How do Young Earth Creationists explain the 15,000 layers of the Haymond Formation?

[verysincere]

How do Young Earth Creationists explain the 15,000 alternating shale and sand layers of the Haymond Formation, each layer profuse with its own set of animal burrows which could never have been tunneled and then suddenly filled with sand (thousands of Sisyphian cycles, so to speak) during a year-long Global Flood?


Of course, the 15,000 layers of the Haymond Formation also destroys any presumption of a 6,000 year old earth. But even though the Haymond Formation is nearly always mentioned in criticisms of "creation science" and "Flood geology", I rarely see any sort of YEC attempt at a reply (let alone a logical explanation) of how the Haymond Formation is compatible with a Global Deluge. (Yes, Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and other major names in the creation science industry are strangely silent on these facts. I try to Google those sites periodically in hopes of at least a laudable attempt at an explanation. None so far.)

Christian geologist and former Young Earth Creationist G.R. Morton provides one of the best-illustrated explanations of the Haymond Formation's devastating implications for a planet-wide flood, as his oil exploration research brought him to an extensive study of this fascinating Texas site: Haymond

[I challenge this forum's Young Earth Creationists to follow that link to Morton's presentation of the evidence and tell us how he somehow, allegedly, missed the boat, no pun intended. And yes, I'm well aware that an ark is not a boat.]

Most traditional Young Earth Creationists claim that basically the entire geologic column and nearly all of the world's fossils were produced by Noah's Flood. But rather than yet again dealing with the complexities of such an overwhelming volume of "old earth" evidence, I've always wished I could somehow find a "creation science" advocate who could address the Haymond Formation without constantly changing the subject or denying its obvious implications.

So. Let's encourage our Young Earth Creationist and global flood proponents to step up to the plate and deal with the evidence of the 15,000 layers of the Haymond Formation without dodging the question OR denying that the evidence exists OR running for cover by means of irrelevant tangents. And to help focus their attention on the original question AND to prevent the aforementioned evasion tactics, how about we simply IGNORE any post which dodges the question?

[Or perhaps we could simply post an appropriate "Try again!"]

After all, the ignoring of evidence and the repetition of meaningless excuses can take a hike.

_______________________________________________________



[And if their desperation leads to anyone claiming that the Haymond Formation is not an appropriate topic for the CREATION & EVOLUTION forum---in hopes of having a difficult thread deleted---I would remind them that:

1) The Global Flood and Catastrophism in general is a fundamental issue to "creation science" proponents in explaining how God created the features we see on the earth today, and

2) Catastrophism is the YEC reply to Uniformitarian geology, which they consider the basis for the billions-of-years timeline which underpins "old earth" geology and the Theory of Evolution.

So let's be honest and admit that the Haymond Formation provides important evidence which demolishes a Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis 1 as well as a planet-wide flood interpretation of Genesis 7.

[Yes, it is not difficult to demolish "creation science" interpretations of Genesis using the Hebrew scriptures alone but I'm leaving that mundane task for other threads. Let's stay focused for now.]

 

[AV1611VET]

QV please:

We propose that the most plausible theory for the origin of the Haymond Formation blocks and boulder beds exists within a turbidity-current depositional setting. The greatest problem now facing uniformitarians is to account for the different source areas of the three boulder populations using uniformitarianism - it simply does not work. Rather, we believe that the Marathon Basin and all of its in filling materials (sediments, blocks and boulder beds) reflect the global Flood of Genesis.

SOURCE

 

[verysincere]

Christian geologist and former Young Earth Creationist G.R. Morton provides one of the best-illustrated explanations of the Haymond Formation's devastating implications for a planet-wide flood, as his oil exploration research brought him to an extensive study of this fascinating Texas site: Haymond

By the way, if readers investigate further Morton's challenge to Young Earth Creationists, he points out in his articles that when they rarely address the Haymond Formation issues, they dodge the 15,000 layers of sandstone and shale and the burrows problems and instead deal with a secondary issue of questions involving the "boulders and beds" hypotheses and their theory about "turbidities". Because most readers have no idea why the Haymond Formation is significant and so damaging to a young earth view, all they need to do is pretend that they are talking about the Haymond Formation layers problem and use "geologic sounding" language while doing so.

I think it was the late Henry Morris, when he got cornered at the podium at some conference and was forced to address the layer-segregated burrows in the alternating layers of sandstone and shale, he tried to claim that they were made by "escaping gasses" and other "non-organic phenomena". He definitely was not adept at thinking on his feet. He got heavily ridiculed for his "escaping gas theory" and everyone recognized his "boulders and beds" explanation as a dodge, a way to pretend to deal with the Haymond Formation without addressing the main problems associated with the 15,000 layers.

The other tactic that both Morris and Duane Gish have been famous for is saying something barely intelligible and then summarizing it all by begging the question: "So obviously, as you can see, all of this is fully consistent with a Young Earth Creationist/Creation Science/Flood Geology/Genesis [choose the appropriate term for a given context] interpretation of the scientific evidence!" I've been present to watch both men use that tactic (and Jason Lisle and Ken Ham have started doing the same thing whenever they have no viable answer) and it is amazing how many of their fans in the audience will nod their heads and smile with approval---even though they had NO CLUE what the late Henry Morris or Duane Gish had just said! [Of course, Morris and Gish also often had little idea of what they had just said, for that matter.]

I mention this because you are far more likely to find these lame YEC explanations for the Haymond Formation problems quoted in the journals and websites where they are critiqued and ridiculed than in the "creation science" websites where they are usually too embarrassed to repeat them.

But I will make this prediction of any YEC posts that will attempt an answer in this thread: They will simply cut-and-paste from YEC comments about the Haymond boulder placement issues and "turbidities" and make no constructive attempt at explaining how the 15,000 layers are consistent with a young earth.

(I don't claim to be a prophet but I do predict that that is what at least some of the YECs will post. Cut-and-pasting of incoherent material, whether relevant to the topic or not, is what they see Ken Ham et al doing and so it is not all that surprising that it has become standard in the industry. Indeed, when I was a Young Earth Creationists writer/speaker for those many years, we all resorted to the same tactic in a debate when all else failed: the last resort was simply to quote some YEC "authority". It was assumed that for the average person in the audience "If a scientist says it, that settles the argument". Of course, anybody can support most any argument by finding somebody to quote. Evidence and analysis is what matters but that is not how we conducted our debates for the general public.)

By the way, this too is yet another example of the "Ham Hightail" that P.K. Myers describes as concocting arguments purely for what will satisfy and please those who already hold to "creation science" views. A Ham Hightail argument is NOT intended to win over knowledgeable skeptics. (They will never be donors and supports, so convincing them of anything is not important.)

 

[verysincere]

The problems of the Haymond Formation was far from the only context where Morris would pull out his standard rhetoric of fact-free summary statements.

Here's a few more of those "standard lines" which Morris would use to make it sound like he actually understood his debate opponent and had come up with a superior argument. (To my embarrassment, because I learned at the feet of Morris and Dr. Whitcomb as well as Duane Gish, I copied many of their tactics when I was defending my "creation science traditions." Decades later, Kent Hovind also started using many of these.)

Here's a few of my personal favorites. They could be applied in every context:

1) "What my opponent claims is simply---and make no mistake about this---scientifically impossible."

2) "What my billions-and-billions-of-years friend is saying may sound good on the surface, but it will not work. Let me repeat that: It will not work."

3) "My opponent claims to believe the Bible, at least on some level, but it makes me nervous when a presumed fellow-Christian starts sounding a lot more like the atheists than he sounds like Christ!"

4) "Now friends, that isn't science at all. It's RELIGION. There's no doubt about that. Now I'm not against religion. Certainly not. But I freely admit my religious views. Why doesn't my opponent come clean and admit his? We all know that evolution is a religion. Pure and simple. I thought we were here to talk about science but I guess he prefers to talk about religion."

5) "Now some of you may feel comfortable making such claims. But I prefer to believe in the Bible as the Word of God! If my opponent rejects the Bible, and he clearly does, why doesn't he simply say so? Why pretend to follow Christ and the Bible?"

I eventually came to call these tactics "the fact-free filler". They are void of substance but if you have a lot of supporters in an audience, they rally and reinforce the faithful quite effectively, while using up the remaining debate minutes to run out the clock.

 

[juvenissun]

How do Young Earth Creationists explain the 15,000 alternating shale and sand layers of the Haymond Formation, each layer profuse with its own set of animal burrows which could never have been tunneled and then suddenly filled with sand (thousands of Sisyphian cycles, so to speak) during a year-long Global Flood?

So what? This formation does not say the earth is 4500 m.y. old.

And nobody knows how was it formed. We do not have any modern example like it.

 

[artybloke]

Easy - they use special pleading as usual.

 

[Volokh]

magic

 

[Valkhorn]

I am not sure he is one. It is better to assume he is not.

Are you kidding? When I was a christian before I hit the age of 20 I felt the same way that verysincere did. Plenty of christians have no problem accepting scientific evidence of an old earth or evolution.

Please stop conflating evolution/accepting an old earth with atheism.

 

[Jazer]

Plenty of christians have no problem accepting scientific evidence of an old earth or evolution.

Most of them have no problem with that. I am rather surprised that there are as many YEC's as there are though. It is not always easy though. It can take a lot of time, effort and study for people to determine what they believe.

 

[verysincere]

In reply to: "I am surprised that you're still a Christian"

I am not sure he is one. It is better to assume he is not.

"Creation Science" Evidence Evasion Tactic #6:

If you can't come up with any evidence or answers of your own---and the first five evasion tactics did not work---there's always the "Clearly you're not even a Christian!" argument.

Of course, this ad hominem attack violates the Christian Forums' rule which says: "Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian."

But "creation science" advocates are not subject to such rules, so it doesn't matter whether or not such make-your-own-rules conduct is compatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Dodging evidence is too important to let a little thing like rules get in the way.

________________________________________


As I said when I presented the OP about the Haymond Formation 15,000 layers of evidence against a Global Flood, I didn't claim to be a prophet. But it was very easy to predict that defenders of a planet-wide deluge and young earth would resort to every possible dodge rather than deal with the evidence.

They rarely disappoint.

.

 

[verysincere]

Originally Posted by verysincere:
"How do Young Earth Creationists explain the 15,000 alternating shale and sand layers of the Haymond Formation, each layer profuse with its own set of animal burrows which could never have been tunneled and then suddenly filled with sand (thousands of Sisyphian cycles, so to speak) during a year-long Global Flood?"

___________________________________________________________

So what? This formation does not say the earth is 4500 m.y. old.

"Creation Science" Evidence Evasion Tactic #7:

If you can't come up with any evidence or answers of your own---and the first SIX evasion tactics did not work---dodge the evidence which denies your Global Flood, Young Earth, or other "creation science" position and instead try to attack the opposing viewpoint (as if no one will notice that you have completely evaded a simple question.) That is, when you have no defense, switch to offense.

___________________________________________________________

And nobody knows how was it formed.

"Creation Science" Evidence Evasion Tactic #8:

If you can't come up with any evidence or answers of your own---and the first SEVEN evasion tactics did not work---pretend that everyone else (i.e., the world's scientists) are just as clueless as you are. This is also known as the Shrug-Your-Shoulders and Claim-the-Ignorance-is-Universal argument.

___________________________________________________________

We do not have any modern example like it.

"Creation Science" Evidence Evasion Tactic #9:

If you can't come up with any evidence or answers of your own---and the first EIGHT evasion tactics did not work---simply make up the claim that the evidence you don't like is somehow unique and meaningless and can be casually dismissed. This is also known as the Ignore-the-Evidence and Perhaps-It-Will-Go-Away argument.

Of course, the entire series of evidence evasion tactics will always fail. But the overall strategy is to deploy so many dodges and irrelevant tangents that everyone will forget the original question (which in this case was about the layers of the Haymond Formation as evidence against a Global Flood and a Young Earth viewpoint.) And that is why the overall strategy is summarized by #10 (see below.)

___________________________________________________________

"Creation Science" Evidence Evasion Tactic #10:

The use of so many evasion tactics and irrelevant tangents will eventually tire and overwhelm the most casual and ill-informed readers so that the "creation science" defender can hope that nobody notices that the original evidence has been ignored and no answer to the evidence has been provided. This overall strategy is also known as the Put 'Em to Sleep strategy. When saturated with multiple irrelevant topics containing the most absurd claims possible (such as diatribes against the Big Bang Theory, abiogenesis, and polonium halos), it becomes The Try-to-Overwhelm-Them with Nonsense strategy.

___________________________________________________________

We extend a hearty "Thank you!" to our friend for so graciously providing a prime illustration of so many evidence evasion tactics presented in a single post!


So, this is a final attempt at getting some kind of even a meager "creation science" reply TO THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE represented by the 15,000 layers of the Haymond Formation, one of the world's most decimating denials of a Global Flood and 6,000 year old earth. Considering that the major Young Earth Creationist organizations avoid this geologic feature like the plague, this silence was predictable. There is so little that can be cut-and-pasted. What limited mention exists in the YEC literature diverts to secondary issues about large boulders and "turbidities."

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by verysincere:
"How do Young Earth Creationists explain the 15,000 alternating shale and sand layers of the Haymond Formation, each layer profuse with its own set of animal burrows which could never have been tunneled and then suddenly filled with sand (thousands of Sisyphian cycles, so to speak) during a year-long Global Flood?"

___________________________________________________________



"Creation Science" Evidence Evasion Tactic #7:

If you can't come up with any evidence or answers of your own---and the first SIX evasion tactics did not work---dodge the evidence which denies your Global Flood, Young Earth, or other "creation science" position and instead try to attack the opposing viewpoint (as if no one will notice that you have completely evaded a simple question.) That is, when you have no defense, switch to offense.

___________________________________________________________



"Creation Science" Evidence Evasion Tactic #8:

If you can't come up with any evidence or answers of your own---and the first SEVEN evasion tactics did not work---pretend that everyone else (i.e., the world's scientists) are just as clueless as you are. This is also known as the Shrug-Your-Shoulders and Claim-the-Ignorance-is-Universal argument.

___________________________________________________________



"Creation Science" Evidence Evasion Tactic #9:

If you can't come up with any evidence or answers of your own---and the first EIGHT evasion tactics did not work---simply make up the claim that the evidence you don't like is somehow unique and meaningless and can be casually dismissed. This is also known as the Ignore-the-Evidence and Perhaps-It-Will-Go-Away argument.

Of course, the entire series of evidence evasion tactics will always fail. But the overall strategy is to deploy so many dodges and irrelevant tangents that everyone will forget the original question (which in this case was about the layers of the Haymond Formation as evidence against a Global Flood and a Young Earth viewpoint.) And that is why the overall strategy is summarized by #10 (see below.)

___________________________________________________________

"Creation Science" Evidence Evasion Tactic #10:

The use of so many evasion tactics and irrelevant tangents will eventually tire and overwhelm the most casual and ill-informed readers so that the "creation science" defender can hope that nobody notices that the original evidence has been ignored and no answer to the evidence has been provided. This overall strategy is also known as the Put 'Em to Sleep strategy. When saturated with multiple irrelevant topics containing the most absurd claims possible (such as diatribes against the Big Bang Theory, abiogenesis, and polonium halos), it becomes The Try-to-Overwhelm-Them with Nonsense strategy.

___________________________________________________________

We extend a hearty "Thank you!" to our friend for so graciously providing a prime illustration of so many evidence evasion tactics presented in a single post!


So, this is a final attempt at getting some kind of even a meager "creation science" reply TO THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE represented by the 15,000 layers of the Haymond Formation, one of the world's most decimating denials of a Global Flood and 6,000 year old earth. Considering that the major Young Earth Creationist organizations avoid this geologic feature like the plague, this silence was predictable. There is so little that can be cut-and-pasted. What limited mention exists in the YEC literature diverts to secondary issues about large boulders and "turbidities."

If you want to talk about Haymond Formation, then say something about it. Otherwise, this thread is a joke.

One more time, if the Haymond Formation took 3 million years to make, would it still say the earth is very young? Why not?

How much time do you think it would take to form such a wonderful rock formation? Anybody knows?

 

[juvenissun]

In reply to: "I am surprised that you're still a Christian"



"Creation Science" Evidence Evasion Tactic #6:

If you can't come up with any evidence or answers of your own---and the first five evasion tactics did not work---there's always the "Clearly you're not even a Christian!" argument.

Of course, this ad hominem attack violates the Christian Forums' rule which says: "Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian."

But "creation science" advocates are not subject to such rules, so it doesn't matter whether or not such make-your-own-rules conduct is compatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Dodging evidence is too important to let a little thing like rules get in the way.

________________________________________


As I said when I presented the OP about the Haymond Formation 15,000 layers of evidence against a Global Flood, I didn't claim to be a prophet. But it was very easy to predict that defenders of a planet-wide deluge and young earth would resort to every possible dodge rather than deal with the evidence.

They rarely disappoint.

.

I only made a simple assumption. What makes you so excited?

 

[dad]

How do Young Earth Creationists explain the 15,000 alternating shale and sand layers of the Haymond Formation, each layer profuse with its own set of animal burrows which could never have been tunneled and then suddenly filled with sand (thousands of Sisyphian cycles, so to speak) during a year-long Global Flood?


Of course, the 15,000 layers of the Haymond Formation also destroys any presumption of a 6,000 year old earth. But even though the Haymond Formation is nearly always mentioned in criticisms of "creation science" and "Flood geology", I rarely see any sort of YEC attempt at a reply (let alone a logical explanation) of how the Haymond Formation is compatible with a Global Deluge. (Yes, Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and other major names in the creation science industry are strangely silent on these facts. I try to Google those sites periodically in hopes of at least a laudable attempt at an explanation. None so far.)

Christian geologist and former Young Earth Creationist G.R. Morton provides one of the best-illustrated explanations of the Haymond Formation's devastating implications for a planet-wide flood, as his oil exploration research brought him to an extensive study of this fascinating Texas site: Haymond

[I challenge this forum's Young Earth Creationists to follow that link to Morton's presentation of the evidence and tell us how he somehow, allegedly, missed the boat, no pun intended. And yes, I'm well aware that an ark is not a boat.]

Most traditional Young Earth Creationists claim that basically the entire geologic column and nearly all of the world's fossils were produced by Noah's Flood. But rather than yet again dealing with the complexities of such an overwhelming volume of "old earth" evidence, I've always wished I could somehow find a "creation science" advocate who could address the Haymond Formation without constantly changing the subject or denying its obvious implications.

So. Let's encourage our Young Earth Creationist and global flood proponents to step up to the plate and deal with the evidence of the 15,000 layers of the Haymond Formation without dodging the question OR denying that the evidence exists OR running for cover by means of irrelevant tangents. And to help focus their attention on the original question AND to prevent the aforementioned evasion tactics, how about we simply IGNORE any post which dodges the question?

[Or perhaps we could simply post an appropriate "Try again!"]

After all, the ignoring of evidence and the repetition of meaningless excuses can take a hike.

_______________________________________________________



[And if their desperation leads to anyone claiming that the Haymond Formation is not an appropriate topic for the CREATION & EVOLUTION forum---in hopes of having a difficult thread deleted---I would remind them that:

1) The Global Flood and Catastrophism in general is a fundamental issue to "creation science" proponents in explaining how God created the features we see on the earth today, and

2) Catastrophism is the YEC reply to Uniformitarian geology, which they consider the basis for the billions-of-years timeline which underpins "old earth" geology and the Theory of Evolution.

So let's be honest and admit that the Haymond Formation provides important evidence which demolishes a Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis 1 as well as a planet-wide flood interpretation of Genesis 7.

[Yes, it is not difficult to demolish "creation science" interpretations of Genesis using the Hebrew scriptures alone but I'm leaving that mundane task for other threads. Let's stay focused for now.]

My first impression is that it was laid down long before the flood. So?

 

[RickG]

My first impression is that it was laid down long before the flood. So?

And the chemistry and physics of those sedimentary layers and their constituents are exactly the same as they are today. Therefore, by your own omission, physics has never change.

God bless you dad, God bless you.

 

[dad]

And the chemistry and physics of those sedimentary layers and their constituents are exactly the same as they are today. Therefore, by your own omission, physics has never change.

God bless you dad, God bless you.

Thanks. Not sure how you would have thought that stuff on earth would somehow not conform to our current laws? Isn't the issue the formation and how it relates to the flood?

 

[SkyWriting]

So let's be honest and admit that the Haymond Formation provides important evidence which demolishes a Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis 1 as well as a planet-wide flood interpretation of Genesis 7.

If Jesus were to heal a bone, you could say
"Look! Here is perfectly good bone! This important evidence demolishes the claim that this man was healed!"

As this example shows, when God does something, it may not leave a trail of evidence that the event happened.

But supposing their WAS such evidence of a world wide flood. A large meteor impact followed by a global tsunami would be a good explanation. There is no proof good enough for those who choose not to believe. We would still be having the same conversation but about different facts.

 

[Valkhorn]

If Jesus were to heal a bone, you could say
"Look! Here is perfectly good bone! This important evidence demolishes the claim that this man was healed!"

As this example shows, when God does something, it may not leave a trail of evidence that the event happened.

But supposing their WAS such evidence of a world wide flood. A large meteor impact followed by a global tsunami would be a good explanation. There is no proof good enough for those who choose not to believe. We would still be having the same conversation but about different facts.

That's your problem. If something happens and no evidence is left that it ever happened, it's indistinguishable from fantasy.

I could pretty much make up anything I wanted if I didn't need evidence to support it. Some people often do that.

 

[dad]

Hey, so what about this (likely pre flood) formation supposedly poses any problem for YEC?

 

[SkyWriting]

That's your problem. If something happens and no evidence is left that it ever happened, it's indistinguishable from fantasy.

I could pretty much make up anything I wanted if I didn't need evidence to support it. Some people often do that.

It's never been a problem. Faith is a solution to a life without purpose with an uncertain duration in a place we have little control over.