Download - The Inanimate Creation

8/11/2019 The Inanimate Creation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-inanimate-creation 1/69

The Inanimate Creation

&

Science Research

3½ 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 tectonicsGeneral 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 ??

Mesozoiclate flood ??

Paleozoic

early flood ??

Precambrian

pre-flood ??

Ordonez-Carmona, Alvarez, and Pimentel, 2006. (Modified fro



Precambrian …pre-flood ??



Caño 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 displayedwhere found in 1977



Sierra Nevada del Cocuy, Boyacá



Eastern Cordillera

Ammonites… in Villa de Leyva, Boyaca



Cañon del Rio Chicamocha,Santander



Western Cordillera … Cauca state

volcanic rocks (diabase)Barroso Complex



Cenozoic (Paleocene) … post-flood ??

La Guajira

fossils from Cerrejon coalmine like modernrainforest plants

Titanoboa



Oil

•Río Magdalena entre Honda y el Banco

•Valle del Catatumbo y Zulia

•Llanura del Caribe y Bajo Magdalena• Alto Magdalena

•Putumayo

•Llanos Orientales

•Litoral del Atlántico, valles del Sinú y San Jorge

•Litoral del Pacífico

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 Mablue 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 diedNovember 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,Th→Pb, K→Ar, Rb→Sr, …



They don’t really answer the question

a) Radiometric data – invalidated by discordanceb) Geochemistry – alternative explanations

c) Geology – evidence of rapid activity

d) Physics – relative time

e) Physical constants – changef) 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 mineralsof an igneous rock should indicate the

same date which can then be regardedas the age of the rock. When mineraldates obtained from one rock specimenor from a suite of cogenetic igneousrocks are in agreement, they are said tobe “concordant.” Unfortunately, “discordance” of mineral dates is morecommon than “concordance.” -- Gunter Faure. Principles of Isotope Geology , 2nd ed. (1986), p.120

Mt. Rangitoto, NZ Carbon-14 -- ~1000 yrs

K-Ar -- ~100,000 yrs



b) Geochemistry

Inherited age for hightemperature minerals withunmelted crystals

Contamination from wall rock

Retention of the argon noble gasdaughter isotope in the mineraldue to hydrostatic pressure [K-Ar method]

Mixing from two sources … withstraight lines giving pseudo-isochrons [especially the Rb-Sr

method] Age due to fractionation/zonation

in magma chamber



c) Geological

(rapid activity, so dating can‟t be right)

Rapid Activity

– Paraconformities~100 m.y. missing at anapparently flat contact

– Catastrophes, rapidburial

Short Time– Carbon-14 in coal,

dinosaur soft tissue



d) Physics – Relative time

Rate of time flow non-uniformbetween time-frames due todifferences in

Speed– Special relativity – e.g., decay

rates change Gravitational fields

– General relativity – e.g., blackholes, wormholes

[Refs: Daniel 9; DA 356]

Relativistic effects have beensuggested to solvediscrepancy between science

and Genesis



Relativity – Einstein‟s definition:

“When a man sits witha pretty girl for anhour, it seems like aminute. But let him sit

on a hot stove for aminute and it’s longerthan any hour. That’srelativity.”



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., child’s growth►

Karen's 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 )

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) con‟t … 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 radioactivityc) 1000x as many studying rocks in

standard paradigm

d) Have found answers for someproblems in past, e.g., Yellowstonefossil 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 can’t 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 – Joshua’s long day; Hezekiah’s sundial

NT – water to wine; loaves/fishes multiplied

E.g., Shroud of Turin►



Why I prefer a short-age modelget 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 originsas nicely confirmed by science

as teachings about healthe.g, tobacco, diet, etc., …

but unlikely to easily happen becauseorigins has to do with 1-time events,

rather than on-going processes

Church‟s wish:




Short chronology



Research

–guidelines


Conclusions



Guidelines:

what not to do

DON’T

Get lost in details – there are bigger questions

Be impatient – 400 years for Galileo

Blame scientists – not more evil than anyone else

Blame God – He’s not the source of evil

Give up on creation – even if “scientifically refuted” – signs were not Jesus’ primary approach

Expect scientific model for God’s 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 stretchinterpretations 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 faultsuture 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 earth’s elements

2) Geologic sequence (vertical)

– especially granites3) 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 bombfusion bomb

binding energy curve

2) “G it f ti



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

metamorphosedsediments

Sun City, California



3) rates – plate tectonics

large data base … episodic/rapid ??

Mt San Jacinto



Mt. San Jacinto4) cooling – computer modeling

Mt San Jacinto, Palm Springs, California

Luciano Gonzalez, Montemorelos

5) mixing line rather than isochron



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

125±4 Ma

~ 114±8 Ma

168±23 Ma ?

granodiorite

tonalite

gabbro

mixing



Rio Ica

Rio Pisco

mixing line

mixing

Peru

Ana Martinez



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 doesn‟t solve the problem

U-Pb dates are in zircon mineral, notwhole 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, biogenicactivity still require time




Short chronology



Research

–guidelines


Conclusions (4)

C l i #1



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)

C l i #2



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 ??

C l i #3 ibl h



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

– 1st revelation … 2nd science … 3rd coherence– THUS: less worry – God has a thousand ways

(DA330) …

People – why it even makes a difference

C l i #4



As a scientist, I may appear to bow to the “god of science” as Naaman bowed withhis master in a Syrian temple, but asNaaman told Elisha: Your servant will not

offer burnt offering or sacrifice to any godbut the Lord” (2 Kings 5:17, RSV).

Job’s wife – saw problems, refused to believe

Job’s friends – believed, refused to see problems

Job – saw problems, but still believed (13:15)

Conclusion #4




Short chronology



Research

–guidelines


Conclusions

Download - The Inanimate Creation

Top Related