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

[verysincere]

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!"

Amazing, rather than deal with the evidence, you dodge all of the difficulties with your man-made TRADITION ABOUT the Bible by applying the universal wildcard: "God replaced all of the evidence with deceptive evidence, as if a very different history had taken place."

You may be fine with imagining God to be a deceiver. I am not. God created a world which provides abundant evidence of exactly what happened. And that trail of scientific evidence matches the Bible's evidence just as we would expect, because God authored BOTH the Book of Scriptures and the Book of Creation. We need not fear that fact when our cherished traditions get demolished by the evidence which God has provided for us (in BOTH the Bible and in Creation.)

Your attempt to dodge the evidence God DID provide for us in the Haymond Formation (by inserting an example from Jesus' healing ministry) is exactly the kind of irrelevant evidence evasion which Bible-critics rightfully attribute to far too many of our ill-informed Christian brethren.

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

Let me get this straight: You IMAGINE (because you have no way to know) that when Jesus healed a broken bone, there was no physical evidence of mended bone in terms of distinctive recalcification and osteoplast multiplication clues. Speculation drawn from a totally unrelated Biblical account is nothing but a dodge. Or did you see the X-rays and medical report of the unnamed man of your imagination?

But supposing their [sic] WAS such evidence of a world wide flood.

So now you are simply admitting that there IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE for a world-wide flood? Why do you have to "suppose" it out of thin air? Why not actually CITE some kind of evidence?

A large meteor impact followed by a global tsunami ....

So now you add to the speculation by providing an imagined meteor and tsunami.

....would be a good explanation.

It COULD be a "good explanation" if there was any evidence of the meteor and the global tsunami!

Don't you get it? That's the very point: Evidence is what counts!

You can't just pull meteors and global tsunamis (and global floods) out of thin air in hopes that they can maintain your man-made traditions!

Of course, I should probably assume that if you are going to imagine a planet-wide flood [which the Bible never described] which somehow managed to leave no evidence, you'd probably find it very easy to concoct meteors and global tsunamis which leave no evidence!

There is no proof good enough for those who choose not to believe.

Nonsense.

The issue is NOT "no evidence good enough". We are talking about the fact that "the total LACK of evidence is not good enough"!

I choose to believe:

1) that for which God has provided evidence in the BIBLE.

and/or

2) that for which God has provided evidence in his CREATION.

We would still be having the same conversation but about different facts.

No. We would still be having a conversation about the fact that most Christ-followers (like me) rely upon God-provided evidence in HIS BIBLE and in HIS CREATION.

You on the other hand, PREFER MAN-MADE TRADITIONS about what the Bible says instead of what the Bible ACTUALLY says and what God's Creation ACTUALLY tells us.

The Bible clearly teaches that a devastating flood destroyed all of mankind with the exception of Noah's extended family. The Bible says NOTHING about a planet-wide phenomenon. (And the evidence in God's creation provides no evidence of a global deluge. No surprise there!) Hebrew ERETZ refers to "land", "country", "soil", "ground" and the opposite of the "heavens". Making an exegetical argument from Genesis that ERETZ must be translated "planet earth" is a very difficult task. (Good luck to you on that.)

Or do suppose ERETZ ISRAEL in the Bible should be translated "Planet Israel" instead of "Land of Israel"?

Your arguments imply that only Young Earth Creationists have a high view of scripture. But to many of us Bible-affirming Christ-followers, your limitation is your reverence for man-made traditions ABOUT the Bible rather than a focus on the Bible itself.

I find it no surprise that there is no evidence of a world-wide flood in the geologic record. After all, the Bible never made a global claim for the flood. The pioneers of modern geology actually started their work from the assumption that they would discover all sorts of evidence for a Global Deluge. Their honesty led them to the opposite conclusion. Unfortunately, the TRADITIONS of English Bible translation (especially the influence of the KJV) gave many the impression that "earth" in the English Bible meant "planet earth" when a Hebrew lexicon provides many other definitions.

Indeed, even in the King James Bible the word ERETZ is most often translated as "land", "country", "region", or "ground" -- and not "earth". And if you investigate KOL ERETZ, the translation "the entire land" or "the whole land" is the usual rendering. Yet, you will insist that KOL ERETZ in the Noah's Flood account must refer to "the entire planet earth".

Do as you wish, but I prefer to believe God's Bible and God's Creation.

 

[SkyWriting]

Amazing, rather than deal with the evidence, you dodge all of the difficulties with your man-made TRADITION ABOUT the Bible by applying the universal wildcard: "God replaced all of the evidence with deceptive evidence, as if a very different history had taken place."

Not at all. There are a number of events that are said to have taken place by the hand of God.
Miracles, including list of biblical miracles (WebBible™ Encyclopedia) - ChristianAnswers.Net

The only explanation for any one of them is that God intervened.
The problem with that explanation is that Science cannot allow
that explanation. Because all explanations must have a natural
basis. If one has a natural basis, then that's not God.

I appreciate that you think God must leave a "holy trail" bit even if
He did, science does not allow such a conclusion. Science only allows
for reproducible explanations. That's why you find none pointing to God.

Even for the most obvious, the creation of existence out of thin air like magic
in violation of all known laws of science.
Astronomers Detect First Split-Second of the Universe | Space.com

 

[NGC 6712]

Even for the most obvious, the creation of existence out of thin air like magic
in violation of all known laws of science.

Can't quote with the link yet - you don't like WMAP?

Pity.

 

[verysincere]

The only explanation for any one of them is that God intervened.
The problem with that explanation is that Science cannot allow
that explanation. Because all explanations must have a natural
basis. If one has a natural basis, then that's not God.

Face-palm again.

All SCIENCE explanations must have a natural explanation because that is the definition of modern Science! Science is not MEANT to be theology.

You remind me of the beginning geometry student who is told that he must do everything by means of a compass and a straight-edge. He reacts angrily and protests, "That's outrageous! Why can't I use my protractor to measure the angles? That's discriminatory!"

I find it fascinating that some of my Christian brethren insist on changing the definition of Science to include Theology. After all, you can bet your last dollar that if they actually succeeded, they would be the first to complain!

After all, the first casualty of extending Science into Theology would be the replacement of unchanging doctrinal dogma with the scientific method of considering all conclusions tentative. Skywriting, are you willing to continually re-evaluate the evidence and be ready to change your theological beliefs as the scientific evidence demands? I know from your posts that you aren't even willing to modify your beliefs based on the Biblical evidence---so I seriously doubt that you would want to yield to the scientific evidence!


[Any time is a good time to expand one's ignore-list.]

 

[NGC 6712]

Your head will get sore with the face palms necessary in these kind of "debates".

 

[dad]

They are hardly debates, would the length of Santa's hair or what size boot he wore be a debate?

No. Neither is the size of the singulariity or the way Granny Bacteria got ferried to earth.

 

[RickG]

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?

Oh no dad, you are not wiggling out of this one. You clearly stated that it was pre-flood. The chemical composition and physical properties down to the quantum level are exactly the same as post-flood. That is conclusive evidence that there is no post physics change.

Dad has seen the light and it is good!

 

[SkyWriting]

All SCIENCE explanations must have a natural explanation because that is the definition of modern Science! Science is not MEANT to be theology.

Yes. That's my point. You must be new around here.

The biblical flood was a direct action by God according to the story. And being a Miracle-of-God it may very well not act as if it was a natural event with all the normal expected results. There are a number of weird factors in it's description that suggest it was not a natural event.

 

[SkyWriting]

Can't quote with the link yet - you don't like WMAP? Pity.

I can't even decipher your sentences yet. And I don't mind.

 

[juvenissun]

Since nobody is talking about the Haymond Formation any more, I suggest this thread should be closed. It was not a concern of the OP right from the beginning.

 

[SkyWriting]

Is a plane falling out of the sky and crashing in a field a miracle because it didn't land on ....

You might be thinking of flight 93.
United Airlines Flight 93 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I don't have a conclusive answer on that one.

 

[SkyWriting]

Since nobody is talking about the Haymond Formation any more, I suggest this thread should be closed. It was not a concern of the OP right from the beginning.

Flood geology is a very narrow niche in the field of Christianity. Many of the original ideas didn't hold up well. The reason for that is they were not well grounded in scripture. Very little in the scriptures describe the effect the flood had on the earth. There was a lot of speculation about the effects by Christian geologists, but the speculation was, and is still, just that.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think it upsets them.

Not this creationist.

I'm more concerned if my pizza is going to get here on time, than I am some formation somewhere.

Formations are just that -- formations.

Romans 9:20b Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

If geology doesn't shout out that Jesus is King, then it can take a hike.

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Not this creationist.

I'm more concerned if my pizza is going to get here on time, than I am some formation somewhere.

Formations are just that -- formations.

Romans 9:20b Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

If geology doesn't shout out that Jesus is King, then it can take a hike.

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Does your pizza shout that Jesus is king? Or is is it hiking already?

 

[good brother]

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.]

How long did it take for all the layers to form at Mt St Helens? I guess under the right conditions it could happen very very quickly. Were you there to see the Haymond formation take that long? I bet not. Did y'all find a stop watch at the bottom of the pile that says it is "X" years old? No again. So, how do you KNOW that it took that long to form?

Does everyone know the age because of all the burrows? It's strange how, for as many "burrows" there are supposed to be in those layers, that there aren't any humps of material around the supposed burrows. Animals that burrow leave humps of displaced dirt around the openings of their burrows, yet strangely ALL the burrows in that formation are void of displaced dirt humps. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be the ASSUMPTIONS of what those burrow like holes are could be mistaken? Of course the evolutionists couldn't be mistaken, after all, they are real scientists! No, there must be another explanation....Hmmm... what would be a good explanation for all those missing humps of materials from supposed burrows that were dug over many thousands of years? Could it be they are wrong about something?

You don't know how long it took to form those layers. You don't know what caused the burrow like structures in the layers. Yeah, I don't see Biblical history shot down at all.

In Christ, GB

 

[peggy sue]

we see from the story in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, since God doesn't have a beginning there is no telling how long ago God created the universe and from where or what He moved it or spoke it into being, i personally have taken another look at some theories, and find this might not have been earths first time as a planet with life on it, and it well may have had another history before the one we are given in the Genesis account, much like getting a new house, its new to me, nobody else is living in it, so as far as i can see this homes history begins with me. i believe the history we have from its recreation is accurate with what the bible teaches, it wouldn't be necessary for the bible to begin at an earlier point, because the story were being told is our story

 

[good brother]

we see from the story in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, since God doesn't have a beginning there is no telling how long ago God created the universe and from where or what He moved it or spoke it into being, i personally have taken another look at some theories, and find this might not have been earths first time as a planet with life on it, and it well may have had another history before the one we are given in the Genesis account, much like getting a new house, its new to me, nobody else is living in it, so as far as i can see this homes history begins with me. i believe the history we have from its recreation is accurate with what the bible teaches, it wouldn't be necessary for the bible to begin at an earlier point, because the story were being told is our story

Peggy, if the Earth was not brand new, just "new to us" when the story of the Bible picks up, that would mean that all those fossils shown in the rock declare that death was in the world before Adam and Eve sinned, and that when God declared all was good, that death too was good. Remember, the Bible says that death did not enter the world until sin came into the world.

In Christ, GB

 

[KhaosTheory]

Remember, the Bible says that death did not enter the world until sin came into the world.

Where does it say that? If that were true, then what did Adam and Eve eat?

They had to digest living cells in their stomachs in order to get energy, right?

Even vegetarians "kill" the food when they eat it. So there was obviously death before the fall.

 

[juvenissun]

Creationists don't talk about the Haymond Formation anyway because it's confusing for them, I think it upsets them.

I am a creationist and I am the only one who wants to talk about it in this stupid thread.

I guess you are not a creationist. Do you want to say something about this rock formation?

 

[good brother]

Where does it say that?

12 Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

If that were true, then what did Adam and Eve eat?

Fuit and vegetables and nuts and seeds and leaves (like lettuce or cabbage)...

They had to digest living cells in their stomachs in order to get energy, right? Even vegetarians "kill" the food when they eat it. So there was obviously death before the fall.

Do you feel this strong about unborn babies? Eating fruits and veggies isn't quite the same thing as killing a human or slaughtering a cow, now are they?

In Christ, GB