How The Grand Canyon Was Formed

 

This week I want to focus on a recent exchange I had with my friend Gene who is a professed agnostic.  He and I have engaged in numerous debates over the past couple of decades. His most recent assertion is concerning the age of the earth, which he insists is at least 4.5 billion years old. He is a proponent of the evolutionary myth that is embraced by much of the scientific community and taught throughout our society today. 

A couple of things I want us to examine, one being a documentary Gene sent to me that aired on the History Channel which makes the claim to have settled the debate over the age of the Grand Canyon, and then some comments concerning an essay Gene wrote in view Dr. Andrew Snellings's faith and work in the documentary "Is Genesis History" which has recently been viewed in selected theaters. 

In the History Channel documentary, as they began to set the stage for their presentation, they admit they don't have much evidence to work with. The explanation was that the Colorado River had washed away most of the evidence. I am not sure how that was supposed to help their case, but we will take their word for it. 

The documentary then continues with assertions that the rocks in the Canyon are billions and billions of years old, a conclusion they came to by radiometric dating (more about that later). They then began showing via computer-generated animation what the earth looked like while the Canyon was forming. It was impressive to watch the Canyon forming right before your eyes. However, while the computer-generated imagery was being presented the narrator described how the Geologist had to learn to visualize how the canyon must have looked in the past. It was then I realized what I was watching was not science but the imagination of geologists, and that of geologists who do not believe in Creation. 

In their imagination, they began to describe how 1/2 billion years ago an inland sea emerged. They never really explained where it came from, how it arrived, or where it went when it left, but this imaginary ocean came and went at least 8 times. We're not talking here about a tide, we're talking about a whole ocean! The last time it came and went was 80 million years ago. They even showed it coming and going with the video animation, again very impressive. After thinking a little about what I had just seen and heard, I realized there was a lot of information being presented, and that after admitting they did not have much evidence to work with. Then I remember how they explained that the geologist had to learn to use their imagination.

Some of the evidence presented for all this was Calcium deposits and sea fossils, etc, many of which were found a mile above sea level. They explained this by asserting a very rare event called Laramide Orogenic, where the land is lifted straight up instead of the usually slanted formation that is thought to be formed by the movement of the continental plates, but what exactly happens is unknown. I also watched as they amazingly removed sand from the river bed that had never been exposed to sunlight. They were very meticulous about keeping it isolated as any exposure to the sun would contaminate the specimen and skew the results. I wondered how they knew the sand had never been exposed to sunlight? They already insisted the Canyon had been in constant change over millions of years, they had already demonstrated at least 8 oceans had come and gone from somewhere. As I pondered on these things I understood, Sponge Bob had once explained it in one of his episodes, he called it "Imagination!". 

You can view the documentary here at this link: The grand Canyon Explained   

I realized I have just used sarcasm and a little humor to describe a serious attempt to explain one of the most amazing sights in the world. I also realize the attempt was made by many well-equipped and very capable geologists who have sacrificed much to become proficient in their field. It is not their capability that is in question, nor their science, only their interpretation of that science. They and the producers of the History Channel documentary have no belief or confidence in the Biblical record of creation. Therefore, it is impossible for them to examine the evidence and interpret it in that light, such interpretations are foolish to them.

1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV

(18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:23-24 KJV

(23)  But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

(24)  But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

(14)  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The creationist on the other hand has a belief in God and confidence in the Biblical record. It is not an attempt of his to prove the Bible true, he already believes that. It is because he believes the Bible that it is a rational option and reasonable conclusion to interpret the evidence in that light when the science lends itself to it. When the science seems to contradict the Biblical record, it is a rational response to question why? When you have two capable scientists who come to different conclusions while examining the same science, it is a  rational response for them to question each other's results. It is not rational for them to simply disregard the data of the opposing idea based on bias. 

All of the science demonstrated in the evolutionary model presented in the documentary will also support the creation model with the exception of time. Time is the most crucial in the debate, therefore, it is the major focus of the debate. The Biblical record only allows for a few thousand years while the evolutionary model insists upon billions of years, with millions for the formation of the Canyon in question. Therefore it is not unreasonable for the creation scientists to question that interpretation and look for ways to reconcile the contradicting data.

The scientific data does demonstrate some of the oldest rocks on earth to date around 4 billion years old. If one believes the Biblical record, this presents a problem. It is therefore a reasonable action for a scientist who believes the Biblical record not only to question the accuracy of that data but to search for ways to reconcile the data in light of the Biblical model. A good scientist would not accept contradicting data without close examination and exploration of the methods of interpretation. If after doing so, he certainly has to at least acknowledge his difficulty.

As you can see from the chart, radiometric dating involves the measurement of the radioactive elements in the rock over time. That measurement generally gives very long periods of time. To achieve an accurate measure of anything, you have to begin with known variables. When pressed for these references the evolutionary model breaks down. You could say, 10-5=5 and you would have a solid formula. However, if you stated (Unknown)-5+possible contaminations= 5 you have a possible answer, but to actually obtain the factor of 5 you must assume other factors that would produce the factor 5 you are looking for. In radiometric dating, they are measuring decay based upon a constant decay rate while also assuming a known beginning number without any additional additions due to contaminations. We are not suggesting they should not be taking the measurements, it is the fact they place so much confidence in the results that it is presented as absolutes. Here is a 20 minute video of Dr. Snelling explaining some of the newest findings concerning raiometricdating. Radioisotope Dating 

There are several lines of evidence that now confirm those rates have not remained constant, in fact, they show past decays rates being much faster than they are now.  You can also consider the measurements of helium leakage as evidence of thousands of years, not billions. Of course, if you are going to trust the measurements, the elements themselves must not have been contaminated over time, however, numerous lines of evidence now show a high possibility of contamination.

Also,  14C is a short-lived radioisotope, it cannot survive for millions of years. This is compelling evidence that diamonds and coal deposits are only thousands of years old at most. 14C is also found in essentially all fossil organic material throughout the geologic column which presents a problem for the evolutionary model.

The point is, there are two main competing ideas looking at the science of our existence, the creation model and the evolutionary model. The interpretation of that science largely is a result of a presuppositional approach to the evidence. Each is presenting the data in light of the model they represent. Is the earth billions of years old? The evolutionary model says it is. If the measurements they are using are constant and have not been contaminated over time, then the evidence leans that way. 

Is the earth only thousands of years old? If the measurements used to prove otherwise are not constant or have been contaminated over time, then the evidence leans itself to thousands of years instead of billions. At best, all the evolutionary model can offer is a model-based mostly on assumptions of numerous variables to produce the results that will fit their presuppositional beliefs. The creation model on the other hand is based upon a model itself that predates all the available science, it is not a model created by the science, but a model helpful in understanding the science for those who believe in the Biblical account. 

This brings us to the second part of our discussion, Dr. Andrew Snelling. My friend Gene starts his essay with a reference to a song by country singer Neal McCoy "Billy's Got His Beer Goggles On."

You can read his essay here: Godless American Patriot

Gene explains that Goggles are close-fitting eyeglasses with side shields for protecting the eyes, in Billy's case, the beer goggles shielded him from the heartache of losing his girlfriend. He then gives the definition of Confirmation bias, which he accuses Dr. Snelling of possessing. His definition is something similar to the presuppositional approach I discussed earlier. So I would agree with Gene's assessment that Dr. Andrew Snelling has God Goggles on, which Gene see's as a problem. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact he has his agnostic Goggles on. That slight hit of sarcasm was just to keep us balanced. 

Here is where Gene goes wrong, he states in his essay, "Convinced God's word is correct, and science is wrong about the age of the Earth, Dr. Snelling acknowledges he studies Christian books about creationism and young Earth. If anyone has a pair of God goggles on, it is Dr. Andrew Snelling!"

The assertion is that Dr. Snelling's interpretation of the science is a rejection of the science, an assertion that is absurd on any ground you put it.   Dr. Snelling is one of the world's leading researchers in flood geology. He was a founding member of the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). He received a Bachelor of Science with First Class Honours in Applied Geology from the University of New South Wales and a Ph.D. from the University of Sydney, for his thesis A geochemical study of the Koongarra uranium deposit, Northern Territory, Australia. In other words, he is capable and proficient in his field of study, he knows the science. It is an obvious bias to suggest because he believes the Biblical account and can see how the science upholds that model, and questions the standing models of evolution when there are assertions made from unproven assumptions, that it is somehow rejecting science, well you be the judge. 

Bottom line for the reader, we have two opinions and we are looking at the same evidence. We have capable and proficient scientist who have committed themselves to years of study on both sides of the issue. Each will try and persuade you their view is correct, in their explanation of the science all we need ask of them is a reasonable and plausible explanation. However, for someone to reject one view over the other without giving each an equal amount of examination and view both arguments exhaustively would be to let your bias hold you captive, and that would be a bad thing.

Until we meet again, stay balanced and keep studying the plain text,

David