The glasses of ‘deep time’
The assumption of long ages determine the results because it is assumed before the evidence is considered
The ‘deep time’ paradigm is very powerful—it determines far more than one’s view of geology. It fundamentally affects one’s view of biology, of science, of the Bible, and even one’s view of God. In today’s feedback, CMI’s Dr Tas Walker and Dr Jonathan Sarfati explore this with a supportive and skeptical correspondent, respectively.
D.S. from Australia wrote:
I came across an atheist’s argument that since (small) clam fossils are found (in the layers?) above (large) dinosaur fossils, the flood can’t be the explanation for the geologic column. Are there actual fossil sites where it’s not just an obvious mass burial (which may explain fossil mixing) but rather definite different strata which have sea creatures above the large dinosaurs? And if so, how do you explain this? By successive lateral/overlapping deposits?
CMI’s Tas Walker responded:
Your friend stated that since small clam fossils are found in the layers above large dinosaur fossils the Flood can’t be the explanation for the geologic column. The obvious question to that is, “Why not?” In order to make such a claim he would need to have a model for how the Flood actually would have occurred. (There is no comprehensive model at this stage but there are multiple suggestions.) From that model he would have to predict what the fossils succession would be and then he would have to show that it was falsified.
He is demonstrating that he does not understand how paradigms in science work. When uniformitarians discover something that is not explained within their paradigm they do not say, “Oh, our paradigm is wrong.” No, they say, “What is going on? How do we explain this (within our paradigm)”. They never articulate the bit in brackets—they don’t realise themselves what they are doing.
So he should be asked, “What models have you considered?” and then “Can you think of any ways that would explain it?”
Mike Oard touches on this sort of issue in his article about the extinction of the dinosaurs.
“In summary, all these unusual characteristics of dinosaur tracks do not fit into the uniformitarian paradigm of slow, gradual processes over millions of years. The evidence fits better a time of worldwide stress on dinosaurs trying to escape rising Flood waters. Since the tracks were made on hundreds to thousands of metres of Flood sediments, the evidence, as with bone-beds, indicates briefly exposed sediments or shallow water during the period of rising Flood waters. Track layers on more than one bedding plane represent brief exposures during a generally, continuous sedimentation event. The oscillations in local sea level would have been caused by local or distant tectonic events, tides, the dynamics of the Flood currents, tsunamis, etc.”
All the best,
J.H. from the United States writes, with comments from CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati interspersed:
Dear Mr H.
I was just watching your show on TV and the two gentlemen were talking about Mary Schweitzer and her finding non fossilized blood cells and blood vessels in dinosaur bones, I have studied the process that Ms. Schweitzer used, and it is a chemical process to restore elasticity to fossilized material.
I have also studied this: from the reports, Dr Schweitzer used a chelating agent (EDTA), and its function was to remove calcium ions from the bony lattice and dissolve it, leaving the stretchy blood vessels behind. See Squirming at the Squishosaur.
They are only giving half truths in order to support their argument for creation! Also when they talk about her “dangerous discovery” it is not dangerous in the regard of disproving evolution, it is dangerous because someone might try to recreate a dinosaur!
Most unlikely that anyone could think so, since no DNA has been found to my knowledge, and this is essential for any recreation. But finding DNA would be an even bigger problem for evolutionists, because it is far less stable even than proteins! Meanwhile, see The real Jurassic Park?
You should give the whole truth and all the facts, and let people make their own decisions!
No one is stopping you from making your own decisions. But in our country, we have an adversary system in both politics and law, at least in theory: rather than one side presenting “all the facts” (however defined), advocates present their case and opponents try to shoot it down. As it happens, far from an adversary system in the area of origins, there is an unbalanced diet of one-sided evolutionary propaganda in the MMM (Mendacious Mainstream Media) and government educracy. So it is hard to believe that people are unable to find alternative views. In fact, we at CMI are “the other side”!
Why is it either creation or evolution? Can’t it be both?
Considering that we have many articles on this, it is a mystery that you should ask—that is, if you had followed our feedback rules. In short, either things were made or they weren’t! See also The horse and the tractor.
I was a born again Christian until someone tried to tell me that creation was absolute!
I find that hard to believe: that your professed Christianity was so fragile that one person telling you something is enough reason to throw it away. Seems like an emotional decision not a reasoned one.
Remember, the bible was written by man, and man is by nature fallible!
Really? What makes you say so? Should I trust you because you’re fallible as well? What if, as orthodox Christians believe (as any born-again Christian should know), that the human writers of the Bible were superintended by God who is infallible? This is what Jesus clearly believed.
Yes I believe in a higher power, but I also believe in science!
I believe in science as well. That is why I earned a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from an accredited secular university, like many of my colleagues.
There is evolution and it has been proven,
Would you care to elaborate? But please beware the fallacy of equivocation.
but I see no proof that the bible is accurate!
But did you even look, as per our feedback rules? We have a whole Q&A page on the Bible.
They are just printed words!
This disproves accuracy, how? The following are printed words too: “one plus one equals two” Are they inaccurate? Much of your email commits category errors.
I believe in God, but I do not believe in the bible!
But which “God”? This was the point of an old article Is evolution ‘anti-religion’? It depends.
(Dr) Jonathan Sarfati