|
Feedback archive →
Feedback 2011
Rock layers and cave formations
Are creationists mistaken on how and how long they take to form?
Published: 30 July 2011(GMT+10)
This week’s correspondence deals with rock layers and cave formations. CMI’s
Dr Tas Walker and
Dr Emil Silvestru respond.
C.N. writes:
At the following url I found many questions that may be reasonable.
[Weblink removed as per feedback rules—Ed.] These people claim that creationists
create a straw man in order to knock it over. How accurate are they in their claims
relating to geology and Christian understanding of the science of geology?
CMI’s Dr Tas Walker responds:
Hi C.
That article is an extract from a 1995 book by Alan Hayward. It looks like it is
a republishing of his earlier 1985 book Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies.
In that chapter he misrepresents Flood geology. It’s called ‘attacking
a straw man’. For example, in one place he says:
“There is one quite astonishing example of the unwillingness of ‘Flood
geologists’ to consider the implications of their theory. The sedimentary
rocks are arranged in clearly defined layers, or strata. But floods only produce
neatly stratified deposits under special circumstances, and then only in a limited
total thickness. Floods generate so much turbulence that they commonly mix everything
up, and so deposit a gorgeous mishmash. As we saw in the previous section, ‘Flood
geologists’ themselves have recognized this fact when discussing the origin
of conglomerates.
“Stratified deposits, on the other hand, are usually produced by slow, long-continued
sedimentation. It is possible to see them forming slowly today, in many places where
muddy rivers discharge into lakes or the sea.
“Consequently, the universal existence of thousands of feet of strata in the
sedimentary rocks is powerful evidence that they were laid down slowly, one at a
time, and not all at once by one great Flood. The response of ‘Flood geologists’
to this evidence is quite inadequate.”
The form of the strata that are laid down depends on the size of the flood.
This is not correct. The form of the strata that are laid down depends on the size
of the flood. The layers, or strata, are evidence of rapid water flow in the ‘upper
plane bed regime’. See the article
Rock language: is there such a thing? for what floods can do and what the
deposits look like. Also see the article
Mud experiments overturn long-held geological beliefs about the deposition
of mud that demonstrates that Haywood’s idea that mud means the strata were
laid down slowly is wrong.
Notice too how Hayward attacks the character of Flood geologists: “astonishing
example of unwillingness to consider”. This accuses Flood geologists of being
wilfully ignorant but nothing can be further from the truth. Hayward’s book
drips with this sort of character attack on his opponents, and that influences his
readers.
The article Geology and the
Young Earth deals with some of the other claims that Hayward makes in other
chapters of his book.
Rainy M. from the United States writes:
In the article “Caving in to reality”, Carl Wieland quotes the following:
“geologists don’t know how long cave development takes … ”
But this is completely mistaken. There are several independent methods of calculating
stalagmite growth: U-Th dating, 18O and 13C isotope records,
laminae counts, etc. These are highly corroborated by instrumental records of rainfall,
temperature, etc. that affect isotopic composition and growth rate.
No geologist suggests (or assumes) that stalagmites take ‘millions of years’
to form. It’s typically hundreds to thousands of years, and this can be measured
through multiple independent proxies.
CMI’s Dr
Emil Silvestru responds:
Hello Rainy,
Since Carl Wieland quotes me in that article, I may as well answer your assertions.
First, “know” means being certain and that is not the case with the
age of speleothems. There is an abundant literature regarding
radiometric dating on our website, so I will not directly deal with that
here.
The 234U–230Th method applied to speleothems has yielded
so many erroneous ages that we have lost count. Of course, the accepted dates are
those that are in accordance with the standard long-age, evolutionary karstogenesis
model. However, there are many uncontrollable variables, from contamination (never
properly countered regardless the method), to recrystallization (which has long
been ignored on a microscopic scale, most assessments being made on megascopic grounds).
There are two common-sense arguments for the inaccuracy of radiometric dating:
- The constancy of the dripping point. The absolute majority of stalagmite dripping
points are stable throughout—according to radiometric dating—tens, even
hundreds, of thousands of years. That means through one or several stadials and
interstadials. Although it is standard dogma to consider stadials as low-to-no growth
periods, it turns out that speleothems have never heard of such a rule and they
grow pretty much the same through stadials and interstadials. That means that it
is not only deposition that is active during those times, but so is the solution
of the intricate infiltration paths. Therefore why is the dripping point not affected?
It should wildly travel and change dynamics. They never seem to do.
- Corroborated with this is the case of numerous speleothems grown on show cave facilities,
from concrete pavements to hand rails and even cabling. In other words we see speleothems
forming quickly.
It becomes obvious that there is something wrong with the radiometric dating assumptions.
It becomes obvious that there is something wrong with the radiometric dating assumptions.
As for δ oxygen, the method is not so much used for dating as it is for paleoclimate
reconstruction. And I know from my personal experience how many ‘offset’
paleoclimate records have been ignored because they didn’t fit other records.
Of course one hears only of the ones that fit and are preserved.
Reconstructing the correct fractionation history is a notorious problem with this
method. Moreover, the whole δ oxygen record (based on shell carbonate) has
been questioned because of field data (The
‘cool-tropics paradox’ in palaeoclimatology,
Rocks in the making).
I hope this clarifies the issue a bit. In an ideal world all these counter-arguments
would have been presented side-by-side the other arguments, giving a more accurate
depiction of the scientific process. But they have not been, because, obviously,
this is not an ideal world …
Emil Silvestru, PhD (geology)
A reader’s commentGeoff T., Australia, 2 August 2011
Thanks for your informative website and this article. I am a Christian who does not support evolution in any of it’s forms. In relation to how long does it take stalactites and stalagmites to form I noted with interest when we bought our house the presence of both these formations underneath our rain water tank stand. The metal tank had been reinforced on the inside with some compound (cement?) that must have included lime.
Well there they were stalactites about 6-7" long hanging down and mounds on the floor raised to about an inch or half an inch. They were the typical colour and look found in caves. The house had only been there for approx 60 years when we moved in. It’s about 100 years old now. This just indicated to me that these formations do not take thousands or longer years to form but are mainly reliant on the flow of water seeping through. |
Related articles
Further reading
| They say the Bible has been proven wrong by science. Whoever said that hasn’t been to creation.com. Please give so we can give … information that leads people to Christ our Savior.  | | |
|
