I do not want to malign the good
intentions of those with a reconstructed
biblical approach. However, I consider
that much valuable work has already
been done in mapping lithological
sequences around the globe. There is
a need to keep the baby and throw out
the bath water:
The baby is the observable, map-
pable, correlatable order of stratigraphic
successions with their characteristic
fossils, lithologies, chemical signatures,
and consistent pattern and order of
The bathwater is the interpreted long
ages and molecules-to-man evolution.
Order in the rock record has been
put there by God during His sequence
of creative acts recorded in the
Bible.[Not just Genesis 1 but chapter 7,
2 Peter 3 etc.] In stratigraphy there are
significant patterns that can be related
to God’s creative work in designing
the earth as man’s home. As with
many scientific datasets there may be
some anomalous values. However, not
using relative patterns in radiometric
dates that reflect stratigraphic order,
may be considered ‘throwing the
baby out with the bathwater’. The
stratigraphic and isotopic order in the
rocks is important evidence.
With due respect to Froede, the
2008 work by Dickens and Snelling5
was definitely not uniformitarian
in terms of rapidity of processes,
including radiometric decay. A number
of tectonic events (e.g. global rifting)
and lithologic types (e.g. komatiites
and BIFs) described and inferred
environments (global oceans in early
Creation Week and early Flood) are not
uniformitarian and not occurring today.
A profound episodicity (episodicity
is not uniformitarian!) exists in global
Precambrian rock radiometric dates. 6
The deformation age distribution
of greenstone belts (most abundant
at 2. 70, 1. 85, 1.05, and 0.60 Ga) is
broadly similar to the age distribution
of Precambrian granites and detrital
zircons. 3 Heating events can reset
radiometric dates to lower values. 7, 8
There are regional patterns in
radiometric dates that can be related
to different Precambrian geological
Naturalism excludes the Bible.
When God created, He brought order
to the universe even in atoms and
continents, for God is not the author
of confusion ( 1 Corinthians 14: 33).
Thus there should be harmony between
God’s Word and His Creation. Despite
the complexity, we should not discount
the order in observable, mappable
Precambrian geology and associated
measurable isotopic and chemical
trends. Correlating such trends and
patterns with God’s Word is not
1. Bayley, R.W. and James, H.L., Precambrian
iron formations of the United States, Economic
Geology 68:934–959, 1973.
2. Dickens, H., The ‘Great Unconformity’ and
associated geochemical evidence for Noahic
Flood erosion, J. Creation 30( 1): 8–10, 2016.
3. Bradley, D.C., Secular trends in the geologic
record and the supercontinent cycle,
Earth-Science Reviews 108: 16–33, 2011.
4. Peters, S.E. and Gaines, R.R., Formation of
the ‘Great Unconformity’ as a trigger for the
Cambrian explosion, Nature 48( 4):363–366, 2012.
5. Dickens, H. and Snelling, A.A., Precambrian
geology and the Bible: A harmony, J. Creation 22( 1):
6. O’Neill, C., Lenardic, A., and Condie, K.C., Earth’s
punctuated tectonic evolution: cause and effect; in:
Roberts, N.M. W., van Kranendonk, M., Parman,
S., Shirey, S., and Clift, P.D. (Eds), Continent
Formation Through Time, Geological Society,
London, Special Publications, p. 389, 2013.
7. Harley, S. L., Kelly, N.M., and Moller, A., Zircon
behaviour and the thermal histories of mountain
chains, Elements 3: 25–30, 2007.
8. Nyquist, D.D., Bogard, D.D., Garrison, D.H.,
Bansal, B.M., Wiesmann, H., and Shih, C-Y.,
Thermal resetting of radiometric ages. II:
Modeling and applications, Abstracts of the
Lunar and Planetary Conference 22:987, 1991.
Pluto’s moons or
I thank Dr Faulkner for his informative letter1 commenting on Dr Hartnett’s perspective, 2 and his concern for
precision in terminology.
All the same, Dr Hartnett was
hardly being unreasonable in referring
to the ‘moons’ of Pluto instead of
‘satellites’. After all, the New Horizons
space probe that explored Pluto was
launched by NASA, and the NASA
website itself has a page called “Pluto:
Moons”. 3 If it’s okay for NASA, then
surely it should be okay for Hartnett.
And his first two sources referred to
Pluto’s “moons” in their titles, as does
a paper in Nature. 4
Also, the phrase “Galilean Moons of
Jupiter” has been accepted parlance for
centuries, even in modern astronomy
journals. So it would seem that
‘moon’ and ‘satellite’ are approximate
synonyms, and both acceptable.
However, while there are artificial
satellites, there are no artificial moons!
Jonathan D. Sarfati
CMI UNITED STATES of AMERICA
1. Faulkner D., Even more surprises with Pluto’s
satellites, J. Creation 31( 2): 52, 2017.
2. Hartnett, J.G., Pluto’s moons a big surprise,
J. Creation 30( 2): 8–9, 2016.
accessed 28 July 2017.
4. Showalter, M.R. and Hamilton, D.P., Resonant
interactions and chaotic rotation of Pluto’s small
moons, Nature 522(7554): 45–49, 3 June 2015 |