Space missions and fossil rocks confirm creation and not evolution!

 
The 50th Anniversary Edition

Mercury's Magnetic Crust Fulfills Creation Prediction

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.

Creation scientist D. Russell Humphreys described his model and its predictions in the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ), writing that someday scientists would discover remanent magnetization in Mercury's crustal rocks. He wrote, "Older igneous rocks from Mercury or Mars should have natural remanent magnetization, as the Moon's rocks do."4

"Remanent" refers to lingering magnetism. Mercury's volcanic crustal rock captured some of that planetary magnetism when it cooled and solidified into what is today a northern volcanic plain. According to Humphreys' creation model, planetary magnetic fields were strongest immediately after they were created from water about 6,000 years ago, and their strength has diminished since. How well did his prediction match the new observation 28 years later?

The space probe's magnetometer analyzed volcanic crustal rock magnetism over Mercury's northern regions. The results were presented at the 43rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in March 2012. An international team of planetary scientists analyzed MESSENGER's magnetic data and found that Mercury had a "residual magnetic field" that was very likely "a remanent magnetization acquired during a period when Mercury's magnetic field was of the opposite polarity, and possibly stronger, than the present field."5

In an online forum for creation scientists, CRSnet, Humphreys wrote, "I'm happy about this crustal magnetization because it fulfills yet another prediction in my 1984 CRSQ article on planetary magnetic fields.  The Mars part of that got fulfilled a decade ago, and now it has happened for Mercury also."6

Humphreys' creation model—the model that presented the later-fulfilled predictions about Mercury's magnetization—assumed a biblical age and a Bible-based watery origin for the universe.7, 8 Like the other fulfillments of this model, Mercury's magnetic crust directly confirms biblical creation.

References
  1. Thomas, B. Messenger Spacecraft Confirms: Mercury Is Unique. ICR News. Posted on icr.org July 28, 2011, accessed June 14, 2012.
  2. Thomas, B. Mercury's Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model. ICR News. Posted on icr.org October 26, 2011, accessed June 14, 2012.
  3. Thomas, B. Mercury's Surface Looks Young. ICR News. Posted on icr.org October 24, 2011, accessed June 14, 2012.
  4. Humphrey's, D. R. The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 21 (3).
  5. 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.
  6. Comment posted June 11, 2102 by D. Russell Humphreys on CRSnet, an online creation science forum hosted by the Creation Research Society.
  7. See: Johnson, J.J.S. 2008. How Young Is the Earth? Applying Simple Math to Data Provided in Genesis. Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 4.
  8. For example, 2 Peter 3:5 describes earth as having been formed "standing out of the water."
Image credit: NASA
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on June 29, 2012.

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

Genesis Flood Insights More Relevant Today than Ever

by Frank Sherwin, M.A., & Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Scientific observations made in the seminal book The Genesis Flood are even more scientifically valid today than when they were first written. Although subsequent research has shown a few to be inaccurate, most of the perspectives that were laid out by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris in their 1961 publication have been verified beyond reasonable doubt by ongoing observations.

This is amazing, considering how geologic interpretation has changed since the 1950s. For example, plate tectonics has become a core model and catastrophic floods are now invoked to explain most sedimentary rock. Below are some Genesis Flood insights that science has clearly validated.

Catastrophic Sedimentary Deposits

Drs. Whitcomb and Morris noted agreement between some basic implications of a world-destroying Flood and large-scale observations from the earth’s surface. For example, since “almost all of the sedimentary rocks of the earth…have been laid down by moving waters,” it is legitimate to consider flooding as the primary cause.1

The bulk of mountains and continents are comprised of sedimentary mudstones of some type. When The Genesis Flood was written, mainstream geologists believed that certain mudstones could only form by slow accumulation of sediments in the bottom of calm, shallow water bodies. But in 1980, layered mudstones resulted from the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption. Then in 2009, a paper in Science caught up with Whitcomb and Morris, saying, “Mudstones can be deposited under more energetic conditions than widely assumed, requiring a reappraisal of many geologic records.”2

Rapid Mountain Uplift

The Genesis Flood also surmised that “great tectonic movements and isostatic adjustments would have to take place, forming the deep ocean basins and troughs and elevating the continents.”3 This reference to “great tectonic movements” connects well with what has been discovered about mountains and sea floors.

Secular geologists, who choose to ignore the implications of a Genesis Flood, say that slow continental plate movements lifted the mountains to such great heights. However, this reliance on slow speed causes big problems.

For example, erosion through observed processes of wind, water, and gravity slumping happens much faster today than any slow pace of mountain build-up, so how could mountains ever have reached their current dizzying heights? Instead, it appears that tremendous “great tectonic movements” rapidly pushed up land that was catastrophically carved into today’s steep-sided mountains, perhaps by continental water runoff and heavy post-Flood rains. If mountain uplift was as slow as is often claimed, then “mountains” would be eroded humps, if they existed at all.

Recent Mountain Uplift

Additional study has added stunning verification to the idea that “great tectonic movements” recently shaped the earth’s surface. Applying conventional thinking reveals a narrow two to five-million-year time span for all the world’s mountains to rise, but shouldn’t there be mountains from many different “ages” of evolutionary earth history?4

Though the “millions of years” age assignments applied to the rock record have been disproved by the ICR RATE initiative and other research, the raw isotope data often used in such dating correspond to the relative positions of rock layers. This means that rocks or minerals “dated” at 250 million years in a lower layer are likely older than rocks “dated” at 5 million years in an upper layer.5 In reality, however, the former may represent an igneous rock formed during the Flood, and the latter might be typical of a rock formed soon after the Flood.

Isotope data has confirmed Morris and Whitcomb’s observation “that most of the present mountain ranges of the world are believed to have been uplifted (on the basis of fossil evidence) during the Pleistocene or late Pliocene,” which corresponds to the post-Flood Ice Age.6

Even granite has been found to form quickly from magma. A 2000 study in the journal Nature said, “Provided flow is continuous, mechanical considerations suggest that—far from being geologically sluggish—granite magmatism is a rapid, dynamic process operating at timescales of ≤100,000 years, irrespective of tectonic setting.”7

Sea Floor Formation

Similarly, sea floor studies from the last few decades “show that today’s igneous ocean floor—all of it—has formed via seafloor spreading since roughly mid-way through the Flood.”8 And as Whitcomb and Morris suggested, “ocean basins were deepened after the Flood.”9 But what colossal energetic process could have done this?

It looks like the sea floors were made recently and rapidly. Experiments have demonstrated that silicate-rich sea floor “material can weaken dramatically, by factors of a billion or more, at mantle temperatures.”10 This means that once the earth’s crust was broken at the start of the Flood, hot mantle material, forming new lower ocean basins, propelled continent-size tectonic plates horizontally on the order of one meter per second. This catastrophic breakup and heating was implied in Genesis 7:11, which references the “fountains of the great deep” bursting forth. Again, Morris and Whitcomb were ahead of their time.

Living Fossils

The Genesis Flood provided the best explanation for earth’s major surface features. Drs. Morris and Whitcomb also pointed to “living fossils” as evidence that refutes evolution’s long ages. Since then, many more of these have been found.

Living fossils are “supposedly ancient and long extinct creatures which have suddenly and unexpectedly turned up in the modern world.”11 They openly challenge the vast ages posited by evolutionary theory by showing none of evolution’s expected changes in body plans over supposedly vast time spans.

For example, evolutionists were confident that grasses evolved millions of years after the dinosaurs—until dinosaur coprolites (fossilized excrement) were discovered containing several species of grass.12 In August 1994, a “dinosaur-age” tree called the Wollemi pine was discovered alive and well in Australia. It was declared the “botanical find of the century.”13

A grand host of “living fossils” in the animal world stubbornly remain virtually the same as their ancient predecessors after the unimaginable millions of years demanded by evolution. 

Evolutionists such as the late Stephen Gould refer to this lack of change as stasis. One recent study found bacteria named Mariprofundus that left “distinctive traces in the fossil record.” The study’s authors wrote:
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
Fossilized grasshoppers and seastars found entombed in the same layer as Archaeopteryx (an extinct bird) are virtually identical to modern varieties. From “Jurassic” shrimp to the shovelnose ray, animals and plants—some supposedly long extinct—are discovered alive today looking virtually identical to their fossilized counterparts. Evolution means “change,” but these living fossils are a testimony to stasis—no change!15

In 1961, The Genesis Flood discussed living fossils, rapid alteration of the sea floor, rapid and recent uplift of all the world’s mountains, and catastrophic deposition of sedimentary rocks. Since then, science has strongly confirmed each of these.

References
  1. 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.
  2. Macquaker, J. H. S. and K. M. Bohacs. 2007. On the Accumulation of Mud. Science. 318 (5857): 1734-1735.
  3. Morris and Whitcomb, 121-122.
  4. Morris, J. 2005. When Did the Mountains Rise? Acts & Facts. 34 (3).
  5. “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.
  6. Morris and Whitcomb, 127-128.
  7. Petford, N. et al. 2000. Granite magma formation, transport and emplacement in the Earth’s crust. Nature. 408 (6813): 669-673.
  8. Baumgardner, J. 2005. Recent Rapid Uplift of Today’s Mountains. Acts & Facts. 34 (3); Morris and Whitcomb, 128.
  9. Morris and Whitcomb, 77.
  10. 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.
  11. Morris and Whitcomb, 176.
  12. Sherwin, F. Dinosaurs, Grasses, and Darwinism. ICR News. Posted on icr.org November 29, 2005.
  13. Snelling, A. 2006. Wollemia nobilis: A Living Fossil and Evolutionary Enigma. Acts & Facts. 35 (4).
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
* Mr. Sherwin is Senior Science Lecturer and Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Sherwin, F. and B. Thomas. 2011. Genesis Flood Insights More Relevant Today than Ever. Acts & Facts. 40 (2): 15-16.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 

Flat Gaps Between Strata

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.

Reference
  1. Diagram modified from A. Roth. 1988. Those Gaps in the Sedimentary Layers. Origins. 15 (2): 75-92.
* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Morris, J. 2012. Flat Gaps Between Strata. Acts & Facts. 41 (5): 15.

Email Post