Creation Questions

Category: Catastrophic Plate Tectonics

  • Do Creationists Make Predictions?

    Do Creationists Make Predictions?

    A common criticism against scientists who espouse a young-age and global flood is that they don’t make testable predictions. However, a closer look reveals that creation science has a robust history of making predictions that challenge mainstream assumptions. To respond to the critic’s claim, we will look at eight predictions of note which are rooted in a biblical perspective of history, have been repeatedly validated, and prompt the need for a re-evaluation of the established paradigm.

    1. The Rapid Formation of Opals

    Dr. Len Crampton, a creationist geologist from New South Wales, Australia, dared to question the conventional timescale for opal formation. Mainstream geology posits that opals form over millions of years through slow, gradual processes. However, Crampton, drawing upon the catastrophic implications of the global Flood, predicted that opals could form rapidly under conditions of silica-rich solutions and rapid deposition. His experimental work demonstrated the feasibility of this rapid formation, challenging the long-age assumptions of conventional geology. While consensus geology made a story about opals which fit their narrative, creationists found the practical mechanism behind opal creation.

    2. Carbon-14 in “Ancient” Samples

    One of the most contentious areas of debate is the presence of Carbon-14 (C-14) in samples deemed millions of years old. Conventional radiometric dating assumes that C-14, with its relatively short half-life of 5,730 years, should be undetectable in samples older than 100,000 years. Yet, creation scientists, including those involved with the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project, have consistently predicted and found measurable C-14 in fossils, coal, and diamonds (Baumgardner, 2003). This finding directly challenges the long-age interpretations and raises questions about the assumptions underlying radiometric dating, but, significantly, it was predicted by creationists.

    3. Mature Galaxies and the Absence of Population III Stars

    In the realm of cosmology, Dr. Jason Lisle predicted that the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) would reveal mature galaxies at great distances and a lack of Population III stars, the hypothetical first stars formed after the Big Bang. This prediction stands in stark contrast to standard cosmological models, which require long periods for galaxy formation and predict the existence of these primordial stars. The early JWST data has aligned with Lisle’s prediction, prompting a re-evaluation of current cosmological timelines. Another prediction in the bag.

    4. The Functionality of “Junk” DNA

    Evolutionary theory initially proposed that non-coding DNA was “junk,” remnants of evolutionary processes with no function. However, creation scientists, including Dr. Robert Carter, predicted that this “junk” DNA would be found to have important functions (Carter, 2010). The ENCODE project and subsequent research have demonstrated widespread biochemical activity within non-coding DNA, indicating its crucial roles in gene regulation and other cellular processes. This discovery challenges the notion of “junk” DNA and supports the concept of intelligent design.

    5. Helium Diffusion in Zircon Crystals

    Back to geology. In 1982, Dr. Robert Gentry discovered that the nuclear-decay-generated helium in little crystals in granites called zircons was too high for the rocks to have undergone a constant decay rate (Gentry, 1986). His observation lead to Dr. Russell Humphreys prediction during the early stages of the RATE project (Humphreys, 2000, p. 348, Figure 7), which were verified by an external laboratory, challenged the conventional radiometric dating assumptions. The high retention rates of helium in zircon crystals indicate that they cannot be millions of years old. The data fit his prediction, as shown below, perfectly.

    6. Cool Subducted Zones and Rapid Plate Tectonics

    Dr. John Baumgardner, a geophysicist, predicted that subducted lithospheric zones in the mantle would be cooler than expected (Baumgardner, 1994), due to rapid plate tectonics during the Flood. Observations have confirmed these cooler zones, supporting the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT) model.

    7. Lack of Metamorphosis in Folded Rock Layers

    Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling predicted that Tapeats sandstone samples in bends would not exhibit metamorphic change to the minerals, despite the folding of the layers. This is because he predicted that all the sedimentary layers were laid down during the flood and that seismic activity below caused the layers to deform over the hardened faults below. Snelling et al. investigated the Tapeats and found no metamorphosing (Snelling, 2021). This evidence supports the prediction that these rocks were bent while still soft and it refutes the mainstream science prediction of ductile deformation (immense pressure and heat over time which should result in metamorphic changes), demonstrating that the folding occurred rapidly, before the rocks had time to metamorphose.

    8. Human Genetic Diversity

    Creation models predicted a relatively recent origin for humanity, with low genetic diversity. Genetic studies, including those on mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome, have supported this prediction, pointing to a relatively recent common ancestry.

    These are my top eight examples which highlight the predictive power of the creationist model. These predictions and their verifications dispel the myth that “creationists don’t make predictions” and, hopefully, give you a deeper appreciation for the robustness and explanatory power of the creationist worldview.

    Citations:

    1. John Baumgardner, J. R. (2003). Carbon-14 evidence for a recent global flood and a young age of the Earth. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (pp. 129-142). Creation Science Fellowship.
    2. Carter, R. W. (2010). The non-coding genome. Journal of Creation, 24(3), 116-123.
    3. Gentry, R. V. (1986). Radiohalos in polonium 218: evidence of a pre-cambrian granite. Science, 234(4776), 561-566.
    4. Humphreys, D. R. (2000). Accelerated nuclear decay: evidence for young-age radiocarbon dating. In Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative (pp. 333-379). Institute for Creation Research. p. 348, Figure 7.
    5. Baumgardner, J. R. (1994). Runaway subduction as the driving mechanism for the Genesis flood. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (pp. 63-75). Creation Science Fellowship.
    6. Snelling, A. A. (2021). The Petrology of the Tapeats Sandstone, Tonto Group, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Answers Research Journal, 14, 159–254.

  • The Flood: A Brief Outline

    The Flood: A Brief Outline

    The biblical account of a global flood, as described in Genesis, provides a powerful and coherent framework for understanding the Earth’s geological history. This model challenges the conventional uniformitarian timescale and offers compelling explanations for numerous geological phenomena. Today I will provide an outline of some of the most interesting lines of evidence for a worldwide flood.

    I. Rapid Sedimentation & Fossilization

    The fossil record and sedimentary formations reveal evidence of rapid burial and deposition, indicative of catastrophic processes:

    • Delicate & Detailed Preservation: Exquisite fossils (Solnhofen Limestone) and fragile charcoal preservation indicate swift burial.
    • Mass Burial Graveyards: Massive fossil graveyards (Siberian mammoths, Redwall Limestone nautiloids) suggest events within hours, not millennia.
    • Absence of Decay and Scavenging: Preserved soft tissues (collagen, DNA) defy millions of years, requiring rapid burial.
    • Polystrate Fossils: Upright trees spanning multiple layers demand swift sediment accumulation.
    • Paleohydraulic Evidence and Bedding Plane Concentrations: Rapid depositional events and undisturbed charcoal layers support quick burial.
    • Lack of Bioturbation: Sharp layer boundaries and minimal biological disturbance indicate rapid burial.
    • Turbulent Deposition and High Energy Transport: Mixed sediments and hydrodynamic models support high-energy, rapid deposition.
    • Pulsed deposition: Multiple layers indicate multiple rapid events.
    • Turbidites: Underwater landslides indicate rapid sediment deposition.
    • Folded sedimentary layers (with no metamorphosing): Layers folded while still soft indicate rapid formation.
    • Sand injectites: Rapid liquefaction and deposition of sand.
    • Iodine retention: Volatile element presence indicates rapid burial.

    II. Marine Transgression, Fossil Distribution, & Geological Formations Are Global

    The global distribution of marine fossils and geological formations indicates a worldwide flood:

    • Extensive Deposits: Lateral continuity of formations (Morrison, Coconino) suggests rapid, continent-wide deposition.
    • Lateral continuity: Sedimentary layers that spread across continents indicate rapid and large-scale deposition.
    • Indicators of Marine Deposition in All Sediments: Marine fossils and structures throughout the geological column.
    • Water Levels Exceeding Terrestrial Plates Globally: Scale of deposits indicates water levels far exceeding current boundaries.
    • High energy transport: Size of transported sediments is impossible to explain with slow processes.
    • Clear turbulent deposition: Many sedimentary layers show evidence of high-energy water flow.
    • Mega-sequences correlating as extremes of known mechanisms: The size and scope of these deposits are best explained by a global flood.
    • No erosion between layers: The absence of erosional channels is best explained by rapid sequential deposition.
    • Universal evidence of marine deposited sandstones: Continents once covered by water.

    III. Rapid Erosion & Post Flood Events

    Post-flood geological features reveal rapid erosion and catastrophic water action:

    • Channel Scablands: Vast channels in the Pacific Northwest indicate powerful, rapid water flow.
    • Underfit Rivers and Meltwater Channels: Massive channels with small rivers suggest immense post-flood meltwater flows.
    • Erosional Features and Missoula Floods Evidence: Gigantic potholes and evidence of massive floods demonstrate post-flood water action.
    • Geological Structures and Erratics: Structures influencing flood flow and erratic boulders indicate dynamic post-flood processes.
    • Massive interconnected surface channels: Large water flows across continents.
    • Massive erosion events like the Grand Staircase: Best explained by a global flood.
    • Laminated canyon edges: Indicate rapid canyon formation.

    IV. Rapid Chemical Processes & Young-Age Indicators

    Chemical processes and age indicators challenge conventional timelines, supporting a young Earth:

    • Radiometric Dating Assumptions: Unverifiable assumptions in dating methods question deep-time estimates.
    • Radiohalos in Zircon Crystals and Helium Diffusion: Polonium radiohalos and helium retention indicate rapid formation and a young Earth.
    • Shoreline and Terrestrial Erosion: Current erosion rates are inconsistent with millions of years.
    • C14 in Fossils and Soft Tissue: Detectable C14 and preserved soft tissue challenge conventional timelines.
    • Lithosphere Subduction Temperatures: Thermal models point to a much younger subduction event.
    • Magnetic Field Decay: Earth’s decaying magnetic field suggests a younger age.
    • Ocean Salinity: Current salinity levels are too low for billions of years.

    In conclusion, the geological evidence, when viewed through a biblical lens, overwhelmingly supports the reality of a global flood and a young Earth. This framework provides a coherent and compelling explanation for the Earth’s geological history, challenging the conventional uniformitarian paradigm.