Ignore

Young-Earth Creationists (YECs) Claim to Deal with the Same Data as Geologists, but They Actually Ignore or Malign Any Data that Contradicts their Agenda

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

May 4, 2014

YECs Ignoring and not Dealing with Data

Young-Earth creationists (YECs) often claim that they look at the same data as geologists, but that they simply come to different conclusions about the meaning of the data because of their biblical presuppositions (e.g., see the caption on Figure 4 in Oard, 2009a, p. 113, Note: This cartoon was done by Dan Lietha and not Leitha as listed in the credits.). Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 14) also declare:

“Flood geologists may be skeptical of uniformitarian or neocatastrophist conclusions, but not because they dispute the empirical data.”

“Empirical data” refers to information obtained from measurements or observations. A person’s weight and height would be empirical data, but so would measured cycles in thick rhythmites, the water-soluble chemistry of extensive salt deposits in thick sedimentary rocks, and many other observations that immediately and definitively contradict Flood geology.

Oard (2009a) Ignores Negative Results from Reimold et al. (1997)

As discussed in “Scientific Evidence Continues to Confirm the Reality of the Permo-Carboniferous (Late Paleozoic) Glaciations and Undermine YEC-endorsed Impact Hypotheses”, Oard (1997; 2009a) misquotes Oberbeck et al. (1993a, b) and Rampino (1992; 1994) in an attempt to argue that “most and possibly all” pre-Pleistocene tillites have non-glacial origins, including impacts from meteorites and asteroids. To test the impact hypothesis of Oberbeck et al. and Rampino on the Dwyka Group diamictites, Reimold et al. (1997) petrographically examined over 75,000 mineral and rock clasts from a large number of samples. Although Oard (2009a, p. 116) briefly quotes Reimold et al. (1997), he does not mention any of the following key findings in Reimold et al. (1997), which failed to support the YEC-endorsed impact hypothesis:

“No definitive evidence of impact-diagnostic shock metamorphic deformation in mineral or lithic clasts from any of these samples was detected. We conclude, therefore, that to date no unequivocal evidence for an impact origin of these diamictites in the South African stratigraphic record has been documented. What is more, the general hypothesis that some diamictites in the stratigraphic record could represent impact ejecta is not supported by first-order observations of bona fide shock (impact) related phenomena in such rocks.”

So, how does Oard (2009a) fit this disappointing piece of news into his “biblical perspective”? How does Oard (2009a) explain the lack of shock metamorphic deformation in these 75,000 samples? The answer is that he does not. Like many YECs, he ignores the results because they undermine his Flood geology agenda. Only in the bibliography of Oard (2009a), do we finally see the unmistakable title of Reimold et al. (1997) and how it fails to support Mr. Oard’s agenda:

“Are Diamictites Impact Ejecta? - No Supporting Evidence from South African Dwyka Group Diamictite.”

In another relevant article that is not mentioned by Oard (2009a) for whatever reason, Huber et al. (2001) found no geochemical evidence of the enrichment of elements from extraterrestrial impacts in the Dwyka Group.

YECs Ignore Evidence of Long Histories in “Ex Nihilo” Rocks

On p. 211, Reed (2009) invokes the supernatural and declares:

“Finally, Flood models predict regional and megaregional signatures in the rocks, and attribute parts of the crust to a supernatural creation event not open to forensic investigation.”

In other words, if YECs declare a Precambrian crustal rock to be an ex nihilo miracle from the Creation Week, then it's settled. YECs will automatically reject any and all chemical and physical data that indicate that this rock had an extensive history, no matter how good and consistent the data are. Dismissing a large section of the Precambrian crust as an ex nihilo “God did it!” is not dealing with the data on these rocks, but ignoring the data in favor of groundless magic.

In my essay entitled: “More Errors on True.Origin: J. Sarfati’s Support of Flood Geology”, I discuss how YEC Austin (1994) ignores serious inconsistencies and other fatal problems for young-Earth creationism when he concludes that the metamorphic Vishnu Schist and the igneous Zoroaster Plutonic Complex of the Grand Canyon were created during the six 24-hour days of the “Creation Week”:

“Austin (1994, p. 59) admits that the oldest rocks in the Grand Canyon include the metamorphic Vishnu Schist. Metamorphic rocks, by definition, form from the heating of igneous, sedimentary or other metamorphic rocks without melting them (Perkins, 1998, chapter 7). Austin (1994, p. 12) basically agrees with this view. Austin (1994, p. 60) even suggests that the Vishnu Schist formed from older igneous and sedimentary rocks when he states: ‘What the Vishnu and associated rocks in their present form were derived from remains uncertain.’ At the same time, Austin (1994, p. 59) and other YECs typically associate the entire origin of the Vishnu Schist to the ‘Creation Week.’ Specifically, Austin (1994, p. 60) argues that the Vishnu Schist and associated rocks formed on Day 1 and then on Day 3 the Zoroaster ‘Granite’ was injected into the rocks. Assigning the Vishnu Schist and Zoroaster ‘Granite’ to the ‘Creation Week’ creates numerous scientific problems for Austin and his YEC allies. Babcock (1990) discusses the Vishnu Schist and Zoroaster pluton complex and shows that they have very complex histories. Ilg et al. (1996) is another, more recent, study that confirms the complex history of these rocks. Clearly, the complex histories of these rocks can't even fit into a 6,000 to 10,000 year YEC time frame without resorting to a lot of awkward and antiscientific miracles. However, the complex histories are entirely compatible with the geological view that the Vishnu Schist is a product of millions of years of deposition and multiple metamorphic and deformational events. YECs might argue that miraculous origins are to be expected during a ‘Creation Week.’ However, if these rocks were instantaneously zapped into existence from nothing over three 24-hour days, why do they show so much evidence for a long history of complex events? Specifically, the evidence suggests that the Vishnu Schist started out as layers of marine sediments and basaltic to andesitic lava flows and ash deposits (Babcock, 1990, p. 15). At least some of the deposits were associated with volcanic islands. Eventually, some of the volcanics weathered to form quartz-rich sands, silts and clays. The total thickness of the sediment layers and volcanics was greater than 12,200 meters (40,000 feet) (Babcock, 1990, p. 15-16). That's A LOT of eruptions and weathering!! The Vishnu Schist also shows evidence of carbonate lenses that were possibly created by algal mats. Once the sediments and volcanics were buried, they were exposed to at least two episodes of regional metamorphism. The second metamorphic episode was much hotter than the first and probably reached temperatures of 700^oC and pressures of 3-4 kilobars (Babcock, 1990, p. 16-17). The Vishnu Schist also shows signs of contact metamorphism from plutons that were injected into the buried sediments and volcanics (Babcock, 1990, p. 17-18). Radiometric dating indicates that the first metamorphic event occurred about 1720 to 1710 million years ago, while the second and more intense metamorphic event occurred about 1680 to 1650 million years ago (Babcock, 1990, p. 19). The deposition of the 12,200 meters of sediments and volcanics and their multiple metamorphic events can easily fit into the first 3 billion years of the Earth's 4.5 billion year old history.

If God's purpose was to make the Earth's crust on the first day, why go to all the bother of producing 12,200 meters of sediments and volcanics and then destroy them with not one, but at least two, separate metamorphic events? Why not just precipitate the crust from a simple granitic melt and get the job done as YEC Gentry (1988) ignorantly suggests? Even more to the point, why should any scientist invoke miracles to explain away the complex history of the Vishnu Schist when the geology offers a logical history without miracles? Scientists don't see miracles occurring today and they don't see any evidence for miracles in the geologic record, so why should we invoke them to explain the past when the geologic evidence presents a clear and logical history that doesn't depend on unverified supernatural events?

Let's also consider the Zoroaster Plutonic Complex, which Austin (1994, p. 60) suggests formed on the third creation day. The Zoroaster ‘Granite’ actually consists of at least 20 different igneous lithologies, including granites, tonalites, granodiorites, and diorites, grouped into three ‘superunits’ (Babcock, 1990, p. 19-21). With some exceptions, the plutons show increases in their alkali contents from the older to the younger units (Babcock, 1990, p. 24). If all of the Zoroaster plutons were zapped into existence on the third day, why do they show lithological differences and chemical trends? Again, why would miraculous plutons show such complex histories? Why are some of them foliated and some not? Why would geologists be able to see evidence of these events if they never occurred and if these rocks simply appeared from ‘nothing’ on the third day? If YECs do claim that the history is real, how do they fit all of these events even into 10,000 years? When do creation ‘scientists’ decide to invoke miracles and when not to invoke them? Not only is it clear that the oldest rocks of the Grand Canyon are incompatible with a rapid ‘Creation Week’, they're incompatible with a young creationist Earth.” [Capitalization in the original]

Mr. Oard and Dr. Whitmore Ignore Data that Refute their YEC Models for the Green River Formation

Because subscribers to the Journal of Creation are mostly hard-core YECs, articles by Oard (2006a,b,c) and Whitmore (2006a,b,c) in this publication are quite open and frank about the weaknesses of their opponents’ YEC interpretations of the Green River Formation. In reality, these weaknesses are not simply minor issues that cannot be currently explained by otherwise "successful YEC models", but critical evidence that is entirely fatal to these models.

Rather than responding to Whitmore’s devastating 2006 criticisms of his Flood geology “model” for the Green River Formation, Oard (2009b, p. 140) inappropriately plays down the serious disagreements between Dr. Whitmore and himself. Oard (2009b, p. 140) claims that it is “likely” that the Green River Formation formed during Noah's Flood and he only admits that other YECs have “suggested” a post-Flood origin for the formation. In reality, Whitmore (2006a,b,c) is not just making a suggestion. He unambiguously rejects and refutes the validity of Mr. Oard's claims for a “likely” Flood origin for the formation. Whitmore (2006c, p. 81) states:

“However, critical evaluation of Oard's Flood model shows it simply is not supported by field observations. His Flood model raises far more questions than it answers.” [my emphasis]

Whitmore (2006c, p. 84) concludes:

“I conclude that the [Green River Formation] could not have been deposited in a short time, during the Flood.”

Looking at the fossil data, Whitmore (2006a, p. 55) further states:

“Certain features- such as multiple horizons of exploded fish, disarticulated fish and stromatolites- suggest the passage of more than the one year of time allowed for by the Genesis Flood.”

In response to Mr. Oard's catastrophic views associated with Noah's Flood, Whitmore (2006b, p. 73) states:

“[YEC] models arguing the Green River sediments were catastrophically deposited as turbidites or some other mass flow process are easily rejected based on sedimentological and paleontological criteria.” [reference numbers removed]

On the other hand, after looking at the thick basin deposits of the Green River Formation, Oard (2006a, p. 50) raises a devastating question against Dr. Whitmore's “post-Flood model” for the formation:

“How is this immense volume and great depth of sediment to be deposited in these basins within the short post-Flood timescale?”

Further commenting on the sediments and the Eocene lakes of the Green River Formation, Oard (2006b, pp. 65-66) reasonably asks:

“How would the huge amount of organic matter in the form of kerogen accumulate in these lakes in a few hundred years after the Flood?”

Oard (2006b, p. 66) also states:

“How, then, could thousands of metres [meters in the US] of sediment accumulate over such a widespread area in such a short time after the Flood?”

In the end, Whitmore (2006a,b,c) and Oard (2006a,b,c) raise many serious questions and fatal problems with each other's Flood and post-Flood claims. Both Dr. Whitmore and Mr. Oard largely ignore important data that are fatal to their YEC “models.” These problems are easily resolved if both sides of the Whitmore-Oard dispute over the Green River Formation would look at all of the data and recognize that only actualism, and not any form of young-Earth creationism, provides the answers to the origin of the Green River Formation. (For additional details on YEC misrepresentations of the Green River Formation, see: “Varved and Non-varved Layers in the Green River Formation”.)

Oard (2009b) Ignores and Withholds Varve Data on the Members of the Green River Formation

As further discussed in my essay “Varved and Non-varved Layers in the Green River Formation”, Oard (2009b) repeatedly withholds critical information on the geology of the various members of the formation that conflicts with his YEC agenda. Over the past 80 years, geologists from Bradley (1929; 1931) to Meyers (2008) and Machlus et al. (2008) have repeatedly confirmed the existence of certain cycles in the thicknesses of some of the thin sedimentary layers of the Green River Formation. These layers turn out to be varves. Oard (2009b, p. 139) admits that it is difficult for young-Earth creationism to explain these cyclic data. Rather than deal with the reality of any data as promised in Figure 4 of Oard, 2009a, p. 113, Mr. Oard's biblical dictates force him in Oard (2009b) to deny the very existence of the data. The cyclic data by themselves are not interpretations that are open to dispute. These measurements have been too often confirmed by different analytical methods over the decades to be dismissed as illusions or reinforcement syndrome as Mr. Oard attempts in Oard (2009b). So, YECs must deal with the cyclic data in the Green River Formation within their paradigm. If the cycles are not due to astronomical processes or ENSO, how did they form during Noah's Flood or on a young Earth? If YECs continue to ignore or attempt to deny the existence of these very real cyclic data in the Green River Formation, then YECs must admit that the claims in Figure 4 of Oard (2009a, p. 113) and Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 14) are blatantly false. YECs simply do not evaluate and deal with the same data as geologists, they selectively ignore or deny the very existence of sound data to protect their biblical interpretations.

Oard (2009b) Ignores Thickness and Solubility Data that Refute his Flood Agenda for the Castile Formation

The Upper Permian Castile Formation is located in the Delaware Basin of southwestern Texas and southeastern New Mexico, USA. The formation has a maximum thickness of about 640 meters (Kirkland et al., 2000, p. 749). Including the Castile Formation, the Delaware Basin contains sedimentary rocks that are about 7,300 meters thick (Hills, 1984, p. 250). The basin has been thoroughly explored by petroleum geologists and no one can deny the extent and thickness data of the sedimentary rocks in the basin. The challenge for YECs is not only to explain how all of that sediment was supposedly deposited in only about one year by Noah's Flood, but how the sediment formed, where it came from and how delicate and often water-soluble varves could form in the middle of these “Flood deposits.” Once more, Oard (2009b) ignores the details of the thickness and other well-known data on the Castile Formation because they are incompatible with his Genesis Flood. (See “How Could the Castile Formation have Ever Formed during Noah's Flood?” for more details.)

YEC Oaths that Promise to Reject Any Evidence (including Data) that Don’t Comply with their Dogma

Evidence includes data. Yet, many YECs openly boast to their fellow Christians that they will not accept any evidence, no matter how good it is, if the evidence conflicts with their biblical interpretations. The following “statement of faith” that all “Answers in Genesis” employees must unconditionally accept shows an all too typical dogmatic YEC attitude about evidence:

“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.”

So, how can these YECs ever claim that they fairly evaluate the same evidence or data as scientists? How can any “worldview” ever be appropriately tested for validity, if any evidence that refutes it is either ignored or promptly rejected “by definition” without proper scientific consideration? This and similar YEC oaths demonstrate that they are willing to reject any and all information that conflicts with their religious agenda. The evidence, including unquestionable and repeated measurements, is simply dismissed as a fallible human “interpretation.” Rather than deal with the data, YECs just assume that if all of the information were available, the data would somehow change and fall into line with their scriptural demands. Yet, where is the evidence for such hopeful beliefs? As discussed above, what additional evidence would YECs need so that they could fit the Green River Formation, Castile Formation, Vishnu Schist and Zoraster Plutonic Complex into a YEC time frame without resorting to the fallacious miracles of the Omphalos (Gosse) Hypothesis?

In the 20^th century, geologists evaluated the evidence and abandoned Lyell uniformitarianism, embraced plate tectonics and changed their minds about numerous other geological issues. In contrast, YECs continue to selectively ignore or improperly reject most of the available scientific data simply because these data conflict with their archaic biblical interpretations. Contrary to proclamations in Oard (1997) and Oard (2009b), such YEC biases are fertile soil for the fallacy of reinforcement syndrome.

YECs believe that young-Earth creationism is a legitimate and alternative form of science. Yet, how similar are young-Earth creationism and legitimate science? Where are the scientific organizations that force their employees or members to sign oaths swearing to reject any scientific data or evidence that conflict with the ideas of Darwin or Einstein? Although actualism simply rules out “God did it!” as a suitable scientific explanation because it's vague and not scientifically testable, I don't think anyone is going to find a scientific organization that will excommunicate members if they refuse to ignore unpopular, but valid, scientific data and other evidence. On the contrary, scientists would like nothing better than to become famous for overthrowing a foundation principle of modern science and win a Nobel Prize. That's the huge difference between authentic science and YEC religious dogmatism. When scientists successfully attack popular scientific explanations, they can look forward to fame and fortune (for example, what Einstein did to Newton’s ideas). In contrast, when YECs even question their cherished biblical interpretations, they face excommunication and accusations of heresy (e.g., Glen Morton).

Conclusions: Scientists Love Challenges from Difficult Data, YECs Ignore or Ridicule the Data Away

While Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 14) want to believe that YECs accept all “empirical” geologic data, the blatant omissions of extensive and valid geologic data that refutes Flood geology in Oard (2009a), Oard (2009b) and other chapters in Oard and Reed (2009) prove otherwise. YECs also try to argue that disputes about the geologic record are just matters of interpretation and philosophy, but these excuses do not eliminate the fact that most of the empirical and absolutely undeniable properties of the geologic record (such as formation thicknesses, rhythmite cycles and water-soluble deposits) just won't fit into the demands of their brief time frame. Furthermore, if we are to believe chemistry, gravity and other aspects of natural law, the properties of many of these rocks indicate an origin from glaciers or hot deserts, and not from a world-wide Flood. The presence of even one indisputable pre-Pleistocene glacial deposit in the middle of so-called Flood deposits is enough to permanently sink Flood geology. In reality, we have conclusive glacial outcrops on all of the continents. We also only need one valid radiometric date in excess of 10,000 years to destroy young-Earth creationism. In reality, we have thousands of consistent dates despite the best efforts of Woodmorappe (1999) and other YECs to defame radiometric dating. On the other hand, if YECs were to find just one indisputable elephant fossil in the Cambrian or human remains in the Devonian, biological evolution is sunk. So how can Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 15) claim that the final victory for either actualism or young-Earth creationism cannot be derived from any amount of empirical data? They say that because geologists have the data and YECs don't.

References

Austin, S. A. (ed.). 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, 92071.

Babcock, R.S. 1990. “Precambrian Crystalline Core,” chapter 2 in S. Beus and M. Morales, (eds.), Grand Canyon Geology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 11-28.

Bradley, W. H. 1929. “The Varves and Climate of the Green River Epoch”, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 158, pp. 87-110.

Bradley, W.H. 1931. “Origin and Microfossils of the Oil Shale of the Green River Formation of Colorado and Utah”, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 168, 58pp.

Gentry, R.V. 1988. Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, TN.

Hills, J.M. 1984. “Sedimentation, Tectonism, and Hydrocarbon Generation in Delaware Basin, West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico”, The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 68, n. 3, pp. 250-267.

Huber, H., C. Koeberl, I. McDonald, and W.U. Reimold. 2001. “Geochemistry and Petrology of Witwatersrand and Dwyka Diamictites from South Africa: Search for an Extraterrestrial Component”, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 65, n. 10, pp. 2007-2016.

Ilg, B.R., K.E. Karlstrom, D.P. Hawkins and M.L. Williams. 1996. “Tectonic Evolution of Paleoproterozoic Rocks in the Grand Canyon: Insights into Middle-crustal Processes,” Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 108, n. 9, p. 1149-1166.

Kirkland, D.W., R.E. Denison, and W.E. Dean. 2000. “Parent Brine of the Castile Evaporites (Upper Permian), Texas and New Mexico”, Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 70, n. 3, pp. 749-761.

Machulus, M.L., P.E. Olsen, N. Christie-Blick and S.R. Hemming. 2008. “Spectral Analysis of the Lower Eocene Wilkins Peak Member, Green River Formation, Wyoming: Support for Milankovitch Cyclicity”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 268, pp. 64-75.

Meyers, S.R. 2008. “Resolving Milankovitchian Controversies: The Triassic Latemar Limestone and the Eocene Green River Formation”, Geology, v. 36, n. 4, pp. 319-322.

Oard, M.J. 1997. Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landsides? Creation Research Society, Monograph No. 5, Chino Valley, AZ.

Oard, M.J. 2006a. “The Case for Flood Deposition of the Green River Formation”, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 50-54.

Oard, M.J. 2006b. “Response to the Post-Flood Lake Model for the Green River Formation”, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 64-71.

Oard, M.J. 2006c. “Geomorphology Indicates the GRF was Deposited in the Flood”, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 79-80.

Oard, M.J. 2009a. “Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient 'Ice Ages'“, chapter 7 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 111-123.

Oard, M.J. 2009b. “Do Varves Contradict Biblical History?”, chapter 8 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 125-148.

Oard, M.J. and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, 272 pp.

Oberbeck, V.R., J.R. Marshall and H. Aggarwal. 1993a. “Impacts, Tillites, and the Breakup of Gondwanaland,” Journal of Geology, v. 101, p. 1-19.

Oberbeck, V.R., J.R. Marshall and H. Aggarwal. 1993b. “Impacts, Tillites, and the Breakup of Gondwanaland: A Reply,” Journal of Geology, v. 101, p. 679-683.

Perkins, D., 1998, Mineralogy, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458.

Rampino, M.R. 1992. “Ancient ‘Glacial’ Deposits are Ejecta of Large Impacts: The Ice Age Paradox Explained,” EOS American Geophysical Union Abstract Supplement, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, USA, p. 99.

Rampino, M.R., 1994, “Tillites, Diamictites, and Ballistic Ejecta of Large Impacts,” Journal of Geology, v. 102, p. 439-456.

Reed, J.K. 2009. “Fossil Distribution in the Flood,” chapter 12 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 207-215.

Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2009a. “A Context for the Flood Geology Debate,” chapter 1 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 11-17.

Reimold, W.U., V. von Brunn, and C. Koeberl. 1997. “Are Diamictites Impact Ejecta? – No Supporting Evidence from South African Dwyka Group Diamictite,” Journal of Geology, v. 105, pp. 517-530.

Whitmore, J.H. 2006a. “The Green River Formation: A Large Post-Flood Lake System”, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 55-63.

Whitmore, J.H. 2006b. “The Geologic Setting of the Green River Formation”, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 72-78.

Whitmore, J.H. 2006c. “Difficulties with a Flood Model for the Green River Formation”, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 81-85.

Woodmorappe, J., 1999, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.