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

Scientific Evidence that Affirms a Recent Creation

Ariel A. Roth

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

 

Introduction

    The biblical model of origins is that of a recent creation by God (Genesis 1,2) in six days, each characterized with its own evening and morning time frame. This model stands in stark contrast to current scientific interpretations of life originating by itself billions of years ago and subsequently developing into advanced forms over eons of time. It also contrasts sharply with a variety of ideas suggesting that God was involved in the gradual development of life on earth over millions to billions of years. The Genesis model receives strong confirmation from the Ten Commandments that were spoken and written by the finger of God (Exodus 20, 31-34). As such they represent the most direct communication God has given us, and it is not easy to dismiss that most authoritative document. In the fourth commandment God asks us to keep the seventh-day Sabbath holy because He created all in six days and rested on the seventh day.1
    It turns out that it is not just the integrity of the Genesis creation account that is challenged by concepts that extend the origin of life forms over billions of years; it is also the question of whether God was telling the truth when He says that he created all in six days. It would be a strange kind of God who would create over billions of years, and then ask us to keep the Sabbath holy because He did it all in six days. As God He could provide all kinds of other reasons for keeping the seventh day holy. This is especially important to Seventh-day Adventism because what is probably our most distinctive doctrine, the seventh-day Sabbath, is challenged by concepts of an extended creation process. Can the Church conscientiously ask its members to not work on the seventh-day Sabbath as a memorial of a creation week that never occurred?
    However, this dilemma need not be that serious. There is significant scientific evidence that challenges the billions of years usually proposed for the development of life on earth. We will be discussing the ubiquitous paraconformities that suggest little time, rapid rates of erosion, and extremely widespread sediment distribution patterns as expected by the Genesis Flood. We will also list a number of other factors that favor the biblical model of origins as contrasted to the long geologic ages.

The crucial role of the Genesis Flood.

    In the geologic column, part of which is displayed by the layers in Figure 1, one finds a great variety of fossil kinds that are relatively abundant in its upper portion, the Phanerozoic. Especially important is the fact that we find different kinds of fossils at different levels. For instance we find trilobites in the Cambrian with a putative age of 550 million years, but there are no dinosaurs there. Higher up in the Jurassic we find dinosaurs with a putative age of 250 million years, but no trilobites. If these ages are accepted as valid, there is no way that God created both the trilobites and the dinosaurs in a six-day creation period. Because of the uniqueness of fossils at different levels, as soon as one puts a lot of time into the geologic column the Genesis account of beginnings and God's statement that he created all in six days is invalidated.
    However, the Bible also provides the crucial event that reconciles the geologic column to a six-day creation, namely the Genesis Flood. In the biblical account of beginnings, God creates the various kinds of organisms in six days, and later as a result of man's wickedness God sends a worldwide flood that buries many organisms. This flood lays down most of the geologic column. A local or superficial flood cannot reconcile the geologic column to a six-day creation since the geologic column is adequately represented on all continents of the earth. If one puts geologic time in any of these localities, the uniqueness of the fossils would mandate that God did not create all in six days as He said he did. The only way the Genesis flood can reconcile the six-day creation account to the geologic column is if it is a worldwide event that produces most of that column. There are many other reasons for believing in the universality of the flood.2
    One does not need to turn to the Bible to find support for the concept of a worldwide flood. The idea is so strongly entrenched in the folk literature of the world, that it is hard to escape the idea that this is an extraordinary event.. A survey of the references in Stith Thomson's monumental six volume Motif Index of Folk Literature3 dealing with past world calamities reveals that the flood is referred to six times as often as any other causes (Table 1). Such dominance seems to indicate a real extraordinary event. Furthermore if these events represent local floods and other local catastrophes, one would expect a more even distribution of various causes. Earthquakes, drought, and pestilence that also occur locally are not even mentioned.

TABLE 1. REFERENCES TO PAST WORLD CALAMITIES IN FOLK LITERATURE

CAUSES NUMBER OF REFERENCES
Deluge (world flood) 122
Fire   19
Continuous winter     6
Large stones     2
Ogre     1
Earthworm     1
Objects (dead and alive)     1
Sunrise     1

Paraconformities.

    What is a paraconformity? When you look at major exposures of the sedimentary layers of the earth, such as the Grand Canyon of the Colorado (Figure 1), you are probably unaware that parts of the geologic column are missing between some of the layers because the layers usually lie so flat one above the other. But gaps are there between the layers and often qualify as paraconformities. A paraconformity is a major gap in the layers where the layers above and below are parallel.4 You can tell you have a paraconformity (gap) when a part of the geologic column is missing in the layers. It is not always easy to identify a paraconformity, because the layers below and above the gap are flat, and the gap, like the proverbial hole in a donut, represents the presence of nothing. But a lot of geologic time is often inferred to be represented by the gap of missing layers. Figures 1 and 2 have arrows that point to paraconformities, and many more shorter ones could be added. Geologists usually identify paraconformities by noting a gap in the fossil sequence. In other words, where you find these paraconformities there are in other parts of the earth the layers and fossil sequences of the geologic column that are not present at these gaps. For instance, the Ordovician and Silurian periods are missing in the Grand Canyon.
    Paraconformities are important because they challenge the geologic time scale. The usual lack of evidence of time at the surface of the underlying layer of a paraconformity for the long ages postulated for the gap, especially the lack of erosion, suggests that the long ages never occurred. This is as would be expected for rapid events such as deposition during the Genesis Flood.
    In Figure 1 of the Grand Canyon, the three arrows from top to bottom point to assumed gaps of approximately 6, 14, and 100 million years. In Figure 2 from Dead Horse Point in Utah, the upper arrow points to an assumed gap of about 10-12 million years and the lower one to about 15-20 million years. During these immense periods of time one would expect at least a great deal of irregular erosion of the underlayer of the paraconformity, but as the pictures show all is remarkably flat suggesting no extended time. Figure 3 places the layers for the region northeast of the Grand Canyon on an assumed geologic time scale with the gaps illustrated in black. Solid and dashed lines also illustrate the present irregular surface of the land in the region. These lines indicate how irregular erosion is, and the contrast between these lines and the flat surface at the many paraconformities (black gaps) points out the challenge paraconformities pose for the long geologic ages. If geologic time is real, where is the irregular erosion expected at the paraconformities.
    Sometimes paraconformities are so inconspicuous that they can be hard to find. Famed paleontologist Norman Newell comments:

"A puzzling characteristic of the erathem boundaries and of other major stratigraphic boundaries and of many other major biostratigraphic boundaries [boundaries between differing fossil assemblages] is the general lack of physical evidence of subaerial exposure. Traces of deep leaching, scour, channeling, and residual gravels tend to be lacking, even when the underlying rocks are cherty limestones (Newell 1976b). These boundaries are paraconformities that are identifiable only by paleontological [fossil] evidence."5

Regarding the paraconformity designated by the middle arrow in Figure 1, Geologist Ronald Blakey points out:

"Contrary to the implications of McKee's work, the location of the boundary between the Manakacha and Wescogami formations [where the 14 million year gap is] can be difficult to determine, both from a distance and from a close range."6

In referring to some of the localities along the gap at the lowest arrow in Figure 1, Stanley Beus, who has studied the Grand Canyon for years comments:

"Here the unconformity [gap, paraconformity], even though representing more than 100 million years can be difficult to locate."7

Geologist Van Andel candidly points out:

"I was much influenced early in my career by the recognition that two thin coal seams in Venezuela, separated by a foot of gray clay, and deposited in a coastal swamp, were respectively of Lower Palaeocene and Upper Eocene age. The outcrops were excellent, but even the closest inspection failed to turn up the precise position of that 15 Myr gap."8

    Norman Newell has addressed the problem paraconformities pose to traditional geological interpretations and tries to postulate unusually widespread depositional conditions such as great beaches etc. However he frankly admits "The origin of paraconformities is uncertain, and I certainly do not have a simple solution to this problem."9 Paraconformities are abundant throughout the world10 and are unusually widespread, often reaching semi-continent proportions. The Marshall paraconformity of the South Pacific region is seen as a faint line in Figure 4 as it is found on the west coast of the South Island of New Zealand. The geologic literature suggests that this paraconformity extends through South Australia, Papua, New Caledonian Basin and Lord Howe Rise.11 The gap is estimated at 3-14 million years.

Questions about paraconformities.

    In public presentations where I have discussed paraconformities, including geology departments at the University of California (Riverside) the University of Utrecht, the Goddard Space Flight Center etc., questions about paraconformities have been posed. These questions and others, and their answers have been discussed more extensively elsewhere.12 Here I will give only a very brief summary.

  1. Could these just represent flat areas of the earth? There are flat areas on our earth such as lakes and the abyssal planes of the oceans; but over time these represent depositional areas and no gap is forming.
  2. Could these be flat areas where there is just no erosion or deposition? Not unless we can suspend the world weather pattern for millions of years over hundreds of thousands of square miles. On our restless planet, over the millions of years postulated, we either have erosion or deposition.
  3. Can we have flat erosion? This was postulated as the Davis cycle of erosion, but has been largely abandoned due to lack of any current widespread examples on the surface of the earth.
  4. Could these gaps have been protected by overlying layers? Yes but how would you exhume the many soft layers we often find at the underlayer of paraconformities so as to leave them flat. Erosion is irregular. It could work locally for hard layers.
  5. Is there evidence of erosion at these gaps? Yes, sometimes there is a little, but it is relatively insignificant compared to what would be expected over the millions of years postulated.
  6. If the gaps were underwater, would this protect them from erosion? No. A lot of erosion, such as that of our continental shelves occurs underwater.

Conclusions about paraconformities.

    The difficulty with the extended time proposed for these gaps is that one cannot have deposition, nor can one have erosion. With deposition over time there is no gap because sedimentation continues. With erosion over time one would expect abundant channeling, the formation of deep gullies, canyons and valleys, yet the contacts are nearly flat. Paraconformities suggest that little time was involved in the deposition of the sedimentary layers, and these are the layers that harbor the fossil record.
    Because paraconformities are so abundant (e.g. Figure 3) over the earth, they represent an important component for the interpretation of earth history. The short time they suggest in one locality affects the rest of the geological column elsewhere because time is worldwide and time constraints are necessarily worldwide. Paraconformities pose a serious challenge to the standard geologic time scale, radiometric dating, and interpretations of extended time for the development of life on earth. They are what would be expected from the rapid deposition of sediments during the Genesis Flood.

How much erosion should we expect at paraconformities?

    The kind of life we find in the fossil record suggests that past climates were not substantially different from the present. For instance some living species appear to be the same throughout the most of the Phanerozoic. Hence, present rates of erosion, under normal circumstances, are the best approximation of what we would expect in the past if we exclude catastrophic conditions when things can happen extremely fast.
    Normal rates of erosion have been studied extensively for all the major rivers of the earth. The procedure is to measure the average sediment load that a river delivers to the ocean and compare that to the size of the drainage basin of the river. Extremes vary from 1 to 1350 millimeters of erosion per thousand years, with many in the 100 millimeters or less range.13 North America has been studied quite thoroughly and the current average rate of erosion is 61 millimeters per thousand years. While this seems very slow, over geologic time this is catastrophic.
    Many studies (all that I know of) involving all the major rivers of the earth give an average rate of erosion for the continents of the earth as a whole (Table 2)14. The average for the twelve studies reported is 24,108 million metric tons per year, a figure that when converted to millimeters of rock per one thousand years is only slightly higher than that for North America.15 So it appears that the land (continents) of the earth are being washed into the ocean at an average rate of around 60 millimeters per thousand years. Agricultural practices have increased the rate of erosion and it appears that they may actually double it, so a reasonable estimate of the rate of erosion before the development of extensive agriculture would be about 30 millimeters per thousand years. This means that at a 10 million year paraconformity gap you would expect on an average of about 300 meters or 1000 feet of lowering of the underlayer; but we usually see none or very little.

TABLE 2. ESTIMATE OF THE RATE AT WHICH SEDIMENTS REACH THE OCEAN

Author (Date) Millions of metric tons per year
Fournier (1960) 58,100
Gilluly (1955) 31,800
Holleman (1968) 18,300
Holmes (1965)   8,000
Jansen and Painter (1974) 26,700
Kuenen (1950) 32,500
Lopatin (1952) 12,700
McLennan (1993) 21,000
Milliman and Meade (1983) 15,500
Millman and Syvitski (1992) 20,000
Perchinov (1959) 24,200
Scumm (1963) 20,500

    Erosion rates are so fast that any major amount of geologic time would destroy the sedimentary record. This problem has been well recognized in the geologic literature.16 B. W. Sparks at Cambridge comments: "Some of these rates are obviously staggering; the Yellow River could peneplain [flatten out] an area with average height that of Everest in 10 million years."17 R.H. Dott and R. L. Batten have also quantified the dilemma:

"North America is being denuded at a rate that could level it in a mere 10 million years, or, to put it another way, at the same rate, ten North Americas could have been eroded since middle Cretaceous time 100 m.y. ago. If we next assume the present rate of erosion and exposed continental volumes to have been constant, over, say, the past 1 billion years, then we would expect a staggering 30,000-meter-thick layer of sediments to cover the sea floors today. Apparently we have erred badly in making our assumptions."

    We find only around 1% of the sediments Dott and Batten suggest on the floor of the oceans. These authors later modified the statement quoted above to a less quantitative format. The question of plate tectonics removing sediments from the ocean floor enters into the picture, but estimates suggest that at present only about one fifth to one tenth of the sediments brought in by rivers is subducted at the oceanic trenches. This means that on a geologic time scale our oceans should have been filled up with sediment from the rivers over a dozen times, but there is not that much there.18
    Geology textbooks often discuss the question of why do we still have mountains since they should have been eroded away many times. The standard answer is that mountains ranges are being renewed as they are pushed up from below. This argument seems invalid, because we still find much of the geologic column in the mountains. We don't seem to have gone through even one cycle of erosion and replacement. It appears more like the sedimentary layers were laid down by the Genesis Flood and partially eroded by the receding flood waters, leaving most of the geologic column there.
    In summary it appears that rates of erosion, even when corrected for the effects of agriculture, are so fast, that over geologic time, our present continents could have been eroded to sea level over 100 times.19 Paraconformities and much more should all be gone.

The extreme lateral persistence of many sedimentary units.

    The sedimentary layers of the past seem different from present ones, especially with reference to their lateral persistence compared to the normal contemporary local deposition we see by rivers in their narrow valleys and limited lake and marine deposits. The abyssal plains of the deep ocean are an exception, but they are very poorly represented on the continents. There are some continental exceptions such as the Canterbury Plains of New Zealand and the lower Mississippi Valley where rivers distribute their sediments over wide areas, but these are exceptions, and they are not all that flat. The lateral continuity of sediments is also reflected in the extreme lateral persistence of paraconformities mentioned above and suggest that the past was different.
    An outstanding example is the persistent Cretaceous Dakota Formation (Figure 5). How such a thin formation could be deposited over such a widespread area not only reflects unusual depositional factors, but the extremely flat topography necessary to accommodate the spread of such a thin formation. We do not now see such flat and widespread areas on the continents waiting for the deposition of new formations. The Dakota is unusually thin, usually about 30 meters thick, with a maximum up to 220 meters. It is spread over 815,000 square kilometers (Figure 6). It reflects different kinds of rocks and fossils in various places, however with exceptional lateral continuity especially of the abundant sandstone units. At present, we do not see such thin and widespread deposition on the continents.
    There are many other examples of widespread deposition. The Jurassic Morrison Formation (Figure 5), famous for its dinosaur fossils, covers over 1,000,000 square kilometers (Figure 6), being spread from Canada to Texas. It is substantially thicker than the Dakota, usually around 100 meters thick. It has been suggested that it was distributed by "widespread flowing water,"20 however ancient channels of major rivers that would help distribute the sediments over such a wide area have not been found. The Triassic Chinle Group, famous for its petrified wood, covers some 800,000 square kilometers, being spread from Idaho to Texas and from California to Wyoming. All these require not only extremely widespread flat areas to be deposited upon, but truly unusual spreading factors that we do not see at present on the continents of the earth. To this must be added the unusual lateral persistence of many units with simple lithologies. For instance, the Castlegate Sandstone runs for 320 kilometers from Castle Gate, Utah, well into Colorado. There is no shortage of unusually widespread deposits.
    The geologist Carlton Brett of the University of Cincinnati has recently commented on what he sees in the sedimentary layers. While he advocates that some sediments are laid down slowly, he also recognizes that exceptional lateral continuity may be due to exceptional events. In his words:

"…beds may persist over areas of many hundreds to thousands of square kilometers precisely because they are the record of truly extraordinary, oversized events…. The accumulation of the permanent stratigraphic record in many cases involves processes that have not been, or cannot be observed in modern environments….there are the extreme events…. with magnitudes so large and devastating that they have not, and probably could not be observed scientifically.... I would argue that many successions show far more lateral continuity and similarity at a far finer scale than would be anticipated by most geologists."21

    The present irregular surface of our continents are not places where you could deposit these widespread formations. Note the contrast between the present irregular surface of the earth illustrated by the dashed and solid lines in Figure 3, as compared to the flat surfaces of the formations of ancient deposits. The geomorphologist W. D. Thornbury alludes to this when he states that "Little of the earth's topography is older than Tertiary and most of it no older than Pleistocene."22 Our sedimentary layers seem conspicuously flat compared to the present irregular surface of the rocks. It is clear that ancient Grand Canyons and ancient Mouunt Everests are blatantly absent from the geologic record of the past. This is as would be expected if most of the geologic column was deposited by the Genesis Flood.

Some conclusions.

    It is clear that when we look at the sedimentary layers, there are very significant differences from what is expected from present processes. These differences seem to fit better with the biblical model of a flood than with the long geological ages usually proposed. In summary we note that: (1) The lack of erosion of the underlayer at paraconformities challenge the long geologic ages proposed for these gaps and the validity of the geologic time scale. (2) Present rates of erosion, even when corrected for the effects of agriculture are so fast, that if the geologic time scale is correct, the continents would have been eroded away over a hundred times. But they are still here and much of the geologic column is still present indicating that we have not gone through even one cycle of erosion. (3) The flatness and lateral persistence of many sedimentary units betrays conditions that are not normal to our present earth and seem to reflect extreme events. All of these factors favor the biblical model of a recent creation and a subsequent catastrophic flood.

Other evidences from the rocks that favor the biblical model of origins, including the flood.23

  1. Soft sediment deformation, especially when the putative geological ages of the various soft components involves differences of many millions of years.
  2. Coal deposits of the past do not match present patterns of coal formation.
  3. Paleocurrents indicating major catastrophic activity.24
  4. Abundant evidence of underwater activity on the continents.
  5. The present rate of mountain range uplift is so fast that it cannot be fitted into the geologic time scale.
  6. The present rate of volcanic activity is so fast that it cannot be fitted into the geologic time scale.
  7. Widespread denudation such as the "Great Denudation" above and far beyond the Grand Canyon fits well with the receding waters of the Genesis Flood.
  8. Incomplete ecosystems where the fossils indicate that there was no or little vegetation to support the animals found, especially over the millions of years postulated.
  9. The burgeoning trend towards catastrophic geological interpretations as reflected in many studies.

    The geologic literature does not recognize interpretations such as the Genesis Flood, and any suggestion of a recent creation is usually labeled as unscientific. The bias against creation is severe. While almost all of the scientific literature accepts and promotes the long ages evolutionary model for the development of life, it is interesting that data that favors a recent creation over long geologic ages is not that hard to find.

A question.

    Some of the data like the virtual lack of erosion of the underlayer at paraconformities that are suppose to represent gaps of millions of years are very difficult to answer if you believe in long geological ages. This raises a broader question in a broader context. It now appears that for well over a century the scientific community has led us down an untenable and erroneous evolutionary pathway. The scientific problems evolution faces are becoming legion and include: the origin of simple life that is very complex, the great paucity of fossil intermediates, and the lack of a mechanism to explain the origin of complexity in advanced organisms. In view of the evidence presented above for the rapid deposition of the sedimentary record, is it possible that the scientific community has also led us down an erroneous long ages paradigm? Evolution needs all the time it can muster to try and accommodate highly improbable events postulated. And while the billions of years proposed are totally inadequate for what is needed; still to have more time is better than less for evolution. Creation does not need all that time, but evolution does, and much, much more. In trying to support evolution, has the scientific community also lead us into a dogma of long geologic ages?
    There is a significant amount of scientific evidence that challenges the long geological ages. One does not have to give up his or her scientific integrity in order to believe the Bible. Never-the-less we all can chose what we want to believe. Ellen White makes this clear:

"God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, his character, the truthfulness of his Word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant. Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity, while those who really desire to know the truth, will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith."25

Secularism in science.

    We should ever keep in mind that science as presently practiced is both a search for truth about nature and a secular philosophy that excludes God from its explanatory menu. It is important to try and distinguish between the two, although secularism has so thoroughly permeated science that this can be difficult. Experimental science is very successful, the secular philosophy remains less convincing and appears to be parasitic on the prowess of experimental science.
    Science was not secular in the past when the foundations of modern science were established by such intellectual giants as Kepler, Boyle, Linnaeus, Pascal, and Newton. These established science within a strongly theistic philosophy and illustrate how God and science can work well together. However at present there is a different attitude towards God. As the astronomer Robert Jastrow puts it: "When a scientist writes about God, his colleagues either assume he is over the hill or going bonkers." In order to be "scientific" now one is in essence required to pretend there is no God. Science accepts a variety of speculative ideas such as: imaginary universes, life based on sulfur instead of carbon, first moments of the Big Bang when the laws of science did not function, the anthropic cosmological principle, elan vital, orthogenesis, vitalism, saltation, etc., but not God. Science cannot find God as long as secularism prevails and God is excluded from science. In this stance, science is not an open search for truth.
    Furthermore, it appears that the secular stance of science does not accurately reflect the beliefs of scientists. A recent survey by the journal The Scientist suggests that 59% of scientists are currently associated with a religion.26 A more comprehensive study indicates that about 40% of scientists believe in a God who will answer their prayers, 45% do not, and 15% do not know.27 It is clear that the almost absolute secular ethos of contemporary science does not reflect the belief of many scientists. In science now, we are dealing with a secular attitude and not necessarily what the scientists believe. This incongruity can probably be best explained by psychological and sociological factors. In summary, it is clear from several perspectives, that the secular stance of science is problematic.

Adventism and science.

    Adventism should not sell its soul for the sake of gaining the approval of a scientific community that has adopted a strong secular "scientific" philosophy. Among other things, it should not allow the secular model of long geological ages to negate God's words in the Fourth Commandment that He created all in six days. There is too much scientific evidence that challenges the long geological ages. The church should not be asked to give up its confidence in the Bible until something better is provided. Adventist scientists need to use knowledgeable and critical reevaluation to challenge those aspects of science governed by secularism. They should do all they can to counter the secular stance of half a million scientists. Many of these are not really secular, but only reflect a popular "scientific" ethos. Here we are dealing more with an attitude than with facts. Adventist scientists should seek to counterbalance the biased secularism of a science that arbitrarily excludes God as an explanatory factor. In particular they should proactively seek out those scientific factors that support Adventism, the Bible, and God.
    A church is entitled to an identity, otherwise it has no reason for existence. A church is also entitled to loyalty, otherwise it risks becoming a mere debate society instead of an instrument for reform. May God bless each one of you as you help your church.

 

ENDNOTES

  1. Some point out that in Deuteronomy 5, Moses indicates deliverance from Egypt as a reason for keeping the Sabbath holy. While this does not conflict with the Exodus version, it is Moses and not God speaking. We are concerned here about what God the creator himself said.
  2. (a) Davidson RM. 1995. Biblical evidence for the universality of the Genesis flood. Origins 22:58-73; (b) Hasel GF. 1978. Some issues regarding the nature and universality of the Genesis flood narrative. Origins 5:83-98. (c) Hasel GF. 1975. The biblical view of the extent of the flood. Origins 2:77-95.
  3. Thompson S. 1955. Motif index of folk literature, volume 1. Revised ed. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
  4. Many gaps are found. We will be dealing with the major ones. Small gaps such as the diastems of sequence stratigraphy are not as significant.
  5. Newell ND. 1984. Mass extinction: Unique or recurrent causes? In: Berggren WA, Van Couvering, editors. Catastrophes and earth history: The new uniformitarianism, p 115-127. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  6. Blakey RS. 1990. Supai group and Hermit formations. In: Beus SS, Morales M, editors. 1990. Grand Canyon Geology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p 147-182.
  7. Beus SS. 1990. Temple Butte Formation. In: Beus SS, Morales M, editors. 1990. Grand Canyon Geology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p 107-117.
  8. Van Andel TH 1981. Consider the incompleteness of the geological record. Nature 294:397-398.
  9. Newell ND. 1967. Paraconformities. In: Teichert C, Yochelson EL, editors. Essays in paleontology and Stratigraphy. Department of Geology, University of Kansas, Special Publication 2:349-367.
  10. For more illustrations see: (a) Roth AA. 1988. Those gaps in the sedimentary layers. Origins 15:75-91; (b) Roth AA. 1998. Origins: Linking science and Scripture. Hagerstown: Review and Herald Publishing Association, p 222-230.
  11. (a) Carter RM. 1985. The mid-Oligocene Marshall Paraconformity, New Zealand: Coincidence with global eustatic sea-level fall or rise. Journal of Geology 93::359-371; (b) Carter RM, Landis CA. 1972. Correlative Oligocene unconformities in southern Australia. Nature 237:12-13; (c) Carter RM, Lindquist JK, Norris RJ. 1982. Oligocene unconformities and nodular phosphate—hardground horizons in western Southland and northern West Coast. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 12:11-46.
  12. (a) Roth AA. 1988. Those gaps in the sedimentary layers. Origins 15:75-91; (b) Roth AA. 1998. Origins: Linking science and Scripture. Hagerstown: Review and Herald Publishing Association, p 228.
  13. For estimates on 20 rivers see Table 15.1 in: Roth AA. 1998. Origins: Linking science and Scripture. Hagerstown: Review and Herald Publishing Association.
  14. The references for these studies can be found in the footnote to Table 15.2 in: Roth AA. 1998. Origins: Linking science and Scripture. Hagerstown: Review and Herald Publishing Association.
  15. For calculations see endnote 15 on page 272 of: Roth AA. 1998. Origins: Linking science and Scripture. Hagerstown: Review and Herald Publishing Association.
  16. For further discussion and references see: Roth AA. 1986. Some questions about geochronology. Origins 13:64-85.
  17. Sparks BW. 1986. Geomorphology, 3rd edition. London, New York: Longman Group, p 510.
  18. See: Roth AA. 1986. Some questions about geochronology. Origins 13:64-85.
  19. For calculations see: Roth AA. 1998. Origins: Linking science and Scripture. Hagerstown: Review and Herald Publishing Association, p 265-266.
  20. Dodson P, Behrensmeyer RH, Bkker RT, McIntosh JS. 1980. Taphonomy and paleoecology of the dinosaur beds in the Jurassic Morrison Formation. Paleobiology 6:208-232.
  21. Brett CE. 2000. A slice of the "layer cake": The paradox of "frosting continuity." Palaios 15:495-498.
  22. Thornbury WD. 1969. Principles of geomorphology, 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, p 25.
  23. For detailded discussion of a number of these, the reader is referred to the book: Roth AA. 1998. Origins: Linking science and Scripture. Hagerstown: Review and Herald Publishing Association, especialy Chapters 13 and 15.
  24. Chadwick AV. 1993. Megatrends in North American paleocurrents. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Abstracts With Programs 8:58.
  25. White EG. 1892. Steps to Christ. Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, p110.
  26. The Scientist 17(10). Online version for May 19 2003. (www.the-scientist.com)
  27. Larson EJ, Witham L. 1997. Scientists are still keeping the faith. Nature 386:435-436.

--------------------

FIGURE 1. View of the Grand Canyon. The three arrows designate where major portions of the geologic column are missing between the layers. These gaps are paraconformities. From top to bottom the arrows point to gaps of approximately 6, 14, and 100 million years. The Canyon itself illustrates widespread sedimentary layers and how irregular erosion can be.

 

FIGURE 2. Valley of the Colorado River as seen from Dead Horse Point. The top arrow points to an assumed 10-12 million year depositional gap while the lower arrow points to a 15-20 million year gap. Note the striking contrast between the flat depositional patterns of the layers at these 10 and 20 million year hiatuses (gaps, paraconformities) and the deep irregular erosion of the canyon by the Colorado River.

 

FIGURE 3. Representation of the sedimentary layers in eastern Utah, based on the standard geologic timescale (instead of thickness, although the two are related). The clear (white) areas represent sedimentary rock layers, while the black areas represent the time for the main gaps (hiatuses, pataconformities) between layers where parts of the geologic column are missing in this region. The layers (white areas) actually lie directly on top of each other with flat contact planes. The black areas stand for the postulated time between the sedimentary layers. The irregular dashed and continuous lines through the upper layers represent two examples of the present ground surface in the region as carved by erosion. The dashed line (---) represents one of the flattest surfaces of the region as found along Interstate 70, while the smooth line ( — ) is in the hills farther south. This provides evidence for a flood model wherein the layers (white areas) were deposited rapidly in sequence without much time for erosion between. Erosion toward the end of the flood and afterward produced the irregular topography that exists today (dashed and continuous lines). If millions of years had elapsed between the layers (black areas), as postulated by the geologic time scale, we would expect patterns of erosion somewhat similar to the present surface pattern (dashed and continuous lines) between the white layers. The main divisions of the geologic column are given in the left column, followed by their putative age in millions of years. Names in the sedimentary units represent only the major formation or groups. Vertical exaggeration is about 14x. The horizontal distance represents about 133 kilometers while the total thickness of the layers (white part) is about 3½ kilometers.

Figure 3 based on: Bennison, A. P. 1990. Geological highway map of the southern Rocky Mountain region: Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico. Rev. ed. U.S. Geological Highway Map No. 2. Tulsa, Okla.: American Association of Petroleum Geologists; Billingsley, G. H. and W. J. Breed. 1980. Geologic cross section from Cedar Breaks National Monument through Bryce Canyon National Park to Escalante, Capitol Reef National Park, and Canyonlands National Park, Utah. Torrey, Utah: Capitol Reef Natural History Assn; Molenaar, C. M. 1975. Correlation chart. In: Fassett, J. E., editor. Canyonlands country: A guidebook of the Four Corners Geological Society eighth field conference, p. 4.

 

FIGURE 4. View of the cliff at Punakaiki on the east coast of the South Island of New Zealand. The arrow points at the Marshall Paraconformity, a gap assumed to represent 3 or more million years.

 

FIGURE 5. View of the Dakota and Morrison formations in eastern Utah, north of the town of Blanding. The arrow points to the thin Dakota Formation on the skyline. The main part of the picture shows some units of the Morrison Formation exposed in the road cut.

 

FIGURE 6. Distribution of the Dakota and Morrison formations.