NOTE: This document is for personal use only. It is not to be distributed in either print or electronic format.

Time and Geology: A Positive Perspective

Elaine Kennedy
Geoscience Research Institute

FOR: Faith and Science Conference, Glacier View Ranch, CO — August 2003

 

The geologic community accepts and promotes time frames and interpretations of depositional systems that are problematic with respect to the belief system of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.1 Radiometric dating and order in the fossil record are globally recognized and accepted. The interpretations of data from these two areas of study are among the most serious challenges. Should anyone desire to reject the biblical account of earth history, these arguments are adequate for that purpose; however, although data may seem to drive one to such a conclusion, the conclusion arises from a sequence of well-constructed, rationally-developed theories.2

Only slightly less challenging are phenomena that are time related but more controversial within the geologic community, such as paleomagnetism, cooling of large igneous bodies, fossil intermediates, some environments of deposition (these will be discussed in detail by my colleague), and some aspects of biogeography.3 With respect to the various deposits that require time for development, regional studies on a case-by-case basis are required to determine the validity of the conclusions due to the subjective nature inherent in the assessment of the data. As members of BRISCO observed at the El Capitan "reef" complex, a depositional system may appear in situ at large-scale but closer examination reveals inconsistencies indicating a more complex interpretation.4 Given this need for regional studies, caution must be employed as Dr. Arthur Chadwick's paleocurrent studies5 indicate that there may be limitations to the usefulness of basinal or regional studies in significant portions of the Phanerozoic. Global effects found throughout the geologic record, deposits atypical of modern depositional systems and paraconformities call into question the theories, conclusions, and arguments put forward with respect to long chronologies and the meaning of the sequence in the fossil record.6

How should the church deal with these issues? There are two obvious approaches, 1) recognize the problematic areas inherent to each process or, 2) conduct research suggested by understandings of the Genesis account of earth history. While there is some validity to the first approach such as challenging the interpretation of the distribution of the isotopes in radiometric dating, we typically fall into the trap of "poking holes" or nitpicking e.g., arguing over margin of error. Geoscience Research Institute, using both approaches, has focused on and continues to follow the second approach through the efforts of staff research and providing grants for similar research conducted by our colleagues.7 The advantages to the second approach are numerous: different questions are asked, credibility is established, information is distributed, science is advanced, the geologic community is influenced, new lines of thinking are inspired, and most importantly, faith in the Bible is strengthened.

Are the challenges being met? As research progresses (slowly), yes, challenges are being met. In Wyoming,8 Arizona,9 coastal Peru,10 Patagonia,11 as well as global studies,12 conventional theories have been successfully challenged and new concepts consistent with the Biblical accounts of earth history are gradually being accepted.

One example is the work conducted in the Grand Canyon, Arizona, by Drs. Arthur Chadwick, Ray Kablanow, Christopher Prince and myself. We have been working on the Middle Cambrian Tapeats Sandstone in an effort to better understand the nature of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary there.13 Our research includes documentation of breccia blocks indicative of catastrophic, rapid, high-energy, subaqueous deposition within a timeframe of minutes to hours. Paleoslope measurements suggest and the existence of turbidites14 in the lowermost section of the Tapeats Sandstone at the Tapeats Embayment supports an interpretation of deep water deposition. This interpretation is contrary to the current model, i.e. Tapeats sands deposited by a shallow, transgressing sea.15 The deep water model is supported by Th/U data at Red Canyon, 91 Mile Canyon, Monadnock Amphitheater and Tapeats Creek Canyon. Finally, the undisturbed nature of the breccia blanketing the paleoslope and its relationship with the overlying Tapeats Sandstone and Bright Angel Shale suggests that the deposition of these Middle Cambrian units occurred within days during and subsequent to a catastrophic event, possibly the collapse of a marine shelf system that could have triggered the sand and breccia's rapid deposition. The paleoslope measurements, turbidites, Th/U ratios and undisturbed breccia blanket are inconsistent with the previous model for the deposition of the breccia and Tapeats Sandstone by a shallow, transgressing sea. Traditional structural sedimentary criteria, associated trace fossils found in the Tapeats Sandstone and body fossils found in the Bright Angel Shale that are used for the development of the shallow water model and their associated facies relationships can be explained within the context of a catastrophic, high-energy, deep water environment.16

Data amassed over a period of 30 years compelled us to propose a new interpretation for the deposition of the Tapeats Sandstone in this region. Three abstracts and a paper cited earlier have already been published in the professional literature on this research and there is currently a more comprehensive paper in preparation for publication. Professional publications of this research and the work of others suggest that the reinterpretation of conventional models is time and money well spent.

Scientific research conducted outside the constraints of methodological naturalism enhances our understanding of nature and the Creator. Research opportunities using this approach are vast. The primary restraint on more research is a lack of trained researchers committed to this approach, but where even limited research has been conducted; there is progress to the extent that significant scientific research is consistent with the biblical account of earth history. This consistency bolsters our confidence in the validity of the scientific research. However, it is my belief that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has sufficient reason, independent of scientific theories, to maintain and promote its Bible-based belief system.

 

Endnotes

  1. Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991. The Age of the Earth: Stanford University Press, Stanford, p.13. "Where religious beliefs dictated time for the cosmos, that time tended to be short...Hebrew and Christian calculations invariably resulted in values of less than 10,000 for the age of the earth....In nature's thick accumulation of sedimentary rocks and the fossils contained therein, they [geologists and biologists] saw the products of the processes operating over vast periods of time." In addition, in the book's preface the author notes that the reason for writing this book was prompted by the creation science controversy. See also: Press, Frank and Siever, Raymond, 1985. Earth: (4th ed.) W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, p.23. The introductory comment to Chapter 2 summarizes the geological community's view of earth history very well: "Concepts of time are central to geology....geologic processes... geologic time scale...radioactive atoms in rocks gives absolute ages.... Stokes, William Lee and Judson, Sheldon, 1968. Introduction to Geology: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, p.296. In Chapter 15 the authors discuss the merits of catastrophism versus uniformitarianism. Although geologists have moved away from uniformitarianism over the past 35 years, their views in general regarding earth history have changed very little. White, Ellen G. in 3 Spiritual Gifts pp. 91-96 states "Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it....I have been shown that without Bible history geology can prove nothing....Inspiration, in giving us the history of the flood, has explained wonderful mysteries that geology, independent of inspiration, never could....God designed that the discovery of these things in the earth should establish the faith of men in inspired history."
  2. Ibid., 474p.
  3. Brand, Leonard, 1997. Faith, Reason, and Earth History: Andrews University Press, Berrien Springs, p.266. Brand lists evidence favoring "intervention and catastrophism, megaevolution and neocatastrophism" as well as "neutral evidence." I have combined some of these into broader categories.
  4. Bebout, Don G. and Kerans, Charles, (eds.) 1993. Guide to the Permian Reef Geology Trail, McKittrick Canyon, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, West Texas: Guidebook 26, Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas, Austin, pp. 48.
  5. Chadwick, Arthur. V. 1993. Megatrends in North American paleocurrents: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Meeting Abstracts 8:58.
  6. Two recently published volumes present this information very well: Roth, Ariel A. 1998. Origins–Linking Science and Scripture: Review and Herald Publishing Association, Hagerstown, 384p. And, Brand, Leonard, 1997. Faith, Reason, and Earth History: Andrews University Press, Berrien Springs, p.266.
  7. Most of this work has been documented in peer reviewed literature including Origins (published by GRI), and BRISCO abstracts.
  8. Numerous papers on the Yellowstone Fossil "Forests" supporting a transport model have been published by SDA researchers (unpublished MS theses and Ph.D. dissertations are included in the list): Fisk, L.H. 1976. Palynology of the Amethyst Mountain "fossil forest", Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: Ph.D. Dissertation, Loma Linda University, 357p. Fisk, L.H. 1976. The Gallatin "petrified forest":a review. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 73. Fritz, W.J. 1977. Paleoecology of petrified woods from the Amethyst Mountain "fossil forest", Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: M.S. Thesis, Walla Walla College, 57p. Fisk, L.H., Auirre, M.R., Fritz, W.J. 1978. Additional conifers from the Eocene Amethyst Mountain "fossil forest", Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 10(5):216. Fritz, W.J. and Fisk, L.H. 1978. Eocene petrified woods from one unit of the Amethyst Mountain "fossil forest": Northwest Geology 7:10-19. Coffin, H.G. 1979. The organic levels of the Yellowstone Petrified Forests: Origins 6(2):71-82. Fritz, W.J. and Fisk, L.H. 1979. Paleoecology of petrified woods from the Amethyst Mountain "fossil forest", Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: National Parks Service 2(5):743-749. Fritz, W.J. 1980. Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone "fossil forests": Geology 8:309-313. Chadwick, A. and Yamamoto, T. 1983. A paleoecological analysis of the petrified trees in the Specimen Creek area of Yellowstone National Park, Montana, U.S.A.: Palaeogeography, palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 45:39-48. Coffin, H.G. 1976. Orientation of trees in the Yellowstone Petrified Forests: Journal of Paleontology 50:539-543. Arct, M.J. 1979. Dendrochronology in the Yellowstone fossil forests. M.A. Thesis, Loma Linda University, 65p. Arct, M.J. 1991. Dendroecology in the fossil forests of the Specimen Creek area, Yellowstone National Park, Ph.D. Dissertation, Loma Linda University, 98p. Fritz, W.J. 1980. Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone "fossil forests": Geology 8:309-313.
        Numerous papers have also been published on the Green River Formation, Wyoming, by Buchheim, et. al.; the most controversial: Buchheim, H.Paul. and Biaggi, Roberto. 1988. Laminae counts within a synchronous oil shale unit: A challenge to the "varve" concept: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 20(7):A317. See also: Buchheim, H.Paul 1994. Paleoenvironments, lithofacies and varves of the Fossil Butte Member of the Eocene Green River Formation, Southwestern Wyoming: Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming 30(1):3-14.
  9. Chadwick, Arthur V. and Kennedy, Elaine G. 1995. Depositional environment of the Tapeats Sandstone in the region of Grand Canyon, Arizona: Chas. van Riper III and Elena Deshler (eds.) 3rd Biennial Conference of Research on the Colorado Plateau Abstract, 43. Kennedy, Elaine, Kablanow, Ray, Chadwick, Arthur, 1996. A reassessment of the shallow water depositional model for the Tapeats Sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Evidence for deep water deposition: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 28(7):A407. Kennedy, Elaine, Kablanow, Ray, Chadwick, Arthur, 1997. Evidence for deep water deposition of the Tapeats Sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Chas. van Riper III and Elena Deshler (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of Research on the Colorado Plateau, Transactions and Proceedings Series NPS/NRNAU/NRTP-97/12, U.S. Department of Interior, pp. 215-228. Chadwick, Arthur V. and Kennedy, Elaine G. 1998. Evidence for deep water deposition of the Tapeats Sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S.A.: 15th International Sedimentological Congress p.247.
  10. Esperante, Raul, 2001. Taphonomy of fossil whales in diatomaceous sediments of the Neogene Pisco Formation, Peru: Ph.D. Dissertation, Loma Linda University, 240p. Carvajal, Cristian R., Sedimentology and Paleoenvironments of the Miocene/Pliocene Pisco Fm., Peru: M.S. Thesis, Loma Linda University, 107p. Carvajal, Cristian, Poma, Orlando, Chadwick, Arthur, Brand, Leonard, 2000. Sedimentology and paleoenvironments of whale bearing sediments of the Miocene/Pliocene Pisco Formation, Peru: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 32(7):A10. Esperante-Caamano, Raul, Brand, Leonard R., Chadwick, Arthur V., Poma, Orlando, 1999. Taphonomy of whales in the Miocene/Pliocene Pisco Formation, western Peru: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 31(7):A466. Esperante, Raul, Brand, Leonard, Chadwick, Arthur and Poma, Orlando, 2002. Taphonomy of fossil whales in the diatomaceous sediments of the Miocene/Pliocene Pisco Formation, Peru: Renzi, Alonso, Belinchon, Penalver, Montoya, and Marquez-Aliaga (eds.), Current Topics on Taphonomy and Fossilization, Valencia pp.337-343.
  11. Kennedy, Elaine G. and Spencer, Lee, 1995. An unusual occurrence of dinosaur eggshell fragments in a storm surge deposit, Lamargue Group, Patagonia, Argentina: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 27(6):A318. Comparison made with Patagonian work in: Kennedy, Elaine, 1997. Distribution of dinosaur eggshell fragments in an overbank deposit, Two Medicine Formation, Choteau, Mt: A preliminary report: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 29(6):A272. Spencer, Lee and Kennedy, Elaine G. 2001. Potentially false interpretations of dinosaur nests and nesting, with an example from the Allen Formation, Patagonia, Argentina: Paleobios 21(Supplement to #2):119.
  12. Chadwick, 1993, endnote 5.
  13. See endnote 9 for the listing of the series of publications on this research.
  14. Burgert, B.L. 1972. Petrology of the Cambrian Tapeats Sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona [M.S. Thesis] Northern Arizona University, 156p.
  15. Middleton, L.T. and Elliott, D.K. 1990. Tonto Group: in Beus and Morales (eds.) Grand Canyon Geology Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 83-106. Middleton, L.T. 1989. Cambrian and Ordovician depositional systems in Jenney and Reynolds (eds.), Geological Evolution of Arizona, Arizona Geological Society Digest 17:273-286. Stewart, J.H. and Suczek, C.A. 1977. Cambrian and latest Pre-Cambrian paleogeography and tectonics in the western United States: in Stewart, Stevens and Fritsche (eds.), Paleozoic paleogeography of the western United States, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists (Pacific Section) pp.1-17. The interpretation was first proposed by: McKee, E.D. and Resser, H. 1945.Cambrian history of the Grand Canyon region: Carnegie Institute, Washington D.C. Publications 563:3-168.
  16. Heezen, Bruce C. and Hollister, Charles D. 1971. The Face of the Deep: Oxford University Press, New York, 659p.