by Brian Thomas, M.S. *The planet Mercury provides many clues to its unique and recent creation. For example, Mercury's density and composition don't match planetary evolution models, and its surface geology and magnetic field are too active for it to be billions of years old.1, 2, 3 New data from the MESSENGER—the spacecraft that has been probing the dense planet's surface since 2004—confirms another creation-based prediction made in 1984.
- Thomas, B. Messenger Spacecraft Confirms: Mercury Is Unique. ICR News. Posted on icr.org July 28, 2011, accessed June 14, 2012.
- Thomas, B. Mercury's Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model. ICR News. Posted on icr.org October 26, 2011, accessed June 14, 2012.
- Thomas, B. Mercury's Surface Looks Young. ICR News. Posted on icr.org October 24, 2011, accessed June 14, 2012.
- Humphrey's, D. R. The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 21 (3).
- Purucker, M.E. et al. 2012. Evidence for a Crustal Magnetic Signature on Mercury from MESSENGER Magnetometer Observations. 43rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Woodlands, TX: Lunar and Planetary Institute, 1297.
- Comment posted June 11, 2102 by D. Russell Humphreys on CRSnet, an online creation science forum hosted by the Creation Research Society.
- See: Johnson, J.J.S. 2008. How Young Is the Earth? Applying Simple Math to Data Provided in Genesis. Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 4.
- For example, 2 Peter 3:5 describes earth as having been formed "standing out of the water."
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on June 29, 2012.
by Frank Sherwin, M.A., & Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Petrographic images of Mariprofundus-like stalks from a 350-million-year-old rock associated with an ancient hydrothermal vent site are indistinguishable from modern-day organisms.14
- Morris, H. M. and J. C. Whitcomb. 1961. The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 124.
- Macquaker, J. H. S. and K. M. Bohacs. 2007. On the Accumulation of Mud. Science. 318 (5857): 1734-1735.
- Morris and Whitcomb, 121-122.
- Morris, J. 2005. When Did the Mountains Rise? Acts & Facts. 34 (3).
- “The overall systematic trend of radioisotope ‘ages’ in the rock units according to their relative positions in the geologic record confirms that accelerated radioisotope decay was the dominant factor operating through earth history.” Snelling, A. A. 2005. Isochron Discordances and the Role of Inheritance and Mixing of Radioisotopes in the Mantle and Crust. In Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Vol. 2. Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling and E. F Chaffin, eds. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society, 394.
- Morris and Whitcomb, 127-128.
- Petford, N. et al. 2000. Granite magma formation, transport and emplacement in the Earth’s crust. Nature. 408 (6813): 669-673.
- Baumgardner, J. 2005. Recent Rapid Uplift of Today’s Mountains. Acts & Facts. 34 (3); Morris and Whitcomb, 128.
- Morris and Whitcomb, 77.
- Baumgardner, J. 2003. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: The Physics Behind the Genesis Flood. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism. Ivey, R. L., Jr., ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 113-126.
- Morris and Whitcomb, 176.
- Sherwin, F. Dinosaurs, Grasses, and Darwinism. ICR News. Posted on icr.org November 29, 2005.
- Snelling, A. 2006. Wollemia nobilis: A Living Fossil and Evolutionary Enigma. Acts & Facts. 35 (4).
- Emerson, D., E. J. Fleming and J. M. McBeth. 2010. Iron-Oxidizing Bacteria: An Environmental and Genomic Perspective. Annual Review of Microbiology. 64 :561-83.
- Two recent books that document many dozens of living fossil examples are Evolution: The Grand Experiment by Dr. Carl Werner, and The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature’s History of Life by Dr. John Morris and Frank Sherwin.
Cite this article: Sherwin, F. and B. Thomas. 2011. Genesis Flood Insights More Relevant Today than Ever. Acts & Facts. 40 (2): 15-16.
by John D. Morris, Ph.D. *When geologists make field observations, they typically focus on the rock before them and its color, density, mineral makeup, fossil content, and other features. But they often would be well-served by looking at the strata’s context as well.
Numerous examinations of local outcrops can result in large-scale maps and cross-sections. Both small-scale and large-scale studies are necessary, but big-picture consideration of the strata and timing of deposition produces some interesting observations that help to explain both the rock and the conditions under which it was formed.
Geologists have found that the layers come in “packages” of strata called megasequences that are bounded on top and bottom by evidence of erosion. The depositional package of sediments overlies a recognizable unconformity or erosional plane and is truncated at the top by another unconformity. Geologists identify at least six megasequences that together comprise essentially all sedimentation. The packages persist across the continents, often ignoring the standard geologic column, yet fitting in with the megasequences.
Nearly all sediments were either water-deposited or water-eroded. Could this be the signature of the global Flood?
The accompanying chart illustrates the various layers (brown), the erosional unconformities (wavy lines), and the strata that are assumed to be missing either through erosion or non-deposition (cross-hatched).1 Such charts could be drawn anywhere, but the well-studied and well-represented layers in southern and eastern Utah serve as an illustrative model. Shown are the many pancake-like sedimentary layers in sequence and the erosional gaps between them. The strata are plotted according to the dates (as assigned by standard thinking) of their upper and lower surfaces. The layers actually lie directly on top of each other, but they are drawn separated in time. More of the total geologic column (as proposed by uniformitarianism) is missing than is present.
For evolutionary geologists, the fact that layers are missing is the evidence for erosion. But obvious evidence for erosion is missing as well. Evolutionists assign the “time” between two layers as tens of millions of years, but the contacts are typically flat and featureless. Millions of years of erosion would produce irregular terrain, but there is none—no stream beds, valleys, or canyons.
Road cuts often reveal flat and featureless contacts between strata. Some extend for many miles. The big-picture stratigraphic sections, however, reveal flat time gaps that span the continent, creating doubt about the passage of a long time period and implying dynamic floodwaters.
These types of discussions were never held a generation ago, but expanding geologic knowledge has made regional maps and other data available. No longer should geologists restrict their focus to a single outcrop or hand specimen while ignoring larger implications. No longer should creation/catastrophic thinking be excluded.
- Diagram modified from A. Roth. 1988. Those Gaps in the Sedimentary Layers. Origins. 15 (2): 75-92.
Cite this article: Morris, J. 2012. Flat Gaps Between Strata. Acts & Facts. 41 (5): 15.