…and does it matter? Geological evidence against ‘millions of years’.

Paul Garner’s final and longest article explores the plausibility of a creationist worldview.

One of the major tenets of ‘young-Earth creationism’ is the idea that the Earth was supernaturally created by God in six days about 6,000 years ago. This position stands in marked contrast to the conventional view that the Earth was formed by naturalistic processes about 4.6 billion years ago, a position maintained by both old-Earth creationists and theistic evolutionists.

In my previous articles, I considered some of the theological consequences of embracing the idea of an old Earth. Most significantly, the old-Earth position means accepting that death and bloodshed, sickness and disease, violence and natural disasters were all part of the world that God declared “very good” in the beginning. This inevitably affects how we understand Christ’s atonement, and in particular why he had to physically suffer and die to pay the penalty of sin. I concluded that only the young-Earth position enables us to make sense of the theological data.

But young-Earth creationists face what we might call a plausibility problem. So ingrained is the old-Earth view, not only in the scientific community but in wider culture, that to challenge it seems ridiculous to most thinking people. It does not seem reasonable to suggest that geologists might have got the question of the Earth’s age so wrong or that the rock layers they study might have been laid down in a short time rather than over millions of years.

So if young-Earth creationism is to gain a hearing – even among Christians – the problem of plausibility must be addressed. In this article I am going to explore this problem with a look at the Earth’s sedimentary rock record, regarded by many as the primary evidence for the old-Earth model.

Young-Earth creationists face a plausibility problem: challenging the old-Earth view seems ridiculous to most thinking people.

The Sedimentary Rock Record

Earth’s continents are covered with fossil-bearing sedimentary rock averaging about 1,500-2,000m thick, though much thicker in some places.¹ These rocks originated as layers of (usually) water-deposited sediment (such as sand, silt and clay) that were subsequently compacted and cemented into rock.

The question facing us concerns how quickly these sediments were laid down. Were they deposited during a one-year flood and its aftermath - as inferred from the Bible by young-Earth creationists - or over hundreds of millions of years, as inferred from radiometric dating by old-Earth creationists and theistic evolutionists?

Radiometric dating refers to the methods used by geologists to assign ages of millions or billions of years to the rocks and minerals of the Earth’s crust. As noted in my previous articles, radiometric dating methods use the decay of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes as a kind of ‘geological clock’. Radiometric dating can only rarely be applied directly to sedimentary rocks, but it can be applied to igneous rocks (such as lava flows and volcanic ash deposits) interbedded with the sedimentary rocks, thus dating the sediments indirectly.

It is important to recognise that radiometric dates have a kind of inherent plausibility. First, they yield actual numbers, with error bars. For example, the Cardenas Basalt in the Grand Canyon of Arizona can be assigned a radiometric age of 1,111 million years plus or minus 81 million years.² This fact alone lends radiometric dates an air of precision – although precision, of course, is not the same as accuracy!³

Moreover, radiometric dates generally reflect the sequence in which rock units are known to have formed, on the basis of other geological evidence (see the example in Figure 1).⁴ In other words, older rocks tend to give older radiometric dates; younger rocks tend to give younger radiometric dates – thereby making the dates appear even more plausible.

Figure 1. Radiometric dating results accurately reflect the order in which rock units were formed. This block diagram depicts the rock layers in the walls of the Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA, including the rock units deep in the inner gorge along the Colorado River. Despite variations and uncertainties, the rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr) radiometric ‘clock’ correctly shows that the Brahma amphibolites and Elves Chasm granodiorite are older than the Cardenas Basalt and Bass Rapids dolerite sill, and all four rock units in the inner gorge are older than the horizontal sedimentary layers in the canyon walls. After Snelling, AA, 2010. Radiometric dating: making sense of the patterns. Answers 5(1):72-75.So, how do young-Earth creationists address the challenges posed by radiometric dating?

One approach is to challenge the assumptions underlying dating techniques, for example assumptions about the initial conditions, the constancy of decay rates or contamination of the samples being dated. This was the approach taken by the RATE⁵ group, whose research uncovered multiple lines of evidence that millions of years’ worth of radioactive decay had taken place in just months during Noah’s Flood.⁶

But there is another way to challenge radiometric dating: to ask whether radiometric dates make sense when compared to other kinds of geological data. This is the approach we will take in this article. We will begin by considering sediment accumulation rates.

We can challenge the assumptions underlying dating techniques – and we can also ask whether radiometric dates make sense when compared to other kinds of geological data.

Sediment Accumulation Rates

There are several methods that can be used to estimate the rates at which sediments are being laid down today in a variety of environments, from rivers to lakes to oceans. One method involves spreading a layer of easily identifiable material (such as white clay or brick dust) over a natural sediment surface.⁷ Then at chosen intervals, say every six months, a core may be taken at the site and the depth to which the marker material has become buried can be measured.

Another common method is to use a sediment trap of some kind.⁸ Sediment traps are usually cylinders or cones closed at the bottom and open at the top. Sometimes they are suspended on a frame in mid-water but more often they are anchored to the bottom. After several days or months, the trap can be recovered, the sediment in the tube dried and weighed, and an estimate of the sediment flux can be made.

We know from studies of this kind that modern sedimentation rates vary quite a bit depending on the particular environment in which the sediments are being laid down. For example, sediments are typically deposited about ten times faster in a lake than in the ocean.⁹ But generally, modern sedimentation rates range from less than 0.1 cm/year to more than 2.0 cm/year, most often averaging around 1.0 cm/year.¹⁰

Let’s compare this to sedimentation rates in the geological past. Obviously ancient sedimentation rates cannot be directly measured, so we have to rely on indirect methods to estimate them. One common method is to apply radiometric dating. The thickness of sediment between two radiometrically-dated rock layers can be measured and, assuming that the radiometric dates are correct, the amount of time for the accumulation of the sediment and a sedimentation rate in centimetres per year can be calculated.

Figure 2. How radiometric dates are used to estimate ancient sedimentation rates. Consider the example in Figure 2, which shows a stack of sedimentary rocks 500 metres thick between two volcanic ash layers. The sedimentary rocks cannot be dated directly using radiometric methods, but the volcanic ash layers can.¹¹ The lowermost ash layer has a radiometric age of 545 million years and the uppermost ash layer an age of 495 million years.

The time it took to deposit these sediments can be calculated by subtracting the uppermost date from the lowermost date to give 50 million years. The sedimentation rate can also be calculated, in this case amounting to 500 metres of sediment in 50 million years or about 0.001 cm/year.

As with studies of sedimentation rates in modern environments, estimates based on radiometric dates vary quite a bit. But they typically range from less than 0.0001 cm/year to more than 0.01 cm/year, most often averaging around 0.001 cm/year.¹²

Something very striking should now be obvious. Average ancient sedimentation rates estimated using radiometric dates are much, much slower than those based on direct measurements in modern lakes, rivers and oceans. In fact, ancient rates estimated using radiometric dates are slower than modern rates by about three orders of magnitude – a 1,000-fold difference. That is a large discrepancy.

Another way of expressing this discrepancy is to say that if average sedimentation rates in the past were similar to those in the present (as most old-Earth geologists would assume) there ought to be many times more sedimentary rock than we actually find in the geological record. There is nothing like enough sedimentary rock if the layers accumulated over hundreds of millions of years!

A Conundrum for the Old-Earth Model

Old-Earth geologists are well aware of this discrepancy and have been for a long time. In fact, the geologist Joseph Barrell recognised the problem as early as 1917, while radiometric dating techniques were still in their infancy,¹³ and other geologists since have made similar observations.^14,15,16

One of the classic studies of this problem was by geologist Peter Sadler, currently at the University of California Riverside. In 1981, he compiled nearly 25,000 estimates of sedimentation rates over different time spans, ranging from measurements made in an hour during a modern flash flood to estimates of ancient sedimentation rates over millions of years based on radiometric dating.¹⁷

He plotted all these estimates of sedimentation rates against the time spans for which they were determined, and showed that sedimentation rates based on radiometric dates are orders of magnitude lower than sedimentation rates based on modern-day measurements. In fact, the discrepancy gets bigger the longer the time span being considered, a phenomenon that has become known as ‘the Sadler effect’.¹⁸

Is there a solution to this problem? Old-Earth geologists say that since there is no evidence that average sedimentation rates really were slower in the geological past compared to today,¹⁹ the answer has to be that much more sediment was originally deposited but that most of it was eroded away before it could be preserved in the rock record.

To put it another way, the discrepancy can be resolved from an old-Earth standpoint only if the Earth’s rock record is the product of brief episodes of sedimentation punctuated by very long periods of erosion or inactivity. Then, sedimentation rates based on radiometric dating would only appear to be unrealistically slow, because most of the sediment that was originally laid down is now missing from any local section of the rock record.

Old-Earth geologists try to resolve the problem of the missing rock layers by arguing for brief episodes of sedimentation punctuated by long periods of erosion or inactivity.

Indeed, this is the predominant view expressed in the standard geological literature. The late Professor Derek Ager, former President of the Geologists’ Association, summed it up in characteristically memorable style in his book, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record. The capitals and italics are his:

THE SEDIMENTARY PILE AT ANY ONE PLACE ON THE EARTH’S SURFACE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A TINY AND FRAGMENTARY RECORD OF VAST PERIODS OF EARTH HISTORY. This may be called the Phenomenon of the Gap Being More Important than the Record.²⁰

And he drove the point home in the same chapter with this statement:

If you study textbooks or correlation charts, such as those produced by the Geological Society of America and the Geological Society of London, you come inevitably to the conclusion that the stratigraphical column in any one place is a long record of sedimentation with occasional gaps…But I maintain that a far more accurate picture of the stratigraphical record is of one long gap with only very occasional sedimentation.²¹ (my emphasis)

Now if this view of Earth history is correct, then the preserved sedimentary rock record must be extremely incomplete. The Dutch geologist Tjeerd van Andel emphasised how incomplete:

…invariably we find that the rock record requires only a small fraction, usually 1 to 10 percent, of the available time, even if we take account of all possible breaks in the sequence…The universality and especially the magnitude of the shortfall are startling.²² (my emphasis)

More recently, British geologist Robin Bailey has written:

…at all scales, the rock layers themselves represent only a small proportion of the time involved in the accumulation of a major sedimentary series, such as the Coal Measures or the Lias Clay – maybe as little as 10%.²³

However, it should be noted that both the long time gaps and the missing sediment demanded by the old-Earth viewpoint are entirely hypothetical! Radiometric dating requires long time gaps and a great deal of missing sediment, but these things are not deduced from the physical evidence of the rock record itself.

In fact, to the contrary, the physical evidence provides powerful evidence against long time gaps. For if erosion had removed lots of sediment we ought to see physical evidence that significant amounts of erosion had taken place.

Radiometric dating requires long time gaps and a great deal of missing sediment, but these things are entirely hypothetical – and the physical evidence of the rock record actually testifies against them.

Time Gaps Should Leave Evidence

Figure 3 shows the kind of evidence we would expect to see if long time periods had passed between sedimentary episodes:

• Figure 3. If erosion had removed lots of sediment we would expect to see physical evidence of this in the rock record. After Roth, AA, 1988. Those gaps in the sedimentary layers. Origins 15(2):75-92.

  In (A), a continuous series of sedimentary layers is deposited.
  

• Then there is a long time gap during which erosion takes place, sediments are removed and an uneven topography develops (B).
  
• Then the deposition of sediments resumes and buries the old erosion surface (C).
  
• This is followed by a second cycle of erosion and deposition, producing a very complex stratigraphy with evidence of multiple, uneven, buried erosion surfaces (D).
  
• But contrast this with what is more normally seen in the rock record (E): flat-lying sedimentary layers without significant amounts of erosion evident between them. And this absence of significant erosion is typical, even when time gaps of millions of years are thought to separate two consecutive rock formations.

Figure 4 helps to emphasise how common these time gaps are in a well-studied area. It shows a vertical section through the sedimentary layers found across south-eastern Utah. The region represented here is 133km across, while the total thickness of the rock layers is 3.5km. The thickness of the rock layers has been magnified by about 14 times in order to show their features in this diagram.

Figure 4. The dramatic contrast between present-day topography and the flat-lying sedimentary layers in southeastern Utah, USA. The yellow bands represent sedimentary rock formations, while the green shaded areas represent presumed time gaps between the sedimentary rock formations. The main divisions of the geological column are given on the left, along with their conventional ages in millions of years. Labels on the right represent the names of the major rock formations. After Roth, AA, 2009. “Flat gaps” in sedimentary rock layers challenge long geologic ages. Journal of Creation 23(2):76-81.The presumed time gaps in this section of the rock record are shown by the green shading. In reality the rock formations (in yellow) rest on top of one another over large areas without evidence of significant erosion between them.

The red dashed and purple solid lines (indicated by black arrows) are examples of the present irregular eroded surface of the land in this region. Note the dramatic contrast between the irregular surface of the present landscape and the flat surfaces of the rock layers in the past (the yellow layers).

Example: The Moenkopi-Shinarump Time Gap

Let us consider one specific time gap. The contact between the Moenkopi Formation and the overlying Shinarump Conglomerate (the lowermost unit of the Chinle Formation) is exposed across much of the Colorado Plateau of the south-western USA. It has been described as an ancient erosion surface representing a considerable span of missing time. The whole of the Middle Triassic and part of the Upper Triassic is missing between these two rock formations. According to radiometric dating, the missing time amounts to at least 10 and perhaps as much as 35 million years.

But is it reasonable to think so much time passed between the deposition of these two rock formations? Geologists Art Chadwick and Leonard Brand have examined the contact between the two formations at most outcrops in southern and central Utah and northern Arizona.²⁴

If long time periods had passed between sedimentary episodes, we would expect to see evidence in the geological record.

They report that across much of this area the contact appears to be perfectly flat and without evidence of significant erosion. In fact, there are thin siltstone and mudstone layers just below the contact that they were able to trace for over 50km. How were such fragile layers able to survive more than 10 million years of erosion?

Moreover, in some places structures known as ‘load casts’ are observed at the contact. Load casts are bulges that form on the underside of a sedimentary layer when it is deposited on top of another soft, unconsolidated layer. These load casts indicate that the underlying Moenkopi sediments must have been water-saturated and unconsolidated at the time the overlying Shinarump was laid down.

These features are inconsistent with a long time gap between final deposition of the Moenkopi and the beginning of Shinarump deposition. It seems highly improbable that several million years of time passed between these two formations.

Paraconformities: A Geological Enigma

Similar flat contacts, thought to represent long time gaps, are found across the world and are quite common in various parts of the geological record.^25,26,27 Geologists refer to them as ‘paraconformities’. But why do these flat contacts not show evidence of the erosion we would expect if so much time had passed? Based on average modern erosion rates, it would take only 10-34 million years to erode the mountains down to sea level.²⁸ Yet these contacts, which often represent equivalent time gaps, are typically very flat, indicating that little erosion has taken place.

In a 1984 paper, palaeontologist Norman Newell acknowledged the enigmatic nature of paraconformities:

A puzzling characteristic of [major stratigraphic boundaries] is the general lack of physical evidence of subaerial exposure. Traces of deep leaching, scour, channeling, and residual gravels tend to be lacking, even when the underlying rocks are cherty limestones…These boundaries are paraconformities that are identifiable only by paleontological evidence.²⁹

Careful examination of these flat contacts causes us to question whether the long time spans necessitated by radiometric dating have a solid foundation.

So far-reaching are the implications of this missing time problem that the Geological Society of London devoted its annual William Smith Meeting in 2012 to discussing it. The papers from the meeting were subsequently published in a special volume entitled Strata and Time: Probing the Gaps in our Understanding, in 2015. In the introductory paper, the authors wrote:

The existence of [time] gaps is clearly demonstrated by consideration of [sediment] accumulation rates, but identifying and quantifying them in the field is far more difficult…³⁰

This is a very telling statement. Radiometric dating requires long time gaps interspersed with only occasional bursts of sedimentation, but trying to identify these time gaps in the geological record is far from straightforward. In fact, the authors refer to the time gaps as “often cryptic”,³¹ which means that they are hidden! I think we are justified in asking why it is so hard to find evidence of this missing time if the radiometric dates are correct.

Radiometric dating requires long time gaps interspersed with only occasional bursts of sedimentation, but trying to find evidence of these time gaps in the geological record is far from straightforward.

Bioturbation

But missing sediments and lack of erosion are not the only problems facing the old-Earth model. Another is the absence of animal traces. Even if a sedimentary layer was not being actively eroded during a long time gap, other factors would have come into play.

Imagine a freshly deposited layer of sediment, exposed on the sea floor for some period of time. Such a layer would quickly be colonised by bottom-dwelling animals that would burrow into the surface to build their homes or process the sediment for food. These activities would mix up the sediment and destroy any internal structures it originally possessed, such as layering.

We call this sediment mixing by animals ‘bioturbation’. And the oceans teem with burrowing animals, drawn from a wide variety of groups.³² Among them are clams, shrimps, sea urchins and many kinds of worms. Moreover, we know that many of these marine organisms can move very rapidly through the sediment, burrowing centimetres to tens of centimetres in a matter of seconds to minutes.³³

One remarkably rapid burrower is the West Indian beach clam. This species is found in very large numbers in the tidal zone of sandy beaches in the West Indies.³⁴ It can burrow into the sand at rates of almost half a centimetre per second, achieving complete burial in only a few seconds.³⁵ This (and closely related species) can burrow so quickly that they follow the surf-line up and down the beach with the rising and falling of the tide – a distance of up to 30 metres in some cases.^{36,37,38,39,40}

In fact, it doesn’t take long for burrowing animals to completely churn up (‘homogenise’) sedimentary layers to a depth of several centimetres, so that all the internal layering is completely destroyed. Experiments with deposit feeders (animals that process the sediment for food), in population densities of 10,000/m², have shown that they can completely homogenise a sedimentary layer to a depth of 10cm in as little as one hour!⁴¹ Some readers may wonder whether a population density of 10,000 individuals/m² is realistic in the natural world, but some burrowing crustaceans exceed 40,000 individuals/m² and some burrowing worms may reach 60,000/m².^42,43,44

Actually, homogenisation of sediments is rapid even when population numbers are much lower than this. Here are a few examples from the published literature:

• Lugworms in densities of 200 individuals/m² completely reworked the sediment they lived in to a depth of 10cm in 100 days.⁴⁵
  
• Heart urchins in densities exceeding 40 individuals/m² completely reworked the sediment they lived in to a depth of 5cm in 3 days, and in more than 20 days with lower densities.⁴⁶
  
• Ghost shrimp in densities of 89-890 individuals/m² were estimated to rework the sediment they lived in by about 67% to a depth of 12cm in as little as 15½ hours.⁴⁷

Missing sediments and lack of erosion are not the only problems facing the old-Earth model - another is the absence of animal traces in the rock record.

Given how fast these marine animals are known to completely churn up sediments in the modern ocean, old-Earth geologists would expect complete homogenisation of layers to be the norm in the ancient rock record, just as it is in the modern oceans. Richard Bromley, an expert on the burrowing activities of animals, makes this point in one of his textbooks on trace fossils:

100 per cent bioturbation of the substrate is the natural end product of the activity of the endobenthos [animals that live within the sea floor sediment]. Failure to reach 100 per cent, or the failure of that state to be preserved in the rock record, are conditions that require explanation.⁴⁸

From an old-Earth perspective, the complete destruction of all sedimentary layering should be the rule. What do we actually observe in the rock record?

Example: Colorado Plateau Survey

Over the last decade or so, geologists Leonard Brand and Art Chadwick have been conducting a survey of bioturbation in the rock formations of Utah and western Colorado,⁴⁹ an area of the USA where much of the geological record is well exposed and not covered by vegetation.

They and their colleagues have carefully worked their way through many vertical sections of rock – measuring thousands of metres in thickness – representing most parts of the rock record from the Cambrian System (conventionally dated 541-485 million years ago) to the Eocene Series (conventionally dated 56-34 million years ago).

Each section was examined centimetre-by-centimetre and layer-by-layer for evidence of animal burrows. And the amount of burrowing in each layer was quantified using a scale from ‘1’ to ‘4’, where ‘1’ means there was no bioturbation or not enough to noticeably disturb the layering, and ‘4’ means that the sediment was completely homogenised and all the layering destroyed.

Their survey revealed that the vast majority of the formations studied had little to no bioturbation, with the sedimentary layering generally well preserved. For example, in a 500m-thick section of the Triassic Moenkopi Formation in southwestern Utah there were a couple of beds with burrows, but none in which the layering was significantly disturbed. Every bed was therefore ranked level ‘1’ on the measurement scale.⁵⁰

The amount of bioturbation in this section was about average for all the sections surveyed. Even in the section with the greatest amount of bioturbation, a 60m-thick section through the Cretaceous Mancos Shale in central Utah, almost all beds lacked burrows and were ranked ‘1’ on the measurement scale. A few beds showed significant burrowing (and were ranked ‘3’) and only a couple were completely homogenised (and ranked ‘4’).⁵¹

These observations present another conundrum for the old-Earth model. We know that the oceans teem with animals that burrow into the sea floor to build their homes or to feed, and we know that this is an extremely effective way to destroy the layering in sea floor sediments. In fact, it is almost impossible to imagine a layer of exposed sediment surviving intact for even a few years – let alone longer time spans.⁵² Yet most sedimentary rock layers show few signs of disruption by burrowing animals, even when the fossil remains of burrowing animals are present in those very same rock layers.

Most sedimentary rock layers show few signs of disruption by burrowing animals, even when the fossil remains of burrowing animals are present in those very same rock layers.

The absence of bioturbation is one important reason why the rock record contains so many sedimentary rocks with distinct layering. If these layers had been laid down as episodically as radiometric dates suggest, we would expect the normal activity of burrowing animals between each sedimentary event to have thoroughly mixed up most of the layers, erasing any original internal structures.

Indeed, as Brand and Chadwick have noted,⁵³ sedimentologists, who rely on being able to study the internal structures in sedimentary rocks to decipher how they were laid down, would have a very hard time doing their work if these rocks had been deposited as slowly as radiometric dating suggests!

Conclusion

In this short series we have considered some important aspects of the theological and scientific case for a young world. In my first two articles, I argued that the young-Earth position makes the most sense of the biblical and theological data, and is the only position that allows us to maintain a traditional understanding of the goodness of the original Creation and the atonement of Christ as payment for sin’s penalty.

However, the young-Earth position faces a plausibility problem when considering the scientific data. Is it really possible to account for the geological evidence in a young-Earth time-frame? In this final article, I have answered that question affirmatively.

Radiometric dating suggests that the Earth’s sedimentary rock record accumulated over hundreds of millions of years. But it follows that the rock record must be the product of only occasional bursts of sedimentation interspersed with long periods of erosion or inactivity. However, in many places there is no physical evidence of the erosion we would expect between consecutive rock layers, even when they are thought to have been separated by millions of years. Moreover, the expected levels of bioturbation are not observed and sedimentary layering is generally well preserved.

The old-Earth model fails to explain these data. By contrast, the young-Earth model is able to explain these data quite well. In the young-Earth model most of the fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks are considered to have accumulated in the year-long catastrophe of Noah’s Flood (and its aftermath), not over hundreds of millions of years. Sedimentation rates during the Flood and in the centuries afterward would have been very high and are able to explain the observed thickness of sedimentary rocks, with no need to invoke time gaps except where there is definite evidence.

It is not scientifically unreasonable to look for explanations within a young-Earth framework and call into question the reliability of taken-for-granted dating techniques.

During the Flood, deposition was mostly too rapid for burrowing animals to homogenise the sediments, unlike in the present day when homogenisation of sediments is the norm. Burrows are found throughout the sedimentary record, but the amount of activity is most consistent with short periods of time.

In conclusion, the young-Earth model not only accounts for the biblical and theological data that we discussed in the first two articles; it also offers a plausible explanation for the major features of the Earth’s sedimentary rock record. Of course, there are many other geological features that any model of Earth history must explain, but the evidence presented here shows that it is not scientifically unreasonable to look for explanations within a young-Earth framework and to call into question the reliability of taken-for-granted dating techniques like radiometric dating.

References

1 Brand, L and Chadwick, A, 2016. Faith, Reason, and Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth and Biological Origins by Intelligent Design. Third edition. Andrews University Press, Berrien Springs, Michigan, p1039. Page numbers refer to the ebook edition.

2 DeYoung, D, 2005. Thousands…Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth. Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, p126.

3 Precision is the degree to which repeated measurements give similar results. Accuracy is the closeness of a measurement to the true value. Measurements can be very precise but inaccurate!

4 Snelling, AA, 2010. Radiometric dating: making sense of the patterns. Answers 5(1):72-75.

5 The acronym stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth.

6 For more information about this research consult Don DeYoung’s book, ‘Thousands…Not Billions’, ref 2, or the two technical RATE volumes by Vardiman, L, Snelling, AA and Chaffin, EF (eds), 2000. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California and Creation Research Society, St Joseph, Missouri. 2005. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, Arizona.

7 Thomas, S and Ridd, PV, 2004. Review of methods to measure short time scale sediment accumulation. Marine Geology 207:95-114.

8 Thomas and Ridd, ref 7.

9 Boggs, S, Jr, 1995. Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy. Second edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, p332.

10 Sommerfield, CK and Nitrouer, CA, 1999. Modern accumulation rates and a sediment budget for the Eel Shelf: a flood-dominated depositional environment. Marine Geology 154:227-241.

11 This is known as ‘age bracketing’. See Doyle, P, Bennett, MR and Baxter, AN, 1994. The Key to Earth History: An Introduction to Stratigraphy. Wiley, Chichester, pp59-60.

12 Brand and Chadwick, ref 1, p1039.

13 Barrell, J, 1917. Rhythms and the measurement of geologic time. Geological Society of America Bulletin 28:745-904.

14 Reineck, HE, 1960. Über zeitlücken in rezenten flachsee-sedimenten. Geologische Rundschau 49:149-161.

15 Miller, TG, 1965. Time in stratigraphy. Palaeontology 8:113-131.

16 Newell, ND, 1972. Stratigraphic gaps and chronostratigraphy. Proceedings of the 24^th International Geological Congress 7:198-204.

17 Sadler, PM, 1981. Sediment accumulation rates and the completeness of stratigraphic sections. Journal of Geology 89:569-584.

18 Schumer, R, Jerolmack, DJ and McElroy, B, 2011. The stratigraphic filter and bias in measurement of geologic rates. Geophysical Research Letters 38(11):L11405.

19 Sadler wrote (1981, p572): “The consistent observation of falling median accumulation rates with increasing time span may be explained in terms of measurement error, post-depositional compaction, long-term evolution of geomorphic systems, or episodic sedimentation.” But he went on to explain that neither errors in age determinations nor thickness reduction by compaction were sufficient to explain the observed trends. He also rejected as unwarranted the idea that sediment accumulation rates had undergone a long-term acceleration as a result of increasing tectonism. Sadler concluded that only episodic sedimentation could account for the data.

20 Ager, DV, 1981. The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record. Second edition. Macmillan, p35.

21 Ager, ref 20, pp34-35.

22 van Andel, TH, 1981. Consider the incompleteness of the geological record. Nature 294:397-398. Quotation on p397.

23 Bailey, R, 2018. Stratigraphy – it’s all about layers, isn’t it? Deposits (53):45-51. Quotation on p51.

24 Chadwick, AV and Brand, LR, 2013. Does the Moenkopi/Chinle contact represent a 10my depositional hiatus on the Colorado Plateau? Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 45(7):241.

25 Roth, AA, 1988. Those gaps in the sedimentary layers. Origins 15(2):75-92.

26 Roth, AA, 2003. Implications of paraconformities. Geoscience Reports 36:1-5.

27 Roth, AA, 2009. “Flat gaps” in sedimentary rock layers challenge long geologic ages. Journal of Creation 23(2):76-81.

28 Roth, AA, 1986. Some questions about geochronology. Origins 13(2):64-85. Published denudation rates for North America suggest that the continents, which average 623m above sea level, could be eroded to sea level in a mere 10.2 million years. Even after correcting these rates for human activity, only 34 million years are required for complete denudation of the continents.

29 Newell, ND, 1984. Mass extinction: unique or recurrent causes? In: Berggren, WA and van Couvering, JA (eds), Catastrophes and Earth History: The New Uniformitarianism. Princeton University Press, pp115-127.

30 Smith, DG et al, 2015. Strata and time: probing the gaps in our understanding. In: Smith, DG et al (eds), Strata and Time: Probing the Gaps in our Understanding. Geological Society of London Special Publication 404, pp1-10. Quotation on p1.

31 Smith et al, ref 30, p1.

32 Endobenthic animals (i.e. those that live within the sediment on the sea floor) are found in virtually every phylum. See Bromley, RG, 1990. Trace Fossils: Biology and Taphonomy. Unwin Hyman, London, p1.

33 Woodmorappe, J, 2006. Are soft-sediment trace fossils (ichnofossils) a time problem for the Flood? Journal of Creation 20(2):113-122.

34 Wade, BA, 1967. Studies on the biology of the West Indian beach clam, Donax denticulatus Linné. 1. Ecology. Bulletin of Marine Science 17:149-174.

35 Trueman, ER, 1971. The control of burrowing and the migratory behavior of Donax denticulatus (Bivalvia: Tellinacea). Journal of the Zoological Society of London 165:453-469.

36 Wade, ref 34.

37 Johnson, PT, 1966. On Donax and other sandy beach inhabitants. Veliger 9:29-30.

38 Turner, HJ and Belding, AL, 1957. The tidal migrations of Donax variabilis Say. Limnology and Oceanography 2:120-124.

39 Pichon, M, 1967. Contribution à l'étude des peuplements de la zone intertidale sur sables fins et sables vaseux non fixés dans la région de Tuléar. Recueil des Travaux de la Station Marine d’Endoume (Fascicule Hors Série Supplément) 7:57-100.

40 Ansell, AD and Trevallion, A, 1969. Behavioural adaptations of intertidal molluscs from a tropical sandy beach. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 4:9-35.

41 Gingras, MK, Pemberton, SG, Dashtgard, S and Dafoe, L, 2008. How fast do marine invertebrates burrow? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 270:280-286.

42 Gingras et al, ref 41.

43 Wilson, WH, Jr, 1981. Sediment-mediated interactions in a densely populated infaunal assemblage: the effects of polychaete Abarenicola pacifica. Journal of Marine Research 39:735-748.

44 Brenchley, GA, 1981. Disturbance and community structure: an experimental study of bioturbation in marine soft-bottom environments. Journal of Marine Research 39:767-790.

45 Swinbanks, DD, 1981. Sediment reworking and the biogenic formation of clay laminae by Abarenicola pacifica. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 51:1137-1145.

46 Lohrer, AM, Thrush, SF, Hunt, L, Hancock, N and Lundquist, C, 2005. Rapid reworking of subtidal sediments by burrowing spatangoid urchins. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 321:155-169.

47 Grimm, KA and Fölmi, KB, 1994. Doomed pioneers: allochthonous crustacean tracemakers in anaerobic basinal strata, Oligo-Miocene San Gregorio Formation, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Palaios 9:313-334.

48 Bromley, ref 32, p200.

49 Brand and Chadwick, ref 1, pp1100-1103.

50 Brand and Chadwick, ref 1, p1102.

51 Brand and Chadwick, ref 1, p1102.

52 For example, Hurricane Carla laid down distinctive layers of sediment off the coast of Texas in 1961. About twenty years later, geologists returned to these layers to find out what had happened to them. Most of the layers had been destroyed by marine organisms, and where the layers could still be found they were almost unrecognisable. See Dott, RH, Jr, 1983. 1982 SEPM Presidential Address: Episodic sedimentation – how normal is average? How rare is rare? Does it matter? Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 53:5-23.

53 Brand and Chadwick, ref 1, p1097.

Further response to article comments

Neil Laing and Andrew Bloxham have raised quite a number of issues and it’s not really possible to do justice to them in a short reply. But I hope the following will be helpful in addressing some of their comments and questions.

Neil begins by stating that the young-age creationist (YAC) position originated in the 1960s with Seventh-day Adventism. This is a common claim but I think it’s misguided. The major tenets of YAC (a recent creation, a historical Adam from whom all humans are descended, no agony before Adam, a cosmic fall, a global flood and so on) are ideas that can be traced back much further than Seventh-day Adventism – indeed, I would say to the biblical authors themselves. These ideas can be found in the writings of the Church Fathers, the Reformers, the Scriptural Geologists of the 19^th century and many other Christians down through the centuries, so it’s incorrect to suggest that they are somehow recent theological innovations.

Neil goes on to say that if one takes a literal interpretation of Genesis one is compelled to “reject virtually all modern scientific theories related to creation”. However, I’m not a YAC because I’ve adopted a naively wooden literalism when it comes to Genesis or the days of creation – rather I’m a YAC because I can’t see how one can otherwise explain the physical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ unless physical death and agony came into the world because of Adam’s sin. As I sought to explain in my first two articles, this is the central theological problem that must be faced by proponents of the old-age position. Furthermore, as a YAC I don’t usually feel the need to entirely reject modern scientific theories – though that may happen in some instances. More often, I want to modify them in interesting ways to see what happens. Consider plate tectonics, the theory that says the Earth’s crust is broken into a series of interlocking plates that move relative to one another. This theory successfully and impressively explains many features of the Earth’s geology. However, the slow movement of the tectonic plates in the present day doesn’t fit with the Bible’s short timescale of Earth history, and this has led YACs to propose a new version of plate tectonics in which the plates separated very rapidly during Noah’s Flood. The new model (called Catastrophic Plate Tectonics) turns out to be even better at explaining the Earth’s geology than the old slow-and-gradual model of plate tectonics. The point is that we didn’t have to “throw out” plate tectonics altogether – we were able to explain more simply by modifying aspects of it.

I was interested to see Bob White’s response to my third article, although I’m not sure he has really engaged with the case I was making. I wasn’t arguing that the age of the Earth can be deduced from sediment accumulation rates – but rather that what we know about sediment accumulation rates, paraconformities and bioturbation in the rock record poses a serious challenge to the standard radiometric timescale, so often taken for granted. Bob’s comment that the sedimentary record “is mainly (with some exceptions) the record of short-lived catastrophic events – such as river floods” is partly correct. Many of the catastrophic events that have left their mark in the rock record are far beyond the scale of local river floods – many were almost unimaginably catastrophic and without any parallel in the modern world.

Neil asks a number of questions about the age of the universe. I didn’t address that topic in my articles for a couple of reasons. First, the question of the age of the universe has far fewer theological implications than, say, the age of fossils (and by implication, the time at which death enters creation) – and so I focused on what is most important theologically. Second, I’m not trained in astronomy or cosmology, so I would have been dealing with matters outside my area of scientific expertise. However, many resources are available that explore issues such as the age of the universe and the travel-time of light from a YAC point of view. I would recommend, for example, ‘The Expanse of Heaven’ (Master Books, 2017, 400pp) and its companion volume ‘The Created Cosmos’ (Master Books, 2016, 350pp), both by astronomer Danny Faulkner.

Andrew Bloxham also raises some interesting questions, though I don’t think they materially affect the case that I was making. He mentions one “glaring omission”, suggesting that Satan was already present in the guise of the deceiving serpent even as God declared the creation “very good”. I think that is to read more into the biblical text than is there. My belief is that at the end of Creation Week Satan was as yet unfallen – that his rebellion against God and expulsion from heaven occurred after God’s declaration that all he had made was very good and before the serpent’s appearance before Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Andrew also asks about the origin of coal, oil and dinosaur skeletons. From a YAC perspective, much (though not all) of the fossil record was formed during the global Flood in the days of Noah. So the dinosaurs and other animals found in those Flood sediments represent creatures that were living before the Flood, and that were then transported, buried and preserved at the time of the Flood. Likewise, the coal and oil now buried within those Flood sediments represents the remains of plants and marine microorganisms buried during the Flood. We know that long periods of time are not required to transform this material into coal and oil, because such processes have been simulated under laboratory conditions within timescales of days to a few years.

I’d like to conclude with a few comments on the puzzlement expressed by Neil Laing about why any Christian would refuse to accept the YAC position if it had sufficient scientific evidence. I think that question can be turned around: Why do so many well-qualified and knowledgeable Christian scientists accept YAC if the scientific evidence is so clearly against it? I actually agree with Neil (in the final statement he makes) that science cannot ultimately settle anything – all we have are provisional theories. Our faith must finally rest in God and his Word, not in scientific arguments. My concluding article was not an attempt to “prove” the YAC position, nor to answer every possible objection to it (if that were even possible). Instead, it had the more limited goal of showing that the YAC position is not unreasonable and ought not to be dismissed out of hand as “obviously” wrong-headed. Of course, reality is complex. Some bits of data seem to favour creation and a young Earth; others seem to favour evolution and an old Earth. Some data can be explained equally well by either model; other data is not explained well by either model. This is why God has spoken in his Word and why we are called to exercise faith (Heb 11:3). I would only add that my testimony as a natural scientist is that the Bible’s account of a recent creation has given me a satisfying framework within which to do science, and has helped me to make sense of the world’s many wonders and mysteries. It’s exciting to be a young-age creationist! “Great are the works of the LORD, studied by all who delight in them” (Ps 111:2, ESV).