The Inanimate Creation

&
Science Research
3 out of 6 creation days:
Day 1 light
Day 2 air
Day 3 land tectonics, ig/met
Day 4 heavens
Flood
Plate tectonics
Sedimentary rocks
Igneous/Metamorphic
Animation
Plate tectonics
General features
#13-14
Research on the Inanimate Creation
Short chronology
lack of models horizontal, vertical, time
preferred anyway theodicy
Research
guidelines
examples California, Peru
Conclusions
1) Horizontal (next talk)
plate tectonics
2) Vertical (Colombia)
geologic column
3) Time (ideas)
radiometric dates
No working scientific creation/flood model for:
2) Vertical
earth differentiation
Formation of
Core, mantle, crust
Continents, ocean basins
Mountains, plains
Elements for mining, fertile ground
Geologic column
Thailand sutured blocks, oil/gas/minerals (complete section)
India shield, sediments, basalts, Himalayas (complete section)
North Dakota Williston basin oil (complete section)
Colorado Rocky Mountains (almost complete section)
Colombia !!!
New Mexico Rocky Mountains (much of column)
Peru Andes (much of column)
California Cordillera (much of column)
Canada Banff (Pz sediments, Mz tectonics)

Italy Alps (Mz, Cz mainly)
Israel plate boundaries (Precambrian, Mz, Cz)
Virginia Appalachians (Pz mostly)
Kenya, South Africa shield, Karoo, Rift Valley (parts of column)
Puerto Rico Caribbean plate (Mz, Cz mainly)
Philippines volcanism (Cz)
Israel
4. Cenozoic post Flood ??
vertebrates, hominids
salt, lake deposits
Dead Sea fault, earthquakes, volcanics
3. Mesozoic (&Ceno) late Flood ??
reefs, chalk, dinos, trees, ammonites
asphalt, cycles
limestone quarries, caves
2. Paleozoic (&Meso) early Flood ??
limestone, gypsum, magmatism
Nubian ss, Petra
Tethys Sea basal congl, trilobites
1. Precambrian pre-creation/Flood ??
metamorphics, granitoids copper
Geology of Colombia
one suggested model

Cenozoic
post flood ??
Mesozoic
late flood ??
Paleozoic
early flood ??
Precambrian
pre-flood ??
Ordonez-Carmona, Alvarez, and Pimentel, 2006. (Modified from Etayo et al., 1986)
Precambrian
pre-flood ??
Cao Cristales, Serrania de la Macarena, Meta
Paleozoic (Permian) middle flood ??
salt Zipaquira mines
Mesozoic (Triassic) middle flood ??
Payande Formation
limestones
ammonites
Mesozoic (Jurassic) late flood ??
red sandstones, La Quinta Formation
volcanoclastic, Giron Fm
Cretaceous late flood ??
Kronosaurus fossil displayed
where found in 1977
Sierra Nevada del Cocuy, Boyac
Eastern Cordillera
Ammonites
in Villa de Leyva, Boyaca
Caon del Rio Chicamocha,
Santander
Western Cordillera Cauca state
volcanic rocks (diabase)
Barroso Complex
Cenozoic (Paleocene) post-flood ??
La Guajira
fossils from Cerrejon coal
mine like modern
rainforest plants
Titanoboa
Oil
Ro Magdalena entre Honda y el Banco
Valle del Catatumbo y Zulia
Llanura del Caribe y Bajo Magdalena
Alto Magdalena
Putumayo
Llanos Orientales
Litoral del Atlntico, valles del Sin y San Jorge
Litoral del Pacfico
Economic
deposits
Coal mine, Cerrejon-Guajira
Gold
mined before Spanish Conquest

in veins & sands of some rivers
Emeralds - best in the world for color, brightness
- Cretaceous
- in limestones affected by hydrothermal fluids
Tectonic Setting
Cediel, Shaw and Caceres, 2003)

porphyry copper deposits by age
red stars = 0-10 Ma
blue stars = 11-20 Ma


black triangles = modern volcanoes
Volcanoes
Volcano Cumbal,
Narino
Volcano Nevado del Ruiz
lahars covered town of Armero

more than 20,000 people died
November 13, 1985
Volcano Nevado del Huila 5365 m
3) Time Radiometric Dating
Age from decay rate,
# parent atoms, # daughter atoms
Concordance between methods

1. ORGANIC dates life directly
Materials: bones, wood, shells,
Ages: generally less than 50,000 years
Isotope: carbon-14 (
14
C
14
N)
2. INORGANIC dates fossils only by association
Materials: minerals, rocks
Ages: millions, billions of years
Isotopes: U,ThPb, KAr, RbSr,
They dont really answer the question
a) Radiometric data invalidated by discordance
b) Geochemistry alternative explanations
c) Geology evidence of rapid activity
d) Physics relative time
e) Physical constants change
f) Philosophy problems with extrapolation
g) Models old earth / young life
h) Supernatural unexpected effects on nature
Suggested creationist ideas,
but
a) Discordance
the Rb-Sr method. Ideally, all minerals
of an igneous rock should indicate the
same date which can then be regarded
as the age of the rock. When mineral
dates obtained from one rock specimen
or from a suite of cogenetic igneous
rocks are in agreement, they are said to
be concordant. Unfortunately,
discordance of mineral dates is more
common than concordance.
-- Gunter Faure. Principles of Isotope Geology, 2
nd

ed. (1986), p.120


Mt. Rangitoto, NZ
Carbon-14 -- ~1000 yrs
K-Ar -- ~100,000 yrs
b) Geochemistry
Inherited age for high
temperature minerals with
unmelted crystals
Contamination from wall rock
Retention of the argon noble gas
daughter isotope in the mineral
due to hydrostatic pressure [K-
Ar method]
Mixing from two sources with
straight lines giving pseudo-
isochrons [especially the Rb-Sr
method]
Age due to fractionation/zonation
in magma chamber
c) Geological
(rapid activity, so dating cant be right)
Rapid Activity
Paraconformities
~100 m.y. missing at an
apparently flat contact

Catastrophes, rapid
burial

Short Time
Carbon-14 in coal,
dinosaur soft tissue
d) Physics Relative time
Rate of time flow non-uniform
between time-frames due to
differences in
Speed
Special relativity e.g., decay
rates change
Gravitational fields
General relativity e.g., black
holes, wormholes
[Refs: Daniel 9; DA 356]

Relativistic effects have been
suggested to solve
discrepancy between science
and Genesis
Relativity Einsteins definition:
When a man sits with
a pretty girl for an
hour, it seems like a
minute. But let him sit
on a hot stove for a
minute and its longer
than any hour. Thats
relativity.
e) Change in physical constants
Change in decay rate
Change in speed of light
Polonium pleochroic haloes
f) Philosophical
a) Danger of extrapolation
E.g., childs growth
Karen's growth
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Jan-
83
Jan-
85
Jan-
87
Jan-
89
Jan-
91
Jan-
93
Jan-
95
Jan-
97
Jan-
99
Jan-
01
Jan-
03
Jan-
05
Jan-
07
Jan-
09
Jan-
11
Jan-
13
Jan-
15
Date
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Karen's growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Jan-83 Jan-85 Jan-87 Jan-89 Jan-91 Jan-93 Jan-95 Jan-97 Jan-99
Date
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
f) cont Philosophical
b) Hope for scientific revolution
Lord Kelvin estimated age of earth in
1800s, with no knowledge of radioactivity
Estimates changed by 2 orders of
magnitude after discovery of radioactivity
c) 1000x as many studying rocks in
standard paradigm
d) Have found answers for some
problems in past, e.g., Yellowstone
fossil forests
e) Time a god-of-the-gaps for
evolution?
g) Intermediate models (between extremes)
Entire universe young
Soft/passive gap old earth / young life
universe old, solar system/earth old, life not
exactly 6000 yrs
Extended flood model 1-year, worldwide
flood BUT
only part of geology deposited then, somewhat
extended time
Progressive creation, theistic evolution
Universe totally naturalistic
h) Supernatural
Believe Scripture, forget the data
God has a 1000 ways
A miracle
different conditions during creation/flood
so cant develop scientific model
Time different for the Creator
Everlasting (Ps 90:2; Ps 102:27)
Known from beginning to end (Is 46:9,10)
Not necessarily same as for humans (Ps 90:4; 2 Pet 3:8)
Intervention results in strange effects on time perception
Appearance of age at end of creation week
OT Joshuas long day; Hezekiahs sundial
NT water to wine; loaves/fishes multiplied
E.g., Shroud of Turin
Why I prefer a short-age model
get the bad stuff over as quick as possible

Seventh-day Adventist
short past / short future
recent entrance of evil
quick restoration to good
teachings about origins
as nicely confirmed by science
as teachings about health
e.g, tobacco, diet, etc.,
but unlikely to easily happen because
origins has to do with 1-time events,
rather than on-going processes

Churchs wish:
Research on the Inanimate Creation
Short chronology
lack of models horizontal, vertical, time
preferred anyway theodicy
Research
guidelines
examples California, Peru
Conclusions
Guidelines:
what not to do
DONT
Get lost in details there are bigger questions
Be impatient 400 years for Galileo
Blame scientists not more evil than anyone else
Blame God Hes not the source of evil
Give up on creation even if scientifically refuted
signs were not Jesus primary approach
Expect scientific model for Gods 1-time intervention
belief not based on science
Be too quick to judge scientist friends
Guidelines:
The Andrews University Way
of Doing Archaeology
1. Be forthright with findings. Do not minimize problems or stretch
interpretations of data to explain things away.
2. Do not make claims beyond what the data can support.
3. Be quick and complete in publishing results.
4. Engage and work within mainstream scholarship.
5. Include a diversity of people and specialists.
6. Take the history of the Bible seriously, but do not place upon
archaeology the burden of proving the Bible.
Integrating Faith, the Bible, and Archaeology: A Review of the Andrews University Way of Doing Archaeology
Randall W. Younker
IN: The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions,
James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard, eds. (Eerdmans, 2004), p.43-52.
Work within scientific community
Pick a big issue, not just some detail
Work toward a model, not just an attack
Use care with resulting claims
No purely naturalistic model (1-time events)
Guidelines:
suggested approach
Research Examples:
Granites and Plate Tectonics:
California and Peru
California
~287 composite samples taken on a grid
32.5
33.0
33.5
34.0
-118.0 -117.5 -117.0 -116.5 -116.0
SAN BERNARDINO
PALM SPRINGS
SAN DIEGO
San Jacinto
block
Perris block
Santa Ana block
Elsinore fault
suture zone
shear zone
San Jacinto fault
San Andreas fault
Agua Caliente fault
PACIFIC
OCEAN
(Baird et al. 1984)
Los
Angeles
Peru
Mesozoic Coastal Batholith
1) Formation of matter (nuclear physics)
source of earths elements
2) Geologic sequence (vertical)
especially granites
3) Plate tectonics (horizontal)
initiation, rates
4) Cooling rates
batholiths, ocean floor
5) Radiometric dating (time)
discordance, geochem, old earth, rate change

Research Plans (2013)
1) Element formation

supernova
star
fission bomb
fusion bomb
binding energy curve
2) Granite formation:
catastrophic in its suddenness
-- Tas Walker, Journal of Creation, Aug 2007
Model for the origin of granite
a) Partial melting of source rock in lower crust
b) Separation of magma from solid residue
c) Transport of magma in dykes to upper crust
d) Emplacement of magma in tabular pluton
e) Crystallization of pluton
f) Cooling of pluton
http://creation.com/granite-formation-catastrophic-in-its-suddenness
granite
emplacement
igneous rocks
intruded into
metamorphosed
sediments
Sun City, California
3) rates plate tectonics
large data base episodic/rapid ??
Mt. San Jacinto
4) cooling computer modeling
Mt San Jacinto, Palm Springs, California
Luciano Gonzalez, Montemorelos
5) mixing line rather than isochron
could claim an answer, but know better than that
0.703
0.704
0.705
0.706
0.707
0.708
0.709
0.710
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
87
Rb/
86
Sr
8
7
S
r
/
8
6
S
r
1254 Ma
~ 1148 Ma
16823 Ma ?
granodiorite
tonalite
gabbro
Rio Ica
Rio Pisco
mixing line

mixing
Peru
Ana Martinez
Coastal Batholith, Peru
thin section evidence for mixing
10715B @ Linga (Rio Pisco)
uralitization


10715F @ Tiabaya (Rio Pisco)
reverse zoning


10720V @ Tiabaya (Rio Ica)
reverse zoning
Why magma mixing doesnt solve the problem
U-Pb dates are in zircon mineral, not
whole rock
K-Ar dates based on loss of Ar noble gas
Independent dates agree
Get a sequence of dates
No better mixing model available
Plate tectonics, batholith cooling, biogenic
activity still require time
Research on the Inanimate Creation
Short chronology
lack of models horizontal, vertical, time
preferred anyway theodicy
Research
guidelines
examples California, Peru
Conclusions (4)
Conclusion #1
NEGATIVE = attack perhaps true, needed
but destructive, unsatisfying
people how can they believe that way?
models evolution problems
philosophical 1000x, historical science

POSITIVE = develop better models & test
constructive, more satisfying
science models [when God works by process]
theology models [when God works by fiat]
intermediate models (e.g., old earth, young
life)

Conclusion #2
God works by process & fiat
time not an issue for God
(DA367, 606)

Process Fiat
Genesis 2 Genesis 1
Life grows Life created
Military conquest Walls fell, sun stood still
Everyday growth Water to wine,
multiply loaves/fishes
Physicians today Miraculous healings
can study harder to study
inanimate ?? animate ??
Conclusion #3 a possible approach
Revelation & church
respect
limited due to the human element
reinterpret based on physical evidence
Nature & science
respect
limited physics, biology, geology
reinterpret creation/flood research
Relating science/religion but not too tightly
1
st
revelation 2
nd
science 3
rd
coherence
THUS: less worry God has a thousand ways
(DA330)
People why it even makes a difference
As a scientist, I may appear to bow to the
god of science as Naaman bowed with
his master in a Syrian temple, but as
Naaman told Elisha: Your servant will not
offer burnt offering or sacrifice to any god
but the Lord (2 Kings 5:17, RSV).


Jobs wife saw problems, refused to believe

Jobs friends believed, refused to see problems

Job saw problems, but still believed (13:15)
Conclusion #4
Research on the Inanimate Creation
Short chronology
lack of models horizontal, vertical, time
preferred anyway theodicy
Research
guidelines
examples California, Peru
Conclusions