return to GSR home page
Some Areas of Disagreement with the Australian/American Creationist Societies
To anyone who has read Barry's work, it should come as no surprise that we are completely opposed to the standard geological model taught in schools and universities that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. We feel the data strongly contradicts that.
However the data also strongly contradicts the standard creation model of geology as promoted by the well-known Australian and American creationist societies. Their model claims the flood of Noah laid down the vast majority of the geologic column. The majority of the material they publish aims to buttress that theory.
Editors of both the aforementioned camps refuse to publish anyone who does not subscribe to their basic model. Both, while violently disagreeing with each other, are on the same side of the "my way or the highway" attitude.
As a result, both sides either intentionally ignore or special plead a reasonable amount of data -- data which does not agree with their respective model. Our webpage, here, has made it a point to present where Barry's research has shown the standard secular model wrong. We have been more circumspect in presenting our objections to the standard creation model, partly out of fear of shaking the faith of some people.
However some of the emails we get are from people who want to know what our response is to this or that presented in the standard creation publications, or heard in one of their conferences. Some of what has been published and presented by them is so wrong that it really does need some response. Therefore the questions we have on file and Barry's responses will be listed and added to below.
Helen Setterfield, November 2010
Geology of Israel and the Flood
The Humphreys Model and the Setterfield Model
The Old Aardsma Article
A Complete Geological Column? (on the discussion page, under Geology)
In The Geology of Israel within the Biblical Creation-Flood Framework of History, by Andrew Snelling, the Abstract reads:
Precambrian (pre-Flood) schists, gneisses, and related metamorphic rocks, intruded by granites outcrop in the Elat area of southern Israel. Their radioisotope ages range from 800–813 Ma to 600 Ma. Also, just to the north of Elat is the Timna Igneous Complex, a 610–625 Ma series of granitic intrusions. All these rock units across this region were then intruded along fractures by swarms of dikes. Together these metamorphic and igneous rocks form the northernmost part of the Arabian-Nubian Shield, which would have likely been a section of the pre-Flood supercontinent Rodinia, established by God’s creative activity on Day Three of the Creation Week. It is thus envisaged that this cataclysmic rate of formation of these rocks during an episode of accelerated radioisotope decay accounts for their apparent long history when wrongly viewed in the context of today’s slow process rates. Unconformably overlying these Precambrian crystalline basement rocks are terminal Precambrian conglomerates, arkoses and interbedded, explosively-erupted volcanics that were obviously deposited by catastrophic debris avalanches as the pre-Flood supercontinent began to break up, with accompanying igneous activity that coincided with the bursting forth of the fountains of the great deep. It is envisaged that another episode of accelerated radioisotope decay must have begun months previously, the released heat progressively increasing so as to initiate the igneous activity that ultimately triggered the renting apart of the pre-Flood supercontinent at the onset of the Flood cataclysm. The pre-Flood/Flood boundary in southern Israel is thus determined as the major unconformity between the Precambrian crystalline basement and the overlying terminal Precambrian conglomerates, arkoses and volcanics, almost identical to that boundary as determined in the U.S. Southwest. The few 210Po radiohalos found in some of the basement granitic rocks are likely due to the basinal fluids that flowed from the basal Flood sediments when heated by burial under the overlying thick, rapidly-accumulated sequence of Flood sediments.
Barry was asked about this article and this is his reply:
The creationist perspective in this study is probably incorrect. Strata of the same age occurs in South Australia where I come from. There are intrusive episodes into the early strata there and the age range of the intrusives is similar to those in Israel where this creationist study was done. The other strata into which the intrusives penetrated in South Australia contain a variety of horizons of stromatolites. These are algal mats which form in intertidal zones near the shores of oceans etc. The algae lay down a layer of mucus which traps sand and other debris as the tide comes in, and then secrete a new layer of mucus on top of the trapped layer of debris. So the structure builds up. Obviously this takes time and there are a number of different horizons where this process has occurred.
Therefore, it is incorrect to say that these strata and their intrusions resulted from God's activity during Creation Week and represent an era of accelerated decay. This further emphasizes the problem that arises when one takes a geological section from one country in isolation from the rest of the world. An impression or interpretation might result which can be shown to be invalid by consideration of similar strata elsewhere in the world. Often the outcome of this error results in creationist special pleading for each different circumstance. This then leads to the whole creationist position being denigrated and laughed at.
The stromatolite evidence is another problem for creationists. Their standard argument against the stromatolite evidence is that they were chemically precipitated artifacts and not algal mats at all. Unfortunately for that interpretation, the stromatolites in South Australia have been analyzed in detail and the presence of cyano-bacteria or blue-green algae has been found in each case [see "The Adelaide Geodyncline" by W. Priess]. In other words, they are algal mats just like those building up today in Shark Bay Western Australia. So they took time to form and were not the result of chemical precipitation during Creation Week.
In the study that I have done on the increasing strength of the ZPE, and the correction to atomic dates that necessarily results from that, it turns out that these early strata were probably laid down during the 2250 years from Creation to the Flood. Interestingly, these algae used photosynthetic processes which were affected by the lower ZPE. This meant that all algal processes were more rapid so algal structures grew more quickly. For example, each of the mucus layers were much thicker and trapped much more material, so that the algal mat grew faster.I trust that this gives you a balanced assessment of the evidence that is available.
* * * * *
The Humphreys Model and the Setterfield Model
Could both your theory and Humphrey\'s white hole cosmology be correct or are they mutually exclusive? i.e. Would it make sense to have the universe expand out of a white hole at a time when the speed of light was faster? Would general relativity, black holes, event horizens and all that work with CDK?
Barry: I'm afraid the two models are mutually exclusive. It is not that the speed of light could not have been faster in anyone's model, but that Humphreys' model is based on pure imagination. We have never seen a white hole. He has the earth 'pausing' at the event horizon on day four while the rest of the universe goes through billions of years of time. There is no model for a white or black hole which permits this kind of 'pause' which is not simply momentary in terms of time as it is measured everywhere else.
I have done my best to follow the data itself and arrive at the conclusions they lead to. I am also becoming more and more sure that the gravitation models which have been in vogue up until now are incorrect and that what we are seeing both in our labs and in space point to electromagnetism as the primary force for formation after the initial ex nihilo creation by God. See if our article on this makes sense to you.
* * * * *
The old Aardsma article
I’ve been reading through the many interesting articles on your website, as time allows, for a couple of years now, and remain very favorably impressed. This weekend I viewed the DVD series entitled Anomalies, and greatly enjoyed it. I’m not formally trained as a physicist and would like to understand these things more thoroughly.
I’m a Bible-believing Christian with a strong conservative bent, and I want your opinion on the matter of c and the ZPE etc. to be correct, because I like what it implies about the results of radionuclide dating and the possibility of a scientifically verifiable short earth age. I am bothered though, that some creation scientists have been critical of your methods and conclusions in regards to the history of measurements of c. I don’t want to be fooled by either side.
One critique I’ve just read, written by Gerald Aardsma, is from the website of the Institute for Creation Research. If by chance you haven’t seen it I’ll attach the link below. I imagine that it’s likely that the concerns he raises have already been answered by you, whether in response to him specifically or to someone else whose criticisms parallel Aardsma’s. Would you be able to direct me to your response to the thrust of his misgivings?
Barry: First of all, I was fascinated by the fact that this article is presented on the web without a date attached. It is over 20 years old and the Institute of Creation Research (ICR) has it up on the web as though it were current and never been responded to. This is dishonest, at the very least.
Let's deal with a few points about the Aardsma article. First of all, his only reference, aside from my work, is one on statistics (handling data) from 1969.
Second, the work Trevor Norman and I did in the 1987 article was reviewed extensively by a professional statistician and a physicist and has been reviewed by other professionals since. The data were handled correctly and there has been no published response to the article written by Dolphin and Montgomery supporting our use of the data.
Third, as my wife pointed out, what Aardsma did in his critique was along the lines of measuring flower petals by the mile. When compared to a mile measure, both the pansy and the sunflower are extremely close to the same size. But data has to be presented in its own terms, according to its own variations. Aardsma ignored this fact and presented the vast majority of the data in terms so large that they all look like the same measurement. A simple inspection of the light speed measurements themselves will show that to be wrong.
You will find a lot more discussion about the data, with notes from both Lambert Dolphin and Alan Montgomery in our Discussion section.
return to GSR home page