ideas reason in a circle, refuse to consider the possibility
that the assumptions of deep time and uniformitarianism
might be the problem, and argue from a lack of evidence,
thanks to the fact that most of Earth’s history is written on
the blank pages of hiatuses in the record.
Before evaluating any of these hypotheses, it is first
essential to understand the role of the assumptions that
drive them. The stated bedrock of modern geology is the
actualistic method of uniformitarianism, but more often
than not that assumption is a hindrance because modern
geological environments are not good analogs for the rock
record. Auxiliary hypotheses are tools such geologists use
to work around actualism, not use it. This demonstrates
that the real bedrock of modern geology is negative—it is
a convoluted attempt to dismiss divine providence from
history, beginning with the Genesis Flood.
The volume of the sedimentary record does not support the 4. 5 Ga of uniformitarian geology. Because these
geologists have historically been fixated on the relationship
between the volume of rocks and their estimates of
what could be deposited during the Flood, they are
belatedly realizing that the rock record is not kind to
uniformitarianism. Since diluvialists are not similarly
constrained by actualism or by pristine empiricism, one
could argue that the rock record is much less kind to
uniformitarianism than to diluvialism. For the purposes
of this paper, however, it does not matter whether the
Genesis Flood can explain the rocks. The issue before
us is that uniformitarianism cannot. If the rocks justify
only a small part of history, then the history of secular
geology cannot possess the certainty assigned to it. Forensic
confidence in the rock and fossil records is therefore
misplaced. Absent the revelatory record of the Bible,
uniformitarian geologists—advocates of empiricism and
actualism—are left with data that convey very little about
the past. Ironically, geologists who are quite comfortable
lowering observed rates to justify their uniformitarianism
are completely unwilling to consider higher rates and larger
scales associated with the Flood, even though the logic is
Geologists since the 18th century have argued that
the sedimentary rock record supports their paradigm of
uniformitarian deep time because there are ‘too many rocks’
for the one year Flood. But the triumph of deep time was
premature; it masked the fact that the sedimentary rock
record does not support uniformitarian history. The gross
volume of Earth’s sedimentary rocks is not supported by
the sedimentation rates observed in the present. At the most
fundamental level, the gap between the sedimentary record
and the proposed 4. 5 Ga history of our planet suggests that
either the actualistic principle is not a good method or that
the volume of sediments on Earth was produced in much
less than 4. 5 Ga. That leads to two unpalatable options for
uniformitarian geologists: ( 1) that Earth is much younger than
4. 5 Ga, or ( 2) that the existing record is not representative
of the past. The rock record constitutes a very poor forensic
buttress for uniformitarianism. Consequently, the fossil
record contained in these rocks is likewise deficient and is an
equally poor support for evolutionary history. Stratigraphic
methods that assume gradual and continuous sedimentation,
like cyclostratigraphy, are also in trouble. The supposed
happy marriage between uniformitarian deep time and the
sedimentary record is in more trouble than people think.
1. ‘Secondary’ was the term introduced by Arduino to describe indurated
sedimentary rocks of the Southern Alps.
2. Rudwick, M.J.S., Bursting the Limits of Time: The reconstruction of geohistory
in the age of revolution, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, p. 123, 2005.
3. Reed, J.K. and Oard, M.J., Three early arguments for deep time, part III: the
sedimentary record, J. Creation 26( 2): 100–109, 2012.
4. Young, D. A. and Stearley, R.F., The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological evidence
for the age of the earth, IVP Academic, Downers Grove, IL, p. 378, 2008.
5. Ronov, A.B., The Earth’s Sedimentary Shell, American Geological Institute
Reprint Series 5, Falls Church, VA, 1983.
6. E.g. Boggs, S., Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks, 2nd edn, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, 2009.
7. Priestley, K., Patton, H.J., and Schultz, C.A., Modeling anomalous surface-wave
propagation across the Southern Caspian Basin, Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 91( 6):1924–1929, 2001.
8. Carroll, A.R., Geofuels: Energy and the earth, Cambridge University Press,
New York, 2015.
9. Blatt, H., Middleton, G., and Murray, R., Origin of Sedimentary Rocks, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1980.
10. Blatt, H., Determination of mean sediment thickness in the crust: a
sedimentologic method, Geological Society of America Bulletin 81:
11. Nelson, S.A., Occurrence, Mineralogy, Textures, and Structures of Sedimentary
Rocks, www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol212/sedrxintro.htm, 18 April 2013.
12. Miall, A.D., Updating Uniformitarianism: Stratigraphy as just a set of ;Frozen
Accidents;; in: Smith, D. G., Bailey, R.J., Burgess, P.M., and Fraser, A.J. (Eds.),
Strata and Time: Probing the gaps in our understanding, Special Publication
404, Geological Society, London, 2015.
13. Sadler, P.M., Sediment accumulation rates and the completeness of stratigraphic
sections, The J. Geology 89( 5):569–584, 1981.
14. Bailey, R.J. and Smith, D.G., Scaling in stratigraphic data series: implications
for practical stratigraphy, First Break 10: 57–66, 2010.
15. Ager, D.V., The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, 1973.
16. E.g. Miall, ref. 12, and Bailey and Smith, ref. 14.
17. E.g. Miall, ref. 12, Sadler, ref. 13, and Bailey and Smith, ref. 14.
18. Bailey, R.J., Review: Stratigraphy, meta-stratigraphy, and chaos, Terra Nova 10:
19. Smith, D.G., Cyclicity or chaos? Orbital forcing versus non-linear dynamics;
in: De Boer, P. L and Smith, D.G. (Eds.), Orbital Forcing and Cyclic Sequences,
International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publication 19,
pp. 531–544, 1994.
20. Schwab, F.L., Modern and ancient sedimentary basins: comparative
sedimentation rates, Geology 4:723–727, 1976.
21. Coleman, J., Dynamic changes and processes in the Mississippi River delta,
Geological Society of America Bulletin 100( 7):999–1015, 1990.