation Week and the
global Flood described in Genesis (Genesis 1–2 and 6–9 respectively).
Those who reject the clear teaching of the Bible interpret
the rock record as a 4.5 billion year history of the earth.

There are many misconceptions about the nature of the geologic
record and the geologic column used to represent the rock
record. It helps to understand how the standard geologic column
was constructed.

The concept of mapping and explaining rock layers began with
Nicolaus Steno, who published on the geology of Tuscany in 1669.
Steno set forth the basic rules followed by geologists today when
examining field evidence. He actually based his reasoning on the
biblical account of the Flood and accepted that the earth was only
about 6,000 years old—a Bible–believing creationist laid the foundation
for modern geology!

His Law of Superposition states that upper layers were deposited
after the lower layers. The Principle of Original Horizontality
states that sedimentary layers are deposited in flat layers that may
later be disturbed. The Principle of Cross-Cutting Relationships
states that a fault or intrusion must be younger than the layers it
affects. All of these ideas can be used by both uniformitarian and
biblical geologists to identify the relative ages of sediments.

During that same period, other geologists and theologians used
the account of the Flood to understand the layers of sediment and
the fossils contained in them. The understanding of the day was
based on the idea that a major catastrophe had shaped the globe.

Catastrophism

The doctrine that changes in the geologic record are
a result of physical processes operating at rates that are dramatically
higher than are observed today (note: although the biblical view is one
of many catastrophist views, not all catastrophist views are biblical).

Contrary to the catastrophist view, James Hutton and Charles Lyell
argued that the present is the key to the past. They viewed the layers of
sediments as products of vast ages of time. The processes forming and
eroding rocks today are the same as they have always been.

Geology was divided between catastrophists who believed
many large-scale floods had shaped earth’s rock record and uniformitarians
who believed in gradual processes. Eventually, the ideas
of Hutton and Lyell came to dominate geologic thinking, and the
Bible was thrown out of geology despite the efforts of some geologists
who remained faithful to Scripture. Sadly, many theologians
also adopted old-earth ideas and reinterpreted Scripture to align
with the thinking of man.

Uniformitarianism

The doctrine that present-day processes acting at
similar rates as observed today account for the change evident in the
geologic record.

William Smith first used the similarity of fossils to construct
detailed geologic maps across wide areas. He used fossils to map
and correlate rock layers and constructed the first geologic map
of England and Wales in 1815. Smith was a creationist who
believed in the old-earth view now known as progressive creationism.
By the early 1800s the idea of an old earth was popular,
though the idea of a global flood was still used to explain
many geologic deposits.

The standard geologic column was constructed by combining
descriptions of local areas to form a composite record. By 1885
the finer divisions of the column had been identified based on the
principles established by Steno, Smith, and Lyell. These ideas were
also beginning to impact the study of biology, and Lyell’s long-age
ideas played a major role in Darwin’s development of the theory of
biological evolution over vast geologic eras.

Index fossils played an important role in the development of
the geologic column. The idea that life became increasingly complex
over time, whether by some evolutionary force or continuous
creation by God, was used to analyze the fossils in the rock layers.
It was assumed that by identifying the order of fossil succession,
the layers could be correlated from one region to the next. Index
fossils are still one of the major indicators of the age of a given layer.
Shelled creatures such as ammonites and mollusks are the most
commonly used index fossils.

Illustrations like this one are
actually made by combining
pieces of the geologic
column from all over the
world. Geologists make
many assumptions when
trying to explain all of the
fossils and rock layers.

Despite the confidence in index fossils, there is much criticism
of their use—from both creationists and evolutionists. Slight differences
in shell shape or structure are used to assign the shell to
a new species, despite the variation apparent within a single living
species today.

Another problem with index fossils is that, rather than being
proof of evolution, evolution is already assumed to have occurred.
The changes in features in index fossils of different periods are
assumed to be caused by evolution, and the presence of different
organisms in different periods is then used to support biological
evolution. This is a case of using an assumption to prove the
assumption is true—circular reasoning by any measure.

The geologic timescale we know today was not added to the
column until after the development of radiometric dating techniques.
Lyell and others had promoted the idea of millions of years
of geologic history, but dates were not assigned to given layers
until much later. Working on the assumptions of naturalism and
uniformitarianism, the rock record was interpreted from these
starting points. By the time radiometric dating techniques were
implemented, the idea of millions of years of earth history had
already become an established scientific “fact.” Using uniformitarian
assumptions (see the discussion in chapter 4), the radiometric
dating techniques are put forward as support for the timescale of
the standard geologic column.

As ideas on the formation and age of the earth changed, the
ages assigned to the layers of the geologic column changed along
with them. Different radiometric dating techniques have been
developed to date the rocks, and thus the fossils in adjacent layers,
but the use of index fossils is still the primary method of identifying
and describing the strata in the rock record. If the ages determined
for a fossil do not fit the presuppositions, the ages are often massaged
until they fit within evolutionary thinking. Far from being
independent from geological uniformitarianism, biological evolution
is supported by the ages and the ages are supported by the
fossils and their supposed evolution. The dating game played by
anthropologists to make the fossils fit the expected dates is as unscientific
and subjective as you could imagine. This will be discussed
in more detail in chapter 7 and is also demonstrated in article 6:2.

Prentice Hall 340

In the textbooks, the geologic record is correlated to the geologic periods that
are alleged to extend over millions of years.

Despite the slow and gradual ideology of modern geology, the
evidence is clearly explained by the biblical model—specifically
relating the majority of the fossil-bearing geologic record to the
Genesis Flood. Although there is much discussion among creationists
about the details relating the Flood and creation to the geologic
column, all agree that the majority of the fossil-bearing rock record
is a product of the Genesis Flood and that any model must first
be aligned with Scripture. Details such as exactly where the pre-
Flood/Flood/post-Flood boundaries lie in the geologic column are
still being evaluated. Nevertheless, the evidence of a global flood
and rapid processes is overwhelming.

The layers exposed in the walls of Grand Canyon and in the
Colorado Plateau region provide evidence of a catastrophe that must
have covered at least the entire North American continent. The layer
known as the Navajo Sandstone contains minerals that were eroded
from the Appalachian Mountains. A river is used to explain this in
the uniformitarian model, but a global Flood makes more sense of
the evidence. The Tapeats Sandstone contains large boulders and was
deposited in storm conditions over an immense area of north America.
The Redwall Limestone extends from the Southwest to Pennsylvania
and Tennessee—obviously deposited as the result of a massive
catastrophe. Slow and gradual processes cannot explain these features
of the rock record. (See article 6:7 for more examples.)

Layers that are all similarly bent are strong evidence in support
of the rapid deposition of the layers exposed in Grand Canyon.
Though there is an alleged time difference of 300 million years
between the deposition of the Tapeats Sandstone and of the Kaibab
Limestone, the layers have been bent to a similar angle by the
Kaibab Upwarp (which allegedly occurred 70 million years ago). In
places, the layers of the Tapeats Sandstone are bent at a 90° angle.
These formations indicate that the layers must have been soft when
the folding occurred. Had they been solid rock they would have
fractured, but there is no evidence of fracturing. Heat and pressure
can also cause deformation of rocks, but there is no evidence of
that in the minerals and structure of these rocks. If the layers were
deposited during the Flood and folded shortly after, there would
not have been time for the rocks to harden and fracture.

As we look at the processes forming and eroding geologic structures
today, we must admit they cannot be responsible for the features
that we see across the globe. Textbooks and other evolutionbased
sources suggest Grand Canyon formed gradually over the
last 6–17 million years, slicing through layers that go back nearly
2 billion years. This amazing canyon has been interpreted as the
result of a little water acting over a very long period of time. However,
from the biblical perspective, the canyon formed from a lot of
water acting over a short period of time.

Grand Canyon itself is best explained as a result of the erosion
caused by the sudden release of water from large lakes left behind
after the Flood. The Flood deposited many of the canyon’s layers,
through which the canyon was later cut. Hopi and Canyonlands
Lakes were remnants of the receding Floodwaters, impounded
by the Kaibab Upwarp. While the sediment layers of the Kaibab
Upwarp were still relatively soft, these lakes breached that barrier
and their waters flowed west toward the Pacific Ocean, scouring
the landscape. Could such a catastrophe actually carve such dramatic
features? Evidence from the recent eruptions at Mount Saint
Helens lends support to these claims.

After the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980, pumice and
volcanic ash deposits blocked the Toutle River. Two years later a mud
flow breached the area and eroded what is now known as the “Little
Grand Canyon of the Toutle River,” cutting canyons up to 140 feet
deep. The side canyons and channels resemble the appearance of
Grand Canyon and mirror the rapid formation of a canyon in a short
period. Nearby, Loowit Canyon was cut out of solid rock to a depth
of 100 feet. These observed examples of rapid canyon formation can
be used to help us understand how larger canyons and topographic
features may have formed as a result of the Flood.

Another striking example is the flood of ancient Lake Missoula.
This Ice Age lake in Montana and Idaho experienced a catastrophic
natural dam failure that resulted in the formation of the Channeled
Scablands of Washington, including the Palouse Canyon. These
areas were eroded rapidly, resulting in features that could not be
explained by uniformitarian principles. Even uniformitarian geologists
have come to accept the massive scale of the rapid formation
of these areas. Again, these formations support the biblical model
of a global Flood, and its aftereffects, with the power to form massive
erosional features.

Two other major considerations of the geologic record are the
catastrophic movement of the continents during the Flood and the
Ice Age that resulted from the Flood. These two important aspects
will be discussed in more detail in following chapters. Altogether,
the evidence can be interpreted within the scientific model that
includes the Creation Week and the Flood. The billions of years are
not necessary to explain the geologic column. Six thousand years is
enough time despite the uniformitarian claims to the contrary.

Ultimately, the fossil-bearing geologic record represents the wrath
of God poured out in judgment on a world filled with sin. As we
look at thistles and thorn bushes growing along a canyon where the
layers of fossil-bearing sediment are exposed, how can we help but be
reminded of God’s justice? The rock record is a testimony to God’s
sovereign control over this earth from Creation to the Flood to today.
The Ark is a testimony to His mercy which was ultimately demonstrated
through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Reference Article Summaries

6:1 Geological conflict

The discovery of fossil wood in limestone with Jurassic
period index fossils has provided the opportunity to
date the rock with carbon-14 dating. This limestone layer
would normally be given a date based on its position and
index fossils. The Marlstone bed is estimated to be 189 million
years old based on the ammonite and belemnite fossils.
If the wood is truly that old there should be no traces
of carbon-14 remaining.

Samples of the wood were sent to two testing facilities.
Using accelerator mass spectrometry, a technique that
can detect minute quantities of carbon-14, the labs found
detectable carbon-14 in all of the samples. The age of the
wood was calculated to be between 20,700 and 28,820
years old. The wood is obviously younger than the 189-
million-year-old layer it was found in.

Knowing the wood could not contain radiocarbon after
189 million years, evolutionary geologists would never
have tested it. They believe that limestone was formed
slowly at the bottom of shallow seas where wood should
not be found. A far more likely explanation is that the fossil
marine animals and wood were buried during the global
Genesis Flood. The carbon-14 dates are not inconsistent
with the 4,500-year age when considering the different
environment these organisms lived in prior to the Flood.
In the evolutionary model, such inconsistencies cast doubt
on the index fossil dating method and its uniformitarian
and evolutionary assumptions.

6:2 The pigs took it all

It is a myth that radiometric dating confirms the geologic
timescale and the evolution of humans. The stories
told by famous scientists have convinced most people of
the idea of an earth that is millions of years old. However,
a famous fossil hominid and its surrounding sediment have
been assigned many different dates over time.

Since most sedimentary rocks and their fossils cannot
be dated by radiometric dating volcanic ash (tuff) layers are
used. The KBS (Kay Behrensmeyer Site) Tuff has hominid
fossils and artifacts above and below it, so a maximum and
minimum age can be assigned to those fossils. Skull 1470
was found by Richard Leakey in Kenya. He assigned it an
age of 2.9 million years old based on the modern structure
of the skull and earlier radiometric dates.

When the KBS Tuff was first potassium-argon (K-Ar)
dated at between 212 and 230 million years old, the dates
were automatically rejected as bad dates. Why? Because the
scientists already knew that the layer should be between 2
and 5 million years old based on the fossils and artifacts it
was near. Later testing adjusted the date to 2.61 million
years based on minerals in the rock samples. This fitted
Leakey’s skull nicely, but hardly demonstrates that the
radiometric dating is an independent confirmation of the
fossil age. Dates that are bad with respect to the expected
evolutionary model are set aside, and good dates are based
on the fossils present. If the fossils were never found in this
area, the tuff layer would have been considered to be over
200 million years old—a significant difference.

Later work on pig and elephant fossils, as well as paleomagnetism,
in the same sediments seemed to confirm
the dating. However, the 2.9-million-year date was not
acceptable in terms of human evolution. More dating put
the skull between 1.6 and 1.82 million years old—a date
Leakey resisted. Then in 1981 the layer was dated again at
1.87–1.89 million years. Ultimately, this is circular reasoning
where the dates are good when they confirm the evolutionary
thinking that they are used to support, and bad
when they don’t.

Prior to this (1975), the comparison of pig evolution,
based on scant evidence, was used to suggest that the 2.6-
million-year dates were off by 800,000 years and needed to
be adjusted. Ultimately, the objective radiometric dating
techniques were placed in doubt by the subjective arrangement
of hypothetical pig evolution.

The first myth exposed by this account is that unless
the correct rock is chosen to arrive at the correct date, the
procedure was flawed or contaminated in some way. This
presents a self-deceptive circular argument. Second, when
a fossil is found and the search for a date begins, the correct
date can be found by choosing the correct date from
the options available. The fossils determine the radiometric
date that is accepted. In this case the pigs won over the
elephants, K-Ar, and other dating techniques. The evolutionary
presuppositions dominate the interpretations—the
facts do not speak for themselves.

6:3 Ten misconceptions about the geologic column

This article presents ten misconceptions about the geologic
column, discussing the composition of the column,
its correlation to the age of the earth, and the dating of
layers from fossils and other uniformitarian assumptions.
Some selected examples are discussed here.
The geologic column was actually constructed based
on empirical evidence from the rock record by men who
would be called progressive creationists in today’s terms.
The geologic time periods and eras were added later by uniformitarian
scientists.

The geologic record for any given area is not always
consistent with the geologic column shown in textbooks.
The layers are sometimes out of order or absent which can
make identifying the layers difficult. Using index fossils to
correlate rock layers across continents is not always reliable,
but data from drilling, seismic activity, and surface features
allow many layers to be correlated across continents.

Radiometric dating often gives discordant ages to rock
layers, and the process of sedimentation does not require
millions of years. Connected to this idea are the illustrations
of the geologic ages with their built-in evolutionary
bias. However, these are just representations of what these
sedimentary environments may have looked like and do
not necessarily support the supposed evolutionary story
they are supposed to represent.

6:4 Focus: rocks forming in months

Creation 17.2

Stones measuring up to a foot across are forming in a
Norfolk (UK) marsh in a process which is happening in a
few months or years. Small (and not-so-small) black lumps
of rock are forming, as bacteria thriving on rotting vegetation
produce “an iron-rich form of limestone, which acts
as a mineral cement, binding the sand and mud together.”
Geologists have dug up similar stones before, which “often
contain beautifully formed fossils.” These fossils show a lot
of detail of the soft flesh, “as it had no time to rot before the
rock formed around it.” Geology professor Max Coleman
is keen to study the marsh. The rock is “forming faster than
anyone had ever believed possible, with one stone creating
itself in just six months” (Eastern Daily Press, UK, October 5, 1994).
Creationists have long pointed out that hardening
of sediments into rock is mainly a matter of the right
cementing substances being present and that it doesn’t
require millions of years.

Uniformitarian thinking says that
most canyons form from a little
water over a long period of
time. Catastrophism explains
canyon formation from a lot
of water over a short time.
Canyons near Mount St.
Helens and the scablands
of eastern Washington
provide evidence of
canyon formation in a
matter of days.

6:5 Grand Canyon strata show geologic time is imaginary

Walker

Visitors to Grand Canyon hear the usual geological
interpretation involving millions of years. Guests are told
that the horizontal formation at the bottom, the Tapeats
Sandstone, was deposited 550 million years ago, and the
Kaibab Limestone that forms the rim is 250 million years
old. It is diffi cult to imagine the immense time involved
in this interpretation. Interestingly, Grand Canyon strata
extend over 250 miles into the eastern part of Arizona.
Th ere, they are at least one mile lower in elevation. Supposedly,
the uplift of Grand Canyon area occurred about
70 million years ago—hundreds of millions of years after
the sediments were deposited.

One would expect that hundreds of millions of years
would have been plenty of time for the sediment to
cement into hard rock. Yet, the evidence indicates that the
sediments were soft and unconsolidated when they bent.
Instead of fracturing like the basement rock did, the entire
layer thinned as it bent. Th e sand grains show no evidence
that the material was brittle and rock-hard, because none
of the grains is elongated. Neither has the mineral cementing
the grains been broken and recrystallized. Instead, the
evidence points to the whole 4,000-foot thickness of strata
being still flexible when it was uplifted. In other words,
the millions of years of geologic time are imaginary. This
flexible deformation of Grand Canyon strata dramatically
demonstrates the reality of the catastrophic global Flood of
Noah’s day.

6:6 A canyon in six days!

Most people are taught that Grand Canyon formed as
the Colorado River eroded the landscape over millions of
years. The fact that the same results could be accomplished
with a lot of water over a short time is generally not mentioned.
Observations of canyon formation in modern times
suggest that Grand Canyon may have formed much as did
a small canyon near Walla Walla, Washington—a lot of
water over a short time. During an unusually wet period, a
small irrigation ditch was used to divert some excess water.
As the water passed through the ditch, it became a gully,
then a gulch, then a canyon, 1,500 feet long and 120 feet
deep. This all happened in six days, not millions of years.
The similar formation of the Toutle River canyon near
Mount St. Helens offers another example that is analogous
to what would have happened as the Floodwaters receded
in the days of Noah.

6:7 Uluru and Kata Tjuta

Uluru (also known as Ayers Rock) rises above the central
Australian desert as an outcrop of many layers of sandstone.
These layers are tilted at 80–85° and are nearly 4
miles thick. Uluru is composed of arkose (sandstone), and
the randomly sorted mineral grains have jagged edges.

Kata Tjuta is nearby and is part of a conglomerate formation
that extends over 25 miles. These layers are tilted
at 10–18° and are composed of rounded boulders, cobbles,
and pebbles cemented together by a finer matrix. It would
seem that these two formations share a common history.

Evolutionists claim that the material for these two features
was deposited as alluvial fans about 550–600 million
years ago when the area was covered by a shallow sea.
Repeated events of folding and faulting shaped the landscape
and lifted these layers to the surface over 100 million
years. The area has been exposed for the last 300 million
years, creating the erosional features we see today. This is an
interesting story, but does the evidence support it?

One problem with the story is the presence of fresh
feldspar crystals in the Uluru arkose. These should have
weathered to form clay if they had truly been exposed for
hundreds of millions of years. Another problem is with the
jagged edges and random mixing of the mineral grains. If
these layers were slowly deposited over 50 million years,
the edges would have become rounded and the particles
would have been sorted by size and density. Even evolutionary
geologists admit that the large boulders in the layers of
Kata Tjuta must have been deposited relatively quickly by
a torrent of water.

All of this evidence is far more consistent with a global
flood that ripped up and redeposited materials in a very
short time frame. The force of the water required to move
these many thousands of feet of sediment into place in a
short time is best explained as a result of the Genesis Flood
catastrophe and the geologic activity that would have been
associated with it. Ultimately, the uniformitarian assumptions
are not consistent with the evidence of catastrophic
depositional processes.

6:8 How long did it take to deposit the geologic column?

Evolutionists argue that although some sedimentary
layers may have been deposited relatively quickly, the deposition
of the entire column required hundreds of millions
of years. Creationists suggest that the bulk of the fossil–
bearing sedimentary rocks were deposited during the one–
year period of Noah’s Flood and its associated geologic
events. The uppermost surface of each layer should allow
us to determine which explanation fits the evidence.

Distinct ripple marks on the surface of many sandstone
layers make it clear that these layers were quickly covered.
If millions of years had passed between these layers, the
ripple marks would be eroded. The absence of animal burrows
and plant roots in these layers also suggests a rapid
sequence. Polystrate fossils that cross many layers also
require the successive layers to be deposited quickly. The
limited amount of erosional features, called unconformities,
on a global scale also points to the rapid deposition of
the rock layers. All of this is what we would expect from the
Flood described in the Bible.

6:9 Recent rapid uplift of today’s mountains

There is disagreement between the field observations
of mountain formation and the theoretical uniformitarian
models that are supposed to describe the process. The field
data show processes that occur much too rapidly to fit the
present rates accepted under uniformitarian assumptions.
Because of the specialization that happens in much of science,
many in the earth science community do not know
such a problem explaining the uplift of mountains exists.

The biblical record, however, provides a straightforward
explanation. The catastrophic processes of the Flood and
the reworking of the crust formed the mountains very rapidly.
As the earth’s crustal plates stopped moving near the
end of the Flood, the areas of thickened crust were forced
upward to reach equilibrium. In the uniformitarian model,
this uplift occurred in the last 5 million years. In the biblical
time frame, the uplift occurred over a few hundred
years after the Flood.

The case seems compelling that the Flood was accompanied
by major tectonic activity. The fact that the ocean
floor is young, even by uniformitarian standards, suggests
an extremely rapid replacement during the events of the
Flood. Computer models support this claim and provide
a model to explain the rapid spreading of the continents
accompanied by rapid subduction. This subduction would
produce mountains along these boundaries in rapid fashion.
How this rapid formation could occur in the uniformitarian
model poses a serious problem.

The planation surfaces that precede the mountain-building
phase are another problem in the uniformitarian
model. These flat surfaces can be explained by sheet erosion
due to the waters of the Flood flowing rapidly off of
the continents and into the ocean basins as the continental
crust bobbed up on the mantle. All of these processes are
best explained by a recent, global Flood.

6:10 Limestone caves: a result of Noah’s Flood?

The extensive system known as Carlsbad Caverns was
discovered by Jim White in 1901 and is just one of hundreds
of limestone caves found around the world. The
evolutionists would suggest that the caves began forming
around 60 million years ago. The rock was gradually eroded
along cracks, and intersecting channels eventually formed
the labyrinth of caverns and passages.

The belief that these limestone caves (known as karst
formations) formed as acidic water dissolved the rocks is
based on four lines of evidence. First, modern caves show
an ongoing process of solution by the formation of stalactites
and stalagmites. Second, the structures found in caves
match those found in solution experiments. Third, the passages
follow fractures and the level of the land as would
be expected by the natural flow of water. Fourth, caves
resembling limestone caves do not occur in non-limestone
rocks that are less soluble. However, these processes do not
require millions of years to form caves.

Studies on limestone caves in Kentucky have shown
that a volume 59 meters long by one meter square can be
dissolved in one year at the current rates. So, at the present rate,
long ages are not required to create large caverns.
This study and others make it clear that these large cave
formations could have formed rapidly within the biblical
time frame.

The thick layers of limestone show that they were catastrophically
deposited. These layers of lime sediment would
have contained water that would then be squeezed out as
the weight of the overlying sediment layers built up the
pressure on them. The water would pass through internal
cracks while the sediment was hardening. As the floodwaters
receded, the layers were uplifted and contorted by tectonic
activity. The resulting forces and erosion of the sediments
overlying the limestone would allow more water to
escape and further open existing channels.

After the majority of the floodwaters had receded, there
would still be lots of groundwater containing acids from
decaying vegetation. This would mix with carbon dioxide
and cause the rapid solution of the cave features. Finally,
the groundwater would slowly drain out, leaving the caverns
behind where the stalactites and stalagmites would
then form. Thus, what is generally explained through processes
over millions of years can be easily explained within
the biblical time frame of a few thousand years, commencing
with the global Flood.

6:11 Does salt come from evaporated seawater?

Evolutionists suggest that salt deposits (so-called evaporites)
form as seas are filled and evaporated over long ages.
This is not consistent with the many salt beds we find in
the geologic record. Many of the salt beds are extremely
thick and cover vast areas. It seems quite inconceivable that
huge basins could repeatedly fill and evaporate in cycles
over millions of years and remain in the same location.
Modern salt lagoons fill in, erode, and migrate, so the same
processes acting today could not produce huge salt beds.

Modern evaporites are impure, with many organisms
living in them due to other mixed-in sediments. Large
salt beds are absolutely pure. Since they contain no fossils
and are extremely pure, they must not have formed from
evaporating seas over vast ages. Many now think the salt
was extruded as warm-to-hot supersaturated salt brines
passed upward along faults and then rapidly cooled when
they came in contact with the colder surface water, thus
immediately releasing their salt load en masse to form pure
salt deposits. Today we find these pure salt deposits and
other important minerals in similar deposits that can only
be explained by catastrophic processes—the processes that
accompanied the Genesis Flood.

6:12 Not ancient reefs but catastrophic deposits

The large limestone deposits in New Mexico and Texas
are believed by evolutionists to be an ancient reef. The fossils
found in the layer are used by evolutionists to support
an old-earth interpretation. They claim that it takes many
thousands of years for reefs to form, so these deposits could
not have been deposited during the year-long Flood.

A closer look at the alleged “fossilized” reefs shows that
they are made of sediments not bound together by fossils
in original growth positions, and some do not have a solid
rock foundation. Their cores also do not show the types of
growth structures found in modern coral reefs, while their
angles of deposition, as well as other evidences, point to
rapid sediment and fossil deposition. On the other hand, if
these were pre-Flood reefs somewhat different to modern
reefs, they could have been washed into place during the
Flood.

Questions to Consider

How was the geologic column we see in the textbooks developed?
When was the timescale added?

If the geologic column represents an order in the layers of
Grand Canyon and radiometric dating is accurate, then why
do layers lower in the canyon give dates much younger than
upper layers?

If there are supposedly hundreds of millions of years between
the layers at the top and bottom of Grand Canyon, why were
the layers all folded the same way simultaneously without breaking?
Would the bending of those layers be better explained if
the layers were still soft?

How were the extensive sedimentary layers formed on top of
one another? Could a global flood explain the deposition of
these layers?

How do uniformitarian geologists explain the lack of erosion
between many layers in Grand Canyon if they were deposited
millions of years apart?

Why is a global flood rejected as an explanation for the geologic
features we see on the earth today?

Are the index fossils a reliable way to date rock layers over billions
of years of history if scientists can’t agree on the classification
of living creatures today?

How can a tiny river explain the deep, wide erosion of features
like Grand Canyon? Could a massive flood explain their formation?

Newsletter

Thank You!

Thank you for signing up to receive email newsletters from Answers in Genesis.

Whoops!

Your newsletter signup did not work out. Please refresh the page and try again.

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth.