Grab the shotgun, the Woolf is at the door! Fire off the evidence and listen for the roar...

The first shotgun I ever fired (I was a small kid) was my grandpa's old break-open breach single shell loading double-barrel shotgun made by Belgium Royal back around the turn of two centuries back.   My  Dad and Uncle and my cousin Lonnie and my Pap all roared with laughter the first time I fired the thing and got knocked on my butt (all of them wisely behind me of course).  It is sitting in the corner of my front room.   We were going to hang it on a pair of 19th Century Longhorn...well, horns.   It looked stupid so I need to build a rack for that shotgun and my very first .22 rifle.   Thanks to my brother, Marc, who passed down the family shooting irons to me.   When I was drafted I gave him my Grandpa's WWI gas mask and helmet just in case I got killed.   Getting the "Family Shooting Irons" on display is yet another honey-do.

Jon Woolf, infamous commenter and religious zealot for naturalism, has been continually brandishing a list of questions that he thinks have some kind of bearing on the matter of Darwinism versus common sense.   I've avoided this because of many reasons, one of which is the old Blog proverb; "Don't feed the trolls."   However, the questions keep coming back like a continual and annoying drip in a new sink.   I am lumping a few of them together because they can be answered together.

So here we go:

What's the YEC explanation for the no-young-isotopes phenomenon, Radar?



Gee, do you think Adam had a belly button?   If God is going to create a world, he would not create it in an incomplete state.  He created Adam as a man, not a baby or a fetus.   Therefore various elements and isotopes would be created as He preferred them to be at creation.  Furthermore, the decay rates of elements are impacted by the environment.   The fundamental problem Darwinists have with dating methods and decay rates is their steadfast refusal to consider and try to account for the Noahic Flood.   All dating methods used by Darwinists that claim unchanging decay/accumulation/growth rates are therefore invalid and that is why they can give so many false dates.

Here is a link and an excerpt from the latest RATE conference:  

Both Argon and Helium Diffusion Rates Indicate a Young Earth

by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. *

Introduction

"In the final report of ICR’s Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) project, Dr. Russell Humphreys reported that helium diffusion from zircons in borehole GT-2 at Fenton Hill, New Mexico, gave an age for the earth of 6,000 ± 2,000 years.¹ This young age agrees with a literal reading of Scripture, but is at variance with the billions of years conventionally held. Gary Loechelt has been a frequent critic of Humphreys’ procedures for calculating the young age by helium diffusion.² Humphreys has responded to Loechelt and other critics, demonstrating that their concerns were invalid and successfully defending his findings.

However, due to Loechelt’s persistent criticisms, Humphreys recently took a deeper look at one of the key papers on which his helium diffusion research was based, and he found some rather odd assumptions about local heating near the borehole.³ He concluded that some of the assumptions about the heating history of the borehole were made to avoid problems the authors of the paper (Harrison et al⁴) would otherwise have had with the diffusion of argon from the sample.

Humphreys decided to develop a second, independent method for estimating the age of the earth based on the diffusion of argon from feldspar in the same Fenton Hill borehole. The result was a slightly younger age for the earth than his earlier helium diffusion method..."   Read the whole thing at the link.
~~~~~

What's the YEC explanation for paleosols, Radar?


Figure 1. Alleged ‘paleosol’ located between the Precambrian Butler Hill
Granite and the Cambrian Lamotte Sandstone. Photo taken by Joe Meert along
Missouri State Highway 67 (from Meert)

I will quote Tas Walker:  "The three main field features used to interpret a paleosol
are root traces, soil horizons, and soil structures. Additional
complications associated with the way the ‘paleosol’ fits into
the rock sequences also need to be considered.

The first point about the alleged paleosol in Figure 1,
which Meert described as an ‘excellent example of a well
developed paleosol’, is that there is no reference to any root
traces. The photo is too distant to distinguish them and
their existence or otherwise is not mentioned in the text. In
other words, the first and ‘most diagnostic feature’  of a
paleosol is not addressed. However, even when root traces
are described for claimed paleosols (ones clearly from Flood
deposits) the roots are often simply interpreted from plant
fragments, or even from empty tubular cavities interpreted
as root trace fossils. These features can be just as easily
interpreted as the product of processes consistent with the
Flood framework, such as plant material being transported
into place, or water escape cavities.

The second and most important thing to notice about
this ‘excellent example’ is that there is no evidence of any
soil profile development. The alleged paleosol has the same
colour as the granite from which it has been derived, and at
best could be described as decomposed granite. There is
no hint of any development of either a B horizon (with the
addition of clay or precipitates due to leaching) or of an A
horizon (with the addition of organic carbon).

The third field characteristic used to interpret paleosols
is soil structure. Soil structures appear massive or hackly at
first sight. Presumably Meert used this characteristic as his
criteria for interpreting the paleosol in Figure 1. However,
just because a geological horizon is loose and friable does
not mean that it developed by subaerial weathering over a
long time. There are other plausible ways of explaining
this characteristic within a framework consistent with the
biblical Flood, as we will see.

Thus, there is no indisputable diagnostic evidence in the
photograph to support Meert’s claim that the unconsolidated
material is a well developed paleosol. In other words, just
because someone calls something a paleosol and labels it
as such does not mean it really is."

Here is the pdf that was the source of this quote.  Darwinists are not trustworthy when they are depended upon to document the fossil rock layers as they do not understand how and when they were formed and have all sorts of myths they like to spread that are not easily refuted from one's own living room.   Paleosols are one example.


What's the YEC explanation for the sequential nature of the fossil record, Radar?




The fossil record isn't sequential it is catastophism represented in rock.   I have labored for years to prove this is a fallacy on a grand scale and quite successfully.  Darwinist ignorance on a massive scale.  It is like asking me why two plus two equals seventy.

What's the YEC explanation for weathered and scavenged fossils, Radar?

Again, willful ignorance is hard to overcome.   The Flood began with 40 days of continuous downpouring of rain and also water emerging from the depths of the Earth.    At the same time volcanic activity would be far beyond anything known today as rapid tectonic plate subduction and rift formation was pushing the surface of the Earth into the mantle (where this can be still detected as part of the subducted rock has not yet reached the normal temperature of the mantle).   Those bottom-dwelling sea creatures that were without warning or comprehension being buried by the first sediments were the first fossils trapped in stasis.  There are literally billions and billions of such organisms nicely preserved in rock as a testament to a world-wide catastrophic event.   But forty days was only the beginning.    The waters rose and the tides swept across large areas of the rapidly changing Earth.  Many of the more advanced creatures not located near human civilization (That God specifically targeted in the Flood) would be able to escape the rising waters for a time, along with much of humanity.   The Delk track has preserved for all time the track of a dinosaur and a man that had to have been made within hours if not minutes of each other.   Since the Flood lasted for approximately one full year and eventually covered the entire planet, there was eventually no land on which to stand.

During the early days of a completely submerged planet, there were huge mats of floating logs and plants and these mats provided temporary shelter for higher animals until storms would have tossed them into the drink.  These mats did provide homes for microbes of all kinds, insects (and in fact are the source of virtually any amber fossils produced) and naturally are among the primary sources for coal, peat, oil and natural gas.  No trees managed to run away from the Flood but incredible numbers of them did float for long periods of time and some may have actually survived the Flood and taken root again afterwards.

While the primary source of the large sedimentary layers was the Flood itself, the hundreds of years immediately following the settling of water into sinking ocean basins and the rising of the land was also a time a great catastrophic activity as glaciation was formed from the massive and incessant snowfalls upon the land nearer the poles from the heated waters emitting vapor into the atmosphere.   More water in the air, more precipitation.   Newly revealed land masses near the poles would provide cold catalysts for the massive storms and form glaciers.   Sedimentary mudrock, being unstable and soaked with moisture would be subject to mudslides and dike breaks thus forming mighty canyons and remarkable mesas and buttes and similar formations.   Dr. Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory is one explanation for much of the changing landscape post-flood.  Tas Walker's Biblical Geology home is another great source for information.   This subject is fascinating as a generation of scientists freed from superstitious Darwinist mythology has begun researching the major rock formations of the world and documenting their features to determine what stage of the Flood event formed them.   We have great evidence from the Mt. St. Helens formations that illustrates that much of the Grand Canyon was formed quickly and in much the same way, although the run-off stage of the Flood and the dike breaks of probably two large glacial lakes is the most likely cause of that formation and certainly not one volcanic eruption.

Two most likely causes of weathered and scavenged fossils - creatures trapped but not wholly buried in the first Flood stages and creatures trapped and not wholly buried at various points in the mudrock/glaciation stage.   We know that loess was capable of rapidly burying even massive creatures like Mammoths during quick and furious storms and hungry scavenging animals could happen upon a buried Mammoth and dig in deep enough to eat a portion before it was buried further and entombed.   During the early days of the Flood animals may well have been laying eggs in response to instinctive behavior when faced with disaster, but there are hundreds of years after the Flood when eggs could be laid and buried over and over again during those dynamic conditions.

What's the YEC explanation for the anomalous distribution of living organisms, Radar?




In a world of appearing and disappearing land bridges post-Flood it is no surprise that populations would spread and then become isolated and speciation would occur rapidly when conditions would merit. 

What's the YEC explanation for fossiliferous strata in Large Igneous Provinces, Radar?

A far better question would be how do YOU explain them?  Ian Juby's flume experiments showed that Igneous formations can be formed in large flood conditions and since the YEC explanation is a few hundreds of years of catastrophic conditions, both LIPS and BIFS are unsurprising and no problem at all.

What's the YEC explanation for genetic anomalies such as the 'stuck-together' human chromosome #2, Radar?

Tell us, what's the YEC explanation for genetic bottlenecks ... or rather, the lack thereof in 99+% of living organisms, save for a very few glaring examples like the cheetah?




I should give you a pass on those two questions because you asked them before I posted my DNA series of articles that has falsified some of these outdated questions.  I read every word of the articles and the technical papers referenced in my last post on DNA made two days ago, I suggest that you catch up.   These questions are so 20th Century.  Read the articles, science has moved on from these mistaken ideas.

Why aren't dolphins and ichthyosaurs ever found together, Radar?

Why aren't rhamphorhynchoids and neornithines ever found together, Radar?




Why aren't DoDo birds and humans found together?  The principle of Baramin or "created kinds" is that God created several different kinds of animals that would fit the same ecological niche.   Dinosaurs and mammals and insects and microorganisms and man are among the creatures that eat various kinds of grasses.   Predators/carrion removers of all kinds and shapes exist.   Once the common English Sparrow (a finch) was not found in North America but it was imported from Europe with travelers it soon displaced many of the native birds.   As dolphins and ichthyosaurs would fill the same need it would appear that dolphins have displaced Icthys and the latter has gone extinct.

How did dogwoods and sycamores outrun brontosaurs and pterosaurs to higher ground, Radar?

How do we get fossil formations that preserve multiple layers of dinosaur and bird nests, obviously nesting colonies from several different years, in the middle of the geologic column?

How did we get magmatic intrusions -- that is, underground lava flows that took time to occur and more time to cool and solidify -- in between layers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock?


All three of these questions are answered by my detailed overview of the Flood event as a multi-part catastrophic era that both formed the original sedimentary layers and then post-Flood those layers were soft enough to be molded and shaped by many forces.   Intrusions of magma through still-pliable mudrock layers is easy to visualize.  Also, there were no Brontosaurs, that was a mistake fossil in which I believe they accidentally combined Apatosaurus bones and a Camarasaurus skull.  Also, as I have pointed out many times there is no geologic column, that is yet another Darwinist myth.

While the mythical column does not exist, great massive sedimentary layers that span continents and contain untold number of fossils are a mute testament to one huge worldwide flood and the dynamic years that followed as the world found eventual some kind of stasis.    The prediluvian world of shallow seas and one central continent was replaced by a world of higher mountains, deeper oceans and likely therefore more dynamic weather as well.   Many creatures that could exist in the previous environment could not last in the new one.   We have so much evidence that dinosaurs lasted for many centuries after the Flood that it requires great foolishness and ignorance to deny it.   Mankind killed off the dinosaurs as man spread out around the world but also the new world would not sustain dinosaurs or dragonflies of huge dimensions that could live previously.   Take away the advantage of size and make a T-Rex or an Allosaurus one-eighth its previous mass and a man could possibly kill it.   

Tas Walkers Overview of the Biblical Model

Overview of the Model

© Tas Walker  May 05

How to transform time into rock

The figure shows an overview of a biblical geological model relating world history to geology. The biblical time-scale is shown on the left with the most recent time at the top and the earliest at the bottom.


The scale is divided into four parts, each clearly identified with the biblical record. Two events are shown, the Creation event having a duration of six days and the Flood event lasting about one year. The 1700 year period between the Creation event and the Flood event is called the Lost-World era while the 4300 year period from the Flood event to the present time is called the New-World era.

The term "event" conveys the idea of a significant happening within a short period of time whereas "era" relates to a much longer period of time. These terms reinforce the idea that according to the Bible geologic processes varied in intensity at different times in the past.

The length of the time-scale reflects the length of time associated with the events and eras based on the biblical chronology developed by Ussher.

Correlated with the time-scale is a second scale, a rock-scale, shown to the right with the most recent rocks at the top, and the earliest rocks at the bottom; the same way they occur in the earth. The lengths of the rock-scale units conceptually correspond to the quantity of rock material found on the earth today and stand in marked contrast to the length of the units of the time-scale.

This concept of time-rock correlation is fundamental to the biblical geologic model and reflects the non-uniform effect of historical events on the geology of the earth. The concept focuses on the geologically significant processes indicating the relative intensity of those processes. The idea is indicated by arrows which, for example, point from the Creation event on the time-scale to the rocks on the rock-scale formed during this event. Similarly, arrows point from the Flood event on the time-scale to the rocks on the rock-scale formed during the Flood. Even though the Creation and Flood events happened quickly, they were responsible for almost all the rocks present on the earth today. The long eras, which make up virtually the whole time-scale, do not contribute significantly to the rock-scale. Because these eras have such little impact on the rock-scale, the exact dates, for the Creation and the Flood, within reason, are not critical to the model.

The figure represents the basic framework of the Biblical geologic model. Notice how simple it is. The biblical account is clearly set out in the figure together with the underlying concepts which relate that account to the geology of the earth.

---

One rarely considered factor in the spread of different animal kinds is related to the Tower of Babel.  As mankind was split and moved off to the East and South and North and West those animals preferred by certain owners would have been taken along.  Also, as there are both freshwater and saltwater forms of fishes that are otherwise the same kind, there were many varieties of marsupials that mirrored ordinary mammalian forms but, with the exception of the area of Australia most marsupials have gone the way of dinosaurs.  God made many kinds of animals.   He not only designed contingencies and redundancies within the organisms, he had also created redundant kinds that could fit the same slot in an ecosystem.   So be it cow or sheep or goat or buffalo or pig or tapir or...well, there are all sorts of grazing animals.   Some are all of a kind, such as the horse/burro/donkey/zebra family and some are not.   A bear and a puma cannot mate.   A horse and a zebra can.   One more source discussing the world-wide catastrophic Flood evidence:

Colorado Plateau sandstones derived from the Appalachians?

by Michael J. Oard

Provenance studies have become rather popular lately.¹ In these studies, the types of grains or rocks within a formation are analyzed, and the original outcrop location “upcurrent” is determined. This in turn can provide the minimum transport distance, and the path of the particle is reinforced by paleocurrent indicators in the sedimentary rock. These indicators are typically abundant in sandstones and conglomerates.

Long distance spread of resistant rocks from mountains

Figure 1. Pine Creek Canyon, which intersects Zion Canyon in the distance, in Zion National Park, south central Utah, USA. Most of the vertical walls are the massive Navajo Sandstone (view west from Canyon Overlook). 

Creationists have employed provenance studies in tracing the long distance transport of rocks to determine the paleo flow regime and transport distance. For instance, powerful currents in the northern Rockies region of the United States eroded and transported quartzite rocks both east and west: up to 1,300 km to the east and about 640 km to the west.^2-6 During transport, the power of the current can be estimated by the rounding of these extremely resistant rocks and by percussion marks that have indented many of them. A similar phenomenon has been observed in northern Arizona, where quartzite and other igneous rocks were spread a modest distance east and northeast from their source across the area of the Mogollon Rim.⁷ And it is not restricted to the western United States; resistant rocks have spread up to 1,000 km east, south and west from sources in the Appalachian Mountains and a fair distance north of the Alaska Range in southern Alaska.^8,9

 
The ubiquitous distribution of such gravel beds, the distance of transport from the nearest source upcurrent, the location of the source across present day mountain ranges or continental divides, the number and size of clasts transported, and the deposition of gravel beds on plateaus or mountain tops strongly suggests that the water responsible for these deposits was the enormous water runoff from Noah’s Flood, rather than the uniformitarian explanation of rivers. Based on modern observations, rivers do transport rocks, but do not deposit them over wide areas. Seldom do they have the current velocity to carry larger rocks long distances.

Very long-distance transport based on dating of zircons

Although empirical provenance studies are beneficial to diluvial interpretation, uniformitarian assumptions and methods call others into question.

Although empirical provenance studies are beneficial to diluvial interpretation, uniformitarian assumptions and methods call others into question. Provenance research has become quite sophisticated; some studies attempt to find the outcrop of origin by dating heavy minerals, such as zircons, and then tracing those minerals back to basement rocks of the same date. They usually obtain a variety of dates for zircons, which they assume was caused by the sediments flowing over a multitude of different “aged” environments:

“The ages of detrital zircons in these arenites provide information for locating the source areas, for understanding the amount of mixing from multiple sources, and for determining sedimentary dispersal patterns.”¹⁰

An interesting conclusion of such studies is the suggestion that the grains of the Navajo Sandstone on the Colorado Plateau originated from the Appalachian Mountains.¹¹ The Navajo Sandstone is one of the largest supposedly wind-deposited formations in the geological record and is estimated to have once covered up 400,000 km², the size of the state of California.¹² It reaches a thickness of 670 m in Zion National Park (figure 1) and thins eastward. Moving such a volume of sand all the way across North America would require large, powerful currents.

Similar studies based on zircon dates and isotopes have also suggested extended transport distances. For example, some of the grains in rocks found in South Australia supposedly originated in eastern North America.¹³ Of course this assumes the reality of the “Rodinia” supercontinent. Similarly, grains in Tasmania are thought to have originated in Nevada,¹⁴ and zircons in rocks on Victoria Island (western Canadian Arctic) were supposedly transported over 3,000 km from the eastern United States.¹⁵ Eastern North America appears to be a favorite origin for any number of well-traveled clasts. Even some rocks in southeast Siberia are claimed to have also originated from the Appalachians, although their relative positions on “Rodinia” are not well constrained.¹⁶

Sediments from much of Southwest US originated in the Appalachians

Flood currents are a better explanation than rivers, especially for a really widespread deposits of large clasts that have been carried long distances.

Provenance studies of sandstones other than the Navajo Sandstone on the Colorado Plateau have also concluded that some of the sand originated in the Appalachians.^17,18 Even some sandstones north of the Colorado Plateau, in southwest Wyoming and southeast Idaho, are thought to be of Appalachian origin. Paleocurrent data shows that these sands were transported from the north and northwest,¹⁹ but finding a source for so much sand north of the plateau has proven challenging. Some geologists think the source was as far away as Canada.

The theory that the source was the Appalachians is largely based on the 950–1,250 million-year age for about half of the zircons, which suggests that they were eroded from the Grenville Province of the basement, just west of the Appalachians. If true, that would mean that these sands were transported between 1,000 and 2,000 km to a location just north of the Colorado Plateau.

Much of the Late Precambrian to Cambrian sediments in the western United States and northwest Mexico are also believed to have originated in or near the Appalachians.²⁰ If true, those mountains would have been higher than the Himalayas to have supplied such a volume of sediment.

What do these provenance studies mean?

Figure 2. Multiple bounding surfaces, represented by the horizontal lines, that truncate cross-beds in the Navajo Sandstone, Zion National Park, Utah. 

The zircon-dating provenance studies indicate very long distance transport. Although uniformitarian scientists invoke rivers to carry these grains, few rivers in the world are 2,000 km long. Even if they were, could those rivers have really moved such vast quantities of sediment that distance? Although modern rivers carry heavy sediment loads, they do not move sand grains over such distances in such quantities. This seems to be another example of the breakdown of uniformitarianism.

Nor can creationists blithely accept the zircon dates as a firm basis for deducing the original outcrops. A map of basement rock dates across North America shows trends that are interpreted as discrete tectonic terranes, but we are left with the problem that has plagued radiometric dating for decades. Since “bad” dates are usually not reported, we have no way of assessing the reality of even relative trends shown by these dates. And of course since basement rocks are classified stratigraphically by their radiometric dates,²¹ an empirical basis for assessing these trends remains uncertain.

Even if the studies showing these vast transport distances are right, they would seem to provide additional evidence for the Flood, which could easily account for large-scale, high-velocity currents. Flood currents are a better explanation than rivers, especially for a really widespread deposits of large clasts that have been carried long distances.

In addition, these Flood currents support the other evidence that suggests that the “eolian” sands of the southwestern United States were actually deposited by aqueous means. For example, the sandstones have flat upper and lower contacts, sometimes grade horizontally or vertically into marine sedimentary rocks, and contain ubiquitous bounding or truncation surfaces (a type of planation surface) that shears off cross-beds (figure 2). Uniformitarians also face other problems, such as the need to maintain consistent paleocurrent directions (south onto the Colorado Plateau) for 100 million years. That seems to be a long lifespan for an average wind system!

Related articles

• Flood transported quartzites—east of the Rocky Mountains
• Flood transported quartzites: Part 2—west of the Rocky Mountains
• Flood transported quartzites: Part 3—failure of uniformitarian interpretations
• Flood transported quartzites: Part 4—diluvial interpretations

References

1. Reed, J.K. and Froede, Jr, C.R., Provenance studies of clastic sediments and their role in a hydrodynamic interpretation of the Genesis Flood, Creation Research Society Quarterly (in press). Return to text.
2. Oard, M.J., Hergenrather, J. and Klevberg, P., Flood transported quartzites—east of the Rocky Mountains, Journal of Creation 19(3):76–90, 2005. Return to text.
3. Oard, M.J., Hergenrather, J. and Klevberg, P., Flood transported quartzites: part 2—west of the Rocky Mountains, Journal of Creation 20(2):71–81, 2006. Return to text.
4. Oard, M.J., Hergenrather, J. and Klevberg, P., Flood transported quartzites: part 3—failure of uniformitarian interpretations, Journal of Creation 20(3):78–86, 2006. Return to text.
5. Oard, M.J., Hergenrather, J. and Klevberg, P., Flood transported quartzites: part 4—diluvial interpretations, Journal of Creation 21(1):86–91, 2007. Return to text.
6. Oard, M.J., Flood by Design: Receding Water Shapes the Earth’s Surface, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2008. Return to text.
7. Oard, M.J. and Klevberg, P., Deposits remaining from the Genesis Flood: Rim gravels in Arizona, Creation Research Society Quarterly 42(1):1–17, 2005. Return to text.
8. Oard, M.J., Long-distance Flood transport of the Nenana Gravel of Alaska—similar to other gravels in the United States, Creation Research Society Quarterly 44(4):264–278, 2008. Return to text.
9. Froede Jr, C.R., Neogene sand-to-pebble size siliciclastic sediments on the Florida Peninsula: Sedimentary evidence in support of the Genesis Flood, Creation Research Society Quarterly 42:229–240, 2006. Return to text.
10. Steward, J.H., Gehrels, G.E., Barth, A.P., Link, P.K., Christie-Blick, N. and Wrucke, C.T., Detrital zircon provenance of Mesoproterozoic to Cambrian arenites in the western United States and northwestern Mexico, GSA Bulletin 113, p. 1343, 2001. Return to text.
11. Rahl, J.M., Reiners, P.W., Campbell, I.H., Nicolescu, S. and Allen, C.M., Combined single-grain (U–Pb)/He and U/Pb dating of detrital zircons from the Navajo Sandstone, Utah, Geology 32:761–764, 2003. Return to text.
12. Pratt, S., Tracing the Navajo Sandstone, Geotimes 48(11):6–7, 2003. Return to text.
13. Ireland, T.R., Flöttmann, T., Fanning, C.M., Gibson, G.M. and Preiss, W.V., Development of the early Paleozoic Pacific margin of Gondwana from detrital-zircon ages across the Delamerian orogen, Geology 26:343–346, 1998. Return to text.
14. Berry, R.F., Jenner, G.A., Meffre, S. and Tubrett, M.N., A North American provenance for Neoproterozoic to Cambrian sandstones in Tasmania? Earth and Planetary Science Letters 192:207–222, 2001. Return to text.
15. Rainbird, R.H., Heaman, L.M. and Young, G., Sampling Laurentia: detrital zircon geochronology offers evidence for an extensive Neoproterozoic river system originating from the Grenville orogen, Geology 20:351–354, 1992. Return to text.
16. Rainbird, R.H., Stern, R.A., Khudoley, A.K., Kropachev, A.P., Heaman, L.-M. and Sukhorukov, V. I., U–Pb geochronology of Riphean sandstone and gabbro from southeast Siberia and its bearing on the Laurentia—Siberia connection, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 164:409–420, 1998. Return to text.
17. Dickinson, W.R. and Gehrels, G.E., U–Pb ages of detrital zircons from Permian and Jurassic eolian sandstones of the Colorado Plateau, USA: paleogeographic implications, Sedimentary Geology 163:29–66, 2003. Return to text.
18. Dickinson, W.R. and Gehrels, G.E., U–Pb ages of detrital zircons in Jurassic eolian and associated sandstones of the Colorado Plateau; evidence for transcontinental dispersal and intraregional recycling of sediment, GSA Bulletin 121:408–433, 2009. Return to text.
19. Baars, D.L., The Colorado Plateau: A Geologic History, revised and updated, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM, 2000. Return to text.
20. Steward et al., ref. 10, pp. 1343–1356. Return to text.
21. Reed, J.K., Toppling the timescale Part IV: assaying the golden (FeS₂) spikes, Creation Research Society Quarterly 45(2):81–89, 2008.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, we are now in the strange position of waiting for science to catch up to knowledge and evidence.   Just as Copernicus and Kepler had to push to get people to realize the Solar System was not geocentric,  we Creationists have to wait until secular science finally succumbs to the overwhelming evidence for design in organisms and the Universe and catastrophism in rock formations and sedimentary layers.   The Bible is reliable evidence that can help science understand why and how things were made and why and how all those sedimentary rocks came to be, how the White Cliffs of Dover were formed and so many thousands of other questions.    It is high time we quit scanning the skies looking for a hint of information and recognize the massive amounts of it found within the cell.   It is well past time we admitted that the Flood happened and move on with the evidence forward to look for cures for cancer and using biomimicry and biomimetics to make the world easier for us to use.