biblestudying.net

Printer Friendly Version

Having investigated the relationship of distant starlight, redshift, and the age of the universe and having found that the evidence does not indicate the earth is billions of years old, only one issue remains concerning the age of the universe. That issue surrounds the other evidence related to time, the geologic dating methods. Geologic dating methods have to do with dating the earth’s rocks, rock layers, minerals, fossils and other landform features. The methods can be divided into 2 broad categories known as “relative dating” and “absolute dating.”

Perhaps the most crucial geologic feature for dating the earth is the fact that rock formations are distributed in layers. Relative dating methods deal directly with the order in which rock layers are found. The other main category of geologic dating is absolute dating. Absolute dating, also commonly called radiometric dating, is the dating of items through radioactive isotopes.

Through these methods, evolutionary scientists assert that the earth’s age has been determined to be about 4-5 billion years old.

“Dating Methods, I INTRODUCTION – Dating Methods, in earth science, methods used to date the age of rocks and minerals. By applying this information, geologists are able to decipher the 4.6-billion-year history of the earth.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Geologic sciences, Study of surface features and processes, Earth history, Historical geology and stratigraphy – Radiometric dating also helped geochronologists discover the vast span of geologic time. The radiometric dating of meteorites revealed that the Earth, like other bodies of the solar system, is about 4,600,000,000 years old and that the oldest rocks so far discovered formed roughly 3,800,000,000 years ago.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Earth sciences, The 20th century: modern trends and developments, Geologic sciences, Radiometric dating – By determining the amount of the parent and daughter isotopes present in a sample and by knowing their rate of radioactive decay (each radioisotope has its own decay constant), the isotopic age of the sample can be calculated…Also by extrapolating backward in time to a situation when there was no lead that had been produced by radiogenic processes, a figure of about 4,600,000,000 years is obtained for the minimum age of the Earth.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

It is no surprise that this age and these dating methods form the basis for the rejection of creation theory by many people. Creation theory asserts an age that is only 6,000 to 10,000 years for the earth, a figure that these methods indicate is much too young. Consequently, this issue creates a general impression that creationists are either ignorant of the facts, unreasonable, have a faith that is unconcerned with facts, or are simply in plain, old-fashioned denial. For this reason, it is important to clearly address such perceptions at the very beginning of this segment. Perception Figures 1-8 depict some common ways that people might conceive of the way that calculating ages and proving evolutionary time work.

(See Perception Figures 1-8.)

With these perceptions, many people ask, “How can creationists argue with this?” For example, if the geologic column and all its fossils are arranged after a machine or computer scans them and tells us their exact age, how can anyone argue with that?

However, despite their persistent and pervasive nature, none of these perceptions are true. This is not how dating methods work and this is not how the evolutionary time scale is constructed. Here are some simple facts about how dating processes actually work.

(See Dating Facts Figure 1.)

Throughout this section, we will see these facts stated in secular and evolutionary sources. In reality, dating procedure actually works in the much more complicated, much more problematic, and far less certain manner as depicted in Dating Figures 1-13.

(See Dating Procedures Figures 1-13.)

Consequently, while common perception might be that creationists are attempting to deny that the sky is blue or the grass is green, the reality is that the dating processes upon which the evolutionary timescale is based are simply not a matter of observable fact or evidence. They are constructs derived from stacking together a number of mere assumptions. And as we will see, these processes are not only flawed individually but, in order to work, they require circular reasoning between relative dating methods, absolute dating methods, and evolutionary theory itself.

The point of addressing these common perceptions here, at the very beginning of this segment, is because it is these perceptions that are at the heart of the debate concerning the amount of time that has passed on earth. When it comes to the age of the earth, are creationists simply in denial of inarguable, concrete evidence? Or, is the idea of an earth that is billions of years old based merely empty equations that presuppose evolution and use assumed and adjustable numbers rather than real, objective numbers?

Answering these questions and documenting the facts summarily presented in the illustrations above will be the focus throughout the rest of this section. We will start by covering the most basic foundations of each theory’s view of geologic history. And then, with that essential backdrop in mind, we will proceed to analyze and discuss the details of how relative dating and absolute dating (radiometric dating) work.

Focus on Critical Evidence: Basic Views of Geology

When it comes to the issue of just how long the earth has been around, one of the critical points is the need to explain how the earth’s physical features formed. Did these features take a long time to form? Or did they form quickly and within a 6,000 to 10,000 year period? If geologic features form from slow processes and take a long time to form, then the earth might very well be millions or billions of years old. If geologic features form from fast-acting process that do not require more than days, weeks, months or several years, then the earth might very well be quite young. There are 2 views concerning the age of the earth and whether or not geologic features form quickly or slowly. They are called uniformitarianism and catastrophism. And, as we will see, it is these 2 views that form the backbone for all of geologic dating. Consequently, we need to understand the basic points of each of these 2 basic geologic views and we need to determine the extent to which they are scientifically valid in terms of observation. We’ll start with the defining points of each view.

Uniformitarianism is the current, underlying theory of geology and evolutionary science. This view asserts that all of the geologic features of the earth were formed slowly by the same normative processes that occur today and everyday. This principle is the backbone of relative dating, and due to the circular reasoning between relative and radiometric dating, it is also the foundation for radioactive dating as well. The quotes below establish 5 basic facts about uniformitarianism. First, that uniformitarianism is a “fundamental” concept to modern geology. Second, that uniformitarianism is defined by the idea that geologic features formed from slow processes that require long ages. Third, that uniformitarianism provides the basis for calculating “old” ages of the earth. Fourth, that uniformitarianism contrasts to “biblical explanations” for the earth’s features, such as the biblical flood. And fifth, uniformitarianism was introduced in 1875 by James Hutton and became popularly accepted in the 1800’s through the efforts of Sir Charles Lyell.

“Lyell, Sir Charles – (1797-1875) was a British geologist whose writings established uniformitarianism as the basis of modern geology. Uniformitarianism is the theory that the gradual processes shaping the earth today, such as erosion, also formed the earth's features in the past. James Hutton, a Scottish geologist, had introduced this theory in 1785. In Lyell's day, however, most scientists still believed the earth had been shaped by rare and sudden events that were unique to the past. Lyell convincingly set forth the theory of uniformitarianism in his three-volume work Principles of Geology (1830-1833). He stated that most of the earth's structural features could be explained as the result of constantly occurring processes over millions of years. Lyell supported his theory by analyzing the long-term effect of observable events, such as the erosion of land by rivers.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Dennis R. Dean, Ph.D., Former Professor of English and Humanities, University of Wisconsin, Parkside.

“Uniformitarianism – in geology, the doctrine that existing processes acting in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity as at present are sufficient to account for all geologic change. Uniformitarianism posits that natural agents now at work on and within the Earth have operated with general uniformity through immensely long periods of time. When William Whewell, a University of Cambridge scholar, introduced the term in 1832…This principle is fundamental to geologic thinking and underlies the whole development of the science of geology.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Geology, The rock dispute – In 1795, in a book called Theory of the Earth, Hutton presented what would later be called the principle of uniformitarianism. He claimed that Earth was gradually changing in a variety of ways and would continue to change in the same ways…Hutton died in 1797, before other scientists accepted his ideas. But in 1802, John Playfair, a Scottish mathematician, expanded on Hutton's work in the book Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth. This book presented Hutton's ideas clearly and with illustrations. It became a leading guide to the development of the field of geology.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn Mawr College.

“Geochronology, The emergence of modern geologic thought, James Hutton's recognition of the geologic cycle – Hutton's formulation of the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that Earth processes occurring today had their counterparts in the ancient past, while not the first time that this general concept was articulated, was probably the most important geologic concept developed out of rational scientific thought of the 18th century. The publication of Hutton's two-volume Theory of the Earth in 1795 firmly established him as one of the founders of modern geologic thought.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Geochronology, Lyell's promulgation of uniformitarianism – Hutton's words were not lost on the entire scientific community. Charles Lyell, another Scottish geologist, was a principal proponent of Hutton's approach, emphasizing gradual change by means of known geologic processes. In his own observations on rock and faunal successions, Lyell was able to demonstrate the validity of Hutton's doctrine of uniformitarianism and its importance as one of the fundamental philosophies of the geologic sciences…This, along with the increased recognition of the utility of fossils in interpreting rock successions, made it possible to begin addressing the question of the meaning of time in Earth history.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Geology, II GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY, C Uniformitarianism – Uniformitarianism, or actualism, helps geologists use their knowledge of modern processes and events to reconstruct the past.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application, Early attempts at calculating the age of the Earth – From the time of Hutton's refinement of uniformitarianism, the principle found wide application in various attempts to calculate the age of the Earth. As previously noted, fundamental to the principle was the premise that various Earth processes of the past operated in much the same way as those processes operate today. The corollary to this was that the rates of the various ancient processes could be considered the same as those of the present day. Therefore, it should be possible to calculate the age of the Earth on the basis of the accumulated record of some process that has occurred at this determinable rate since the Creation.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Hutton, James – Hutton devoted his time to extensive scientific reading and traveled widely to inspect rocks and observe the actions of natural processes. His chief contribution to scientific knowledge, the uniformitarian principle, was put forward in his papers presented to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1785…Hutton's view as stated in these papers was that the world's geologic phenomena can be explained in terms of observable processes, and that those processes now at work on and within the Earth have operated with general uniformity over immensely long periods of time. These two papers marked a turning point for geology; from that time on, geology became a science founded upon the principle of uniformitarianism…Hutton claimed that the totality of these geologic processes could fully explain the current landforms all over the world, and no biblical explanations were necessary in this regard. Finally, he stated that the processes of erosion, deposition, sedimentation, and upthrusting were cyclical and must have been repeated many times in the Earth's history. Given the enormous spans of time taken by such cycles, Hutton asserted that the age of the Earth must be inconceivably great.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Hutton, James – Hutton, James (1726-1797), British geologist, who originated the modern theory of the gradual evolution of the earth's crust…Hutton formulated the uniformitarian theory of geology, which suggested that such processes as sedimentation, volcanism, and erosion caused changes in the surface of the earth and had been operating in the same manner and at the same rate over a very long period of time. Thus, he saw the earth as being much older than had been previously thought; this aroused strong opposition from those who believed in James Ussher's biblical chronology published in 1650, which stated that the world was created in 4004 BC (BCE). Hutton summarized his theories in Theory of the Earth (2 volumes, 1795).” – "Hutton, James," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Continental landform, Historical survey, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries, Uniformitarianism – The Huttonian proposal that the Earth has largely achieved its present form through the past occurrence of processes still in operation has come to be known as the doctrine of uniformitarianism...Uniformitarianism also became the working principle for a growing number of geologic historians, notably William Smith and Sir Charles Lyell, in the 19th century. This was necessary as Lyell argued increasingly that geologic change was incremental and gradual. He needed a longer time scale if this approach was to work, and geologic historians were finding it for him.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Lyell, Sir Charles – (1797-1875), Scottish geologist, whose writings strongly influenced the development of modern geology…Building on the pioneering work of the 18th-century Scottish geologist James Hutton, Lyell developed the theory of uniformitarianism. This theory says that the natural processes that change the earth in the present have operated in the past at the same gradual rate.” – "Lyell, Sir Charles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Hutton, James – (1726-1797), a Scottish philosopher and chemist, was a pioneer in the field of geology. His main contributions included the ideas that Earth was immensely old and that its features were constantly and gradually changing. He argued that many such changes were caused by heat within Earth. Hutton discussed this geological change in his book Theory of the Earth (1795). His theory that geological forces are the same now as in the past became known as uniformitarianism… According to Hutton, rocks were constantly breaking down into soil. The soil was washed off the continents and carried into the sea by rain and rivers. Then, heat from under Earth's surface consolidated the soil into new layers of rock and eventually elevated the rock above sea level. This process led to the creation of new continents, which replaced those that had been worn away. Many thinkers of Hutton's day accepted Biblical evidence that Earth was about 6,000 years old. Hutton thought that this figure was much too low.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Dennis R. Dean, Ph.D., Former Professor of English and Humanities, University of Wisconsin, Parkside.

“Archaeology, History, Beginnings – By the early 1800's, geologists had determined that rock formation resulted from extremely slow processes, such as erosion and volcanic activity. This view, known as uniformitarianism, led most scholars to believe that the earth was much older than previously thought.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Thomas R. Hester, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin.

It is important to note that although the uniformitarian principle was the first step that “led most scholars to believe that the earth was much older than previously thought,” this ideology emerged in the 1800’s, long before radiometric dating was developed.

“Dating Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS – With the methods then available, 19th-century geologists could only construct a relative time scale. Thus, the actual age of the earth and the duration, in millions of years, of the units of the time scale remained unknown until the dawn of the 20th century. After radioactivity was discovered, radiometric dating methods were quickly developed. With these new methods geologists could calibrate the relative scale of geologic time, thereby creating an absolute one.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Earth sciences, The 20th century: modern trends and developments, Geologic sciences, Radiometric dating – Versions of the modern mass spectrometer were invented in the early 1920s and 1930s, and during World War II the device was improved substantially to help in the development of the atomic bomb. Soon after the war, Harold C. Urey and G.J. Wasserburg applied the mass spectrometer to the study of geochronology.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Earth sciences, The 20th century: modern trends and developments, Geologic sciences, Radiometric dating – In 1905, shortly after the discovery of radioactivity, the American chemist Bertram Boltwood suggested that lead is one of the disintegration products of uranium, in which case the older a uranium-bearing mineral the greater should be its proportional part of lead. Analyzing specimens whose relative geologic ages were known, Boltwood found that the ratio of lead to uranium did indeed increase with age. After estimating the rate of this radioactive change he calculated that the absolute ages of his specimens ranged from 410,000,000 to 2,200,000,000 years. Though his figures were too high by about 20 percent, their order of magnitude was enough to dispose of the short scale of geologic time proposed by Lord Kelvin.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Understanding that the long ages of evolutionary time were developed long before radiometric dating was even invented is an important point. This demonstrates that the evolutionary timescale and history of the earth simply was not developed from radiometric dating.

The quotes below list examples of the kinds of slow, everyday processes that uniformitarianism asserts are responsible for geologic features, including such processes as volcanism, sedimentation, erosion, weathering, running water, moving ice, and gravity.

“Geochronology, The emergence of modern geologic thought, James Hutton's recognition of the geologic cycle –Ample evidence from Hutton's Scotland provided the key to unraveling the often thought but still rarely stated premise that events occurring today at the Earth's surface—namely erosion, transportation and deposition of sediments, and volcanism—seem to have their counterparts preserved in the rocks. The rocks of the Scottish coast and the area around Edinburgh proved the catalyst for his argument that the Earth is indeed a dynamic, ever-changing system, subject to a sequence of recurrent cycles of erosion and deposition and of subsidence and uplift. Hutton's formulation of the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that Earth processes occurring today had their counterparts in the ancient past, while not the first time that this general concept was articulated, was probably the most important geologic concept developed out of rational scientific thought of the 18th century.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Continental landform, Historical survey, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries, Uniformitarianism – The Huttonian proposal that the Earth has largely achieved its present form through the past occurrence of processes still in operation has come to be known as the doctrine of uniformitarianism…In this area of study, research emphasis is placed on observing what can be accomplished by a contemporary geologic agency such as running water. Later, the role of moving ice, gravity, and wind in the molding of valleys and hillslopes came to be appreciated by study of these phenomena.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Uniformitarianism – The idea that the laws that govern geologic processes have not changed during the history of the Earth were articulated by the 18th-century Scottish geologist James Hutton, who in 1785 presented his ideas—later published in two volumes as Theory of the Earth (1795)—at meetings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. In this work Hutton showed that the Earth had along history and that this history could be interpreted in terms of processes observed at the present, of which he gave examples. He showed, for instance, how soils were formed by the weathering of rocks and how layers of sediment accumulated…the effect of his ideas on the learned world can be compared only with the earlier revolution in thought brought about by Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo when they displaced the concept of a universe centred on the Earth with the concept of a solar system centred on the Sun.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Also of particular interest is the fact that the last quote describes Hutton’s principle of uniformitarian as “comparable” to the “revolution in thought” brought about by Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo. Having covered these topics in our last segment, we know what this statement is referring to. The “Copernican Revolution” and the “Copernican Principle” are popularly regarded among evolutionists who associate the historic events surrounding men like Copernicus with steps away from the biblical view of history and the world in which the earth was specially created by an intelligent, supernatural being only several thousand years ago. Here Hutton is being given credit for furthering the removal of the biblical worldview.

As we return to the subject of uniformitarianism, it is important to note that in the uniformitarian view, fossils are formed by the gradual laying down of rock layers by these normal, slow processes. Sir Charles Lyell operated on Hutton’s notion that earth’s soil and rock layers were formed by such normal, slow processes.

Since those rock layers were understood to take long ages to form, Lyell then supposed the following. First, that the fossils in the layers must have been buried as those layers formed. And second, that the organisms in the fossil record must themselves date from very long ages ago in the past.

“Lyell, Sir Charles – (1797-1875) Building on the pioneering work of the 18th-century Scottish geologist James Hutton, Lyell developed the theory of uniformitarianism…Lyell is also considered one of the founders of stratigraphy, the study of the layers of the earth's surface. He developed a method for classifying strata, or layers, by studying ancient marine beds in western Europe. Lyell observed that the marine beds closest to the surface, therefore the most recent, contained many species of shell-bearing mollusks that still live in today's seas. On the other hand, deeper, older strata contained fewer and fewer fossils of living species. Lyell divided the rocks of this period into three epochs, based on decreasing percentages of modern species. The names he proposed-Eocene, Miocene, and Pliocene-are still used today.” – "Lyell, Sir Charles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Consequently, we can see that uniformitarianism is foundational to the process of dating fossils according to the rock layers they are found in. As indicated by the quote above, this process is called stratigraphy. We will cover more on stratigraphy later on. Also notice that Lyell’s divisions of time into the Eocene, Miocene, and Pliocene epochs are “still used today.” So, once again, we can see that the basic evolutionary timescale and history were already developed without radiometric dating, long before radiometric dating was even invented.

In contrast to uniformitarianism is catastrophism. The following quotes will establish the following defining points concerning catastrophism. First, as indicated by the previous reference to Copernicus in one of the quotes above, catastrophism was the established geological view before the arrival of uniformitarianism. Then, like the views of Copernicus, uniformitarianism effectively replaced catastrophism as the dominant view in geology. Second, catastrophism is defined as the view that geologic features were formed rapidly by catastrophic events, particularly the flood recorded in the book of Genesis. Thus, in this view, the earth was formed only several thousand years ago by a supernatural, intelligent being.

“Lyell, Sir Charles – was a British geologist whose writings established uniformitarianism as the basis of modern geology…In Lyell's day, however, most scientists still believed the earth had been shaped by rare and sudden events that were unique to the past.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Dennis R. Dean, Ph.D., Former Professor of English and Humanities, University of Wisconsin, Parkside.

“Hutton, James – Hutton devoted his time to extensive scientific reading and traveled widely to inspect rocks and observe the actions of natural processes. His chief contribution to scientific knowledge, the uniformitarian principle, was put forward in his papers presented to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1785…Hutton's ideas were astonishing when viewed in the context of the opinion of his day. By the late 18th century, much knowledge had been gained about rocks, strata, and fossils, but none of this wealth of data had been synthesized into a workable general theory of geology. Such a task was seriously impeded by the still-accepted belief that the Earth had been created only about 6,000 years ago, according to the narrative in the biblical book of Genesis. The world's sedimentary rocks were believed by some geologists to have been formed when immense quantities of minerals precipitated out of the waters of the biblical flood. Erosional processes had long been recognized, but there was no equivalent explanation for the creation of land surfaces, as opposed to their destruction by erosion.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Uniformitarianism – Uniformitarianism posits that natural agents now at work on and within the Earth have operated with general uniformity through immensely long periods of time. When William Whewell, a University of Cambridge scholar, introduced the term in 1832, the prevailing view (called catastrophism) was that the Earth had originated through supernatural means and had been affected by a series of catastrophic events such as the biblical Flood.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Geochronology, The emergence of modern geologic thought, James Hutton's recognition of the geologic cycle – In the late 1780s the Scottish scientist James Hutton launched an attack on much of the geologic dogma that had its basis in either Werner's Neptunist approach or its corollary that the prevailing configuration of the Earth's surface is largely the result of past catastrophic events which have no modern counterparts…Hutton took issue with the catastrophist and Neptunist approach to interpreting rock histories and instead used deductive reasoning to explain what he saw. By Hutton's account, the Earth could not be viewed as a simple, static world not currently undergoing change.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Lyell, Sir Charles – Uniformitarianism contradicted the theory of catastrophism, which was popular among scientists of Lyell's time. Catastrophism claimed that only major catastrophes could change the basic formation of the earth, and that the earth was only about 6000 years old. Most scientists believed that catastrophism was consistent with the Bible's account of the earth's creation.” – "Lyell, Sir Charles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Creationism, V RECENT TRENDS – Flood geology gained wider acceptance after the publication of The Genesis Flood (1961), jointly authored by conservative biblical scholar John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and hydraulic engineer Henry M. Morris. This immensely influential book promoted Price's views as fundamentalist orthodoxy, and prompted the formation in 1963 of the Creation Research Society. The society is dedicated to the promotion of what has come to be known as young-earth creationism (by contrast with the old-earth creationism associated with the Day-Age and Gap theories). The most distinctive feature of young-earth creationism is its reliance on catastrophism, the doctrine that large-scale changes in the earth's crust are to be explained by violent, unrepeatable geologic events, such as the biblical flood.” – "Creationism," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Hutton, James – Many thinkers of Hutton's day accepted Biblical evidence that Earth was about 6,000 years old. Hutton thought that this figure was much too low. Most theorists also believed that only rare disasters, such as earthquakes, could change Earth's appearance.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Dennis R. Dean, Ph.D., Former Professor of English and Humanities, University of Wisconsin, Parkside.

Within catastrophism, examples of geologic feature formation from catastrophic events include not only the flood recorded in the Bible, but also volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, and hurricanes, etc. All such catastrophic events fit into catastrophism because of their ability to form major geologic features very rapidly rather than requiring long ages of slow processes.

“Continental landform, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries, Catastrophism – Asteroid impacts, Krakatoa-type volcanic explosions, hurricanes, floods, and tectonic erosion of mountain systems all occur, may be catastrophic, and can create and destroy landforms. Yet, not all change is catastrophic.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

But perhaps most importantly, catastrophism asserts that fossils are laid down quickly as rock layers are formed by catastrophe, and that the majority of earth’s fossils were formed in this way particularly by the flood recorded in Genesis.

“Continental landform, Historical survey, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries, Catastrophism – doctrine that explains the differences in fossil forms encountered in successive stratigraphic levels as being the product of repeated cataclysmic occurrences and repeated new creations.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Darwin, Charles Robert, II VOYAGE OF THE BEAGLE – In his geological observations, Darwin was most impressed with the effect that natural forces had on shaping the earth's surface. At the time, most geologists adhered to the so-called catastrophist theory that the earth had experienced a succession of creations of animal and plant life, and that each creation had been destroyed by a sudden catastrophe, such as an upheaval or convulsion of the earth's surface (see Geology: History of Geological Thought: 18th and 19th Centuries). According to this theory, the most recent catastrophe, Noah's flood, wiped away all life except those forms taken into the ark. The rest were visible only in the form of fossils. In the view of the catastrophists, species were individually created and immutable, that is, unchangeable for all time. The catastrophist viewpoint (but not the immutability of species) was challenged by the English geologist Sir Charles Lyell in his three-volume work Principles of Geology (1830-33). Lyell maintained that the earth's surface is undergoing constant change, the result of natural forces operating uniformly over long periods.” – "Darwin, Charles Robert," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Hutton, James – By the late 18th century, much knowledge had been gained about rocks, strata, and fossils, but none of this wealth of data had been synthesized into a workable general theory of geology. Such a task was seriously impeded by the still-accepted belief that the Earth had been created only about 6,000 years ago, according to the narrative in the biblical book of Genesis. The world's sedimentary rocks were believed by some geologists to have been formed when immense quantities of minerals precipitated out of the waters of the biblical flood.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Here we arrive at the need to clarify a minor distinction. The idea of the rock formation occurring as rock layers were laid down by water is also present in the related but distinct Neptunist theory, which was also prominent before the age of uniformitarianism. Neptunism is named after the god of the sea in Roman mythology.

“Geology, The rock dispute – Theorists who based their ideas on the notion that all rocks were formed from a global ocean were called Neptunists-after Neptune, the Roman god of the sea.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn Mawr College.

There are 2 defining points of Neptunism that highlights its distinction from catastrophism. First Neptunism focuses solely on the ocean as the mechanism for rock formation whereas catastrophism can assign an equal role to other events such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, asteroid impacts, etc.

“Earth sciences, The 16th-18th centuries, Geologic sciences, Earth history according to Werner and James Hutton – The two major theories of the 18th century were the Neptunian and the Plutonian. The Neptunists, led by Werner and his students, maintained that the Earth was originally covered by a turbid ocean. The first sediments deposited over the irregular floor of this universal ocean formed the granite and other crystalline rocks. Then as the ocean began to subside, "Stratified" rocks were laid down in succession.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Second, catastrophism is defined by its emphasis on mechanisms that rapidly produce geologic features. Neptunism’s focus on the ocean as the mechanism for geologic features does not require rapid action but can allow for slower formation in a longer timescale. Thus, while Neptunism and catastrophism have some overlap, they are not one and the same.

With the basic definitions of uniformitarianism and catastrophism complete, we are ready to discuss some critical issues concerning those points, particularly concerning the criteria of science. In short, uniformitarianism is an un-provable assumption. Because it involves excessively long ages of time, much longer than any human lifespan, the formation of geologic features by the slow, gradual, everyday processes of uniformitarianism is simply beyond observation. No one has ever observed geologic features being formed over long ages of time by such slow processes. Instead, we can simply see existing features being affected only in a minor way by such processes. Consequently, uniformitarianism cannot be tested or confirmed observationally. When speaking of geologic processes, such as weathering and the accumulation of sedimentary rock layers, Britannica Encyclopedia admits to the fact that “it is not at all certain on a priori grounds whether such rates are representative of the past.” In other words, uniformitarianism is an uncertain assumption.

“Geochronology, Nonradiometric dating – In addition to radioactive decay, many other processes have been investigated for their potential usefulness in absolute dating. Unfortunately, they all occur at rates that lack the universal consistency of radioactive decay. Sometimes human observation can be maintained long enough to measure present rates of change, but it is not at all certain on a priori grounds whether such rates are representative of the past…Nonradioactive absolute chronometers may conveniently be classified in terms of the broad areas in which changes occur—namely, geologic and biological processes, which will be treated here… Geologic processes as absolute chronometers, Weathering processes – During the first third of the 20th century, several presently obsolete weathering chronometers were explored…Accumulational processes – The fossiliferous part of the geologic column includes perhaps 122,000 metres of sedimentary rock if maximum thicknesses are selected from throughout the world. During the late 1800s, attempts were made to estimate the time over which it formed by assuming an average rate of sedimentation.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Similarly, in a debate with creationist Dr. Kent Hovind, evolutionary biologists Dr. William Moore of Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan likewise admits that uniformitarian principles “cannot be deduced or proven to be true,” are “simply taken to be true by assumption and supposition,” and that evolutionists “can’t really defend these assumptions.” And, Dr. Moore goes on to state that the first geological views asserting that the earth were developed in the 18th and 19th century (by such men as Lyell and Hutton) but were “essentially” the result of these indefensible, un-deducible, unproven and un-provable assumptions and suppositions. Right in line with what we saw concerning evolutionary cosmological models, all of which were derived from philosophical preference not observations, here we also see Dr. Moore admit that the same is true concerning uniformitarianism. It is a philosophical preference for an old earth.

“What I see as the foundation, the key to understanding this conflict, lies at the various deepest levels in the philosophies of science and religion. That is, in the metaphysics of the contrasting philosophical systems. So, what I’m going to say here for the next few minutes is going to sound like philosophy of science 101…I also point out that I use the word metaphysics…as that area of philosophy that deals with first principles, with those things that cannot be deduced or proven to be true. We simply take them to be true by assumption and supposition. We might say, for example, let’s suppose that the geological forces of erosion, volcanism, glaciation, etc., etc. that we see operating today have always worked in the same way. What could we learn from this? What would this lead to as a set of inferences about the earth’s history that may seem sensible. We can’t really defend these assumptions…We can’t prove it to be true. We can simply make it a part of our philosophical system and see how successful that system is in leading us to new discoveries. This is essentially what geologists did in the late 18th and 19th century. And this led to the very first inkling that the earth must be a pretty old place. At the base of science, I think, is a very small and clear set of first principles, the metaphysics of science. And that leads to the so-called scientific method.” – “The History of Life: Creation or Evolution?” Debate: Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. William Moore at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, www.drdino.com, Windows Media Video, 29 minutes, 30 seconds

The reason for the philosophical preference for an old earth is simple. Like the counterpart philosophical preferences in cosmology, long ages of time remove special attention to humankind, special creation, and teleology – all of which are inherent to a young earth. And long ages of time are also necessary for biological evolution to occur. So, uniformitarianism, and modern geology which uses this principle as a foundation, are based upon an un-provable, philosophical desire to have the long ages of time necessary for evolution. As we saw from Sir Charles Lyell, even in their origination, uniformitarianism concepts were constructed in conjunction with the idea that organisms took long ages to reach their present form.

“Lyell, Sir Charles – Building on the pioneering work of the 18th-century Scottish geologist James Hutton, Lyell developed the theory of uniformitarianism… Uniformitarianism contradicted the theory of catastrophism, which was popular among scientists of Lyell's time. Catastrophism claimed that only major catastrophes could change the basic formation of the earth, and that the earth was only about 6000 years old…Lyell is also considered one of the founders of stratigraphy, the study of the layers of the earth's surface. He developed a method for classifying strata, or layers, by studying ancient marine beds in western Europe. Lyell observed that the marine beds closest to the surface, therefore the most recent, contained many species of shell-bearing mollusks that still live in today's seas. On the other hand, deeper, older strata contained fewer and fewer fossils of living species. Lyell divided the rocks of this period into three epochs, based on decreasing percentages of modern species. The names he proposed-Eocene, Miocene, and Pliocene-are still used today.” – "Lyell, Sir Charles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Another quote that we saw earlier concerning Lyell was even more specific, stating that “he needed a longer time scale” if his view that “geologic change was incremental and gradual…was to work.”

Clearly, both in terms of how it originated historically and even present practice, uniformitarianism begins simply with the desire for the earth to be very, very old.

Conversely, while the formation of geologic features by uniformitarianism remains an indefensible, un-proven, un-provable, un-deducible, and un-observable assumption based upon mere philosophical preference, catastrophism is the only view that is actually observable. In fact, it has been observed. Mount St. Helens provides an excellent example of this. Such examples in which rapid, large-scale geologic feature formation has been directly observed in the last half of the twentieth century will be included in the last section of this article series, a closing list of all the evidences.

Consequently, we have one view, uniformitarianism, which is an unobserved, unobservable, un-provable philosophical preference competing with another view, catastrophism, which is observable, has been observed, and therefore is actual empirical science, not just a mere preferencial assumption. So, the two views are not equal here. Catastrophism is clearly the more scientific because it is based upon observation rather than presupposition.

In fact, there is so much direct, observational evidence for catastrophism that the problems with uniformitarianism do not stop at its un-provable, merely philosophical nature. Not only is uniformitarianism an assumption, but due to the amount of evidence for the role of catastrophes in major feature formation, as a broad view, uniformitarianism has had to contradict its own base assumption.

Modern geologic science and modern uniformitarianism which serves as the foundation principle of modern geology acknowledges that catastrophe does form major geologic features. Catastrophe is acknowledged as having a place within uniformitarian theory.

This can be seen in contrast to Sir Charles Lyell. Lyell rejected any significant role for catastrophes at any point in history. Instead he argued that violent geologic events only occur at the rate and significance that they do at present, never at a greater or more significant rate than the present. Notice the second to last sentence of the quote below specifically states that, according to Lyell, the surface features of the Earth are not altered by even “occasional cataclysmic phenomena” but are entirely the product of small, gradual changes.

“Geochronology, Lyell's promulgation of uniformitarianism – Lyell, however, imposed some conditions on uniformitarianism that perhaps had not been intended by Hutton: he took a literal approach to interpreting the principle of uniformity in nature by assuming that all past events must have conformed to controls exerted by processes that behaved in the same manner as those processes behave today. No accommodation was made for past conditions that do not have modern counterparts. In short, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and other violent geologic events may indeed have occurred earlier in Earth history but no more frequently nor with greater intensity than today; accordingly, the surface features of the Earth are altered very gradually by a series of small changes rather than by occasional cataclysmic phenomena. Lyell's contribution enabled the doctrine of uniformitarianism to finally hold sway, even though it did impose for the time being a somewhat limiting condition on the uniformity principle.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

But modern geology and modern uniformitarianism reject Lyell’s “extreme” position that violent geologic events (such as massive volcanic activity, asteroids and meteorites, and floods) only happened at their current rates and significance. In contrast, it is acknowledged that catastrophes not only play a minor role today at their current rates and size but also that at particular points in earth’s history, they may have played an even larger and more significant role. However, despite these acknowledgements, uniformitarian processes are maintained as the major cause of the bulk of earth’s geologic features.

“Continental landform, Historical survey, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries, Gradualism – Lyell's almost total rejection of any geologic process that was abrupt and suggestive of catastrophe, however, was in itself an extreme posture. Research has shown that both gradual and rapid changes occur.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Continental landform, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries, Catastrophism – During the late 18th and early 19th century, the leading proponent of this view was the German mineralogist Abraham Gottlob Werner. According to Werner, all of the Earth's rocks were formed by rapid chemical precipitation from a “world ocean,” which he then summarily disposed of in catastrophic fashion. Though not directed toward the genesis of landforms in any coherent fashion, his catastrophic philosophy of changes of the Earth had two major consequences of geomorphic significance. First, it indirectly led to the formulation of an opposing, less extreme view by the Scottish scientist James Hutton in 1785. Second, it was in some measure correct: catastrophes do occur on the Earth and they do change its landforms. Asteroid impacts, Krakatoa-type volcanic explosions, hurricanes, floods, and tectonic erosion of mountain systems all occur, may be catastrophic, and can create and destroy landforms. Yet, not all change is catastrophic.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Notice from the last quote above that floods, volcanic explosions, and asteroid impacts are all acknowledged as a factor by Hutton and uniformitarian scientists since Lyell. The phrase “not all change is catastrophic” is a clear acknowledgement that some change is caused by catastrophe. The next quote below confirms this by acknowledging that uniformitarianism can include “past catastrophes” such as “floods or earthquakes” that effected earth’s geologic features and history.

“Geology, II GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY, C Uniformitarianism – Uniformitarianism contrasts with, for example, the idea that past events such as floods or earthquakes were caused by divine intervention or supernatural causes. Catastrophism, which calls on major catastrophes to explain earth's history, is also sometimes contrasted with uniformitarianism. However, uniformitarianism can include past catastrophes.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Regarding catastrophes (even at their current rates) being accommodated with a minor role in uniformitarian theory, here we return to the need for equity. The last line of the quote above states, “uniformitarianism can include past catastrophes.” Why is it acceptable for uniformitarianism to accommodate a minor role for catastrophes, but catastrophism is not allowed to accommodate a minor role for normal, slow processes? Why is it that the mere occurrence of normal processes eroding and changing features to a small degree very slowly is thought to disprove that catastrophes are the cause of major feature formation? In other words, why does the observation of the extremely minor effects of processes like erosion necessarily contradict the theory that features are formed by catastrophe? Can’t catastrophism accommodate a very minor role for normal processes in minutely affecting geologic features after their formation by major catastrophes? Of course it can. The minor impacts of slow, gradual processes do not in anyway contradict catastrophism, which fully recognizes the actual, minor role that we observe these slow processes playing, a role that slightly alters existing features but does not form them. And that is all that we see this slow, normative processes doing.

Effectivley, the difference between the 2 views is a question of percentage (or proportion) – which one better fits what can actually be observed? Which one, uniformitarianism or catastrophism, is a more reasonable conclusion based upon what we actually see? Major features being formed by slow, normal processes but once in a while catastrophes change existing features that were already formed by normal, slow processes? Or, major features being formed by catastrophes but afterward normal, slow processes have a minor impact on those existing features that were formed by catastrophes? The actual observations pose a problem because normal, slow processes can only, even in principle, be observed having minor effects on existing major structures. They have never been seen producing major features. Major features have only been seen formed by catastrophes.

This is a geological parallel to biological evolution where small variations within a species have been observed but no one has ever observed the emergence of a new kind of animal. On both issues, creationism is simply an assertion of what we can and do actually observe. We never see new types of organisms being reproduced from an existing type. As we saw in a previous section, even if true that process would take too long for us to detect or observe it. And likewise, we never see geologic features being formed from slow, gradual, normative processes. Even if true that process would take too long for us to observe. What we have seen is nothing more and nothing less that what creation theory asserts, each type of organism only produces its own type and geologic features only form from catastrophes. It is uniformitarianism and biological evolution that fill in gaps, going beyond the empirical evidence and what is observed to insist that speculations we can never observe are “proven” to be scientifically true. And why? Not because of scientific observation, but because of mere philosophical preferences such as a desire to avoid teleology.

Moving forward, we can also ask exactly how “minor” is the role of catastrophe even in uniformitarianism?

The answer from uniformitarianism is that catastrophes are acknowledged as having a much larger and significant role during the very earliest history of the earth (and at particular points since then) than they do now. Massive volcanic activity, asteroids and meteors, and floods are all acknowledged by modern uniformitarians to have occurred at greater, more significant rates at particular points in the past than they do today and, consequently, to have played a greater role in geologic feature formation at that time.

Specifically, within the uniformitarian, evolutionary worldview, the earliest stages of earth’s history assert that there was much greater volcanic activity and that this increased activity was crucial to the formation of the earth’s geology. According to the quote below, volcanic activity was much greater before the Proterozoic era, which started about 2.5 billion years ago and has been “much less” since then.

“Earth, geologic history of, Development of the atmosphere and oceans, Development of the oceans – The abundance of volcanic rocks of Archean age (3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago) is indicative of the continuing role of intense volcanic degassing, but since the early Proterozoic (from 2.5 billion years ago), much less volcanic activity has occurred.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Let’s take a few moments to cover some basics about volcanic phenomena. Lava is “poured out” onto the earth’s surface between approximately 700 to 1,200 degrees Celcius (1,300 to 2,200 degress Fahrenheit). This is important because it establishes the truly catastrophic nature of having an extensive increase in volcanic activity.

“Lava – magma (molten rock) poured out onto the Earth's surface at temperatures from about 700° to 1,200° C (1,300° to 2,200° F).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Although the top surface of the crust is comprised of “a very thin veneer” of sedimentary rock, igneous rocks are the predominant form of rock that comprises the Earth.

“Igneous rock – any of various crystalline or glassy rocks formed by the cooling and solidification of molten earth material. Igneous rocks comprise one of the three principal classes of rocks, the others being metamorphic and sedimentary. Igneous rocks are formed from the solidification of magma, which is a hot (600° to 1,300° C, or 1,100° to 2,400° F) molten or partially molten rock material. The Earth is composed predominantly of a large mass of igneous rock with a very thin veneer of weathered material—namely, sedimentary rock.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Consequently, according to the next quote below, it is necessary for volcanic activity and the depositing of lava to be so much more “extensive” during the earliest earth history in order for biological evolution to occur. Such an increase would certainly be catastrophic, as it certainly would be regarded if an increase of this magnitute (or even a mere fraction of it) occurred today. Furthermore, that increased volcanic activity in the earth’s past is said to have played a major role in the large-scale formation of igneous rocks (rocks formed by lava) and also iron rock formations. In fact, these events are said to have occured in a large enough quantity to allow life to “bloom” on earth when beforehand it could only have occurred to a narrow, small degree. So, not only is the increase significant but the role of that increase is extremely significant.

“Earth, geologic history of, Development of the atmosphere and oceans, Formation of the secondary atmosphere – Primitive organisms, such as blue-green algae (or cyanobacteria), cause carbon dioxide and water to react by photosynthesis to produce carbohydrates, which they need for growth, repair, and other vital functions, and this reaction releases free oxygen…What happened to all the oxygen that was released? It might be surprising to learn that it took at least 1 billion years before there was sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere for oxidative diagenesis to give rise to red beds (sandstones that are predominantly red in colour due to fully oxidized iron coating individual grains) and that 2.2 billion years passed before a large number of life-forms could evolve. An idea formulated by the American paleontologist Preston Cloud has been widely accepted as an answer to this question. The earliest primitive organisms produced free oxygen as a by-product, and in the absence of oxygen-mediating enzymes it was harmful to their living cells and had to be removed. Fortunately for the development of life on the early Earth there was extensive volcanic activity, which resulted in the deposition of much lava, the erosion of which released enormous quantities of iron into the oceans. This ferrous iron is water-soluble and therefore could be easily transported, but it had to be converted to ferric iron, which is highly insoluble, before it could be precipitated as iron formations. In short, the organisms produced the oxygen and the iron formations accepted it. Iron formations can be found in the earliest sediments (those deposited 3.8 billion years ago) at Isua in West Greenland, and thus this process must have been operative by this time.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

It is also important to note that this role for volcanoes constitutes another major contradiction of uniformitarianism. As we have seen, uniformitarianism asserts that all the earth’s features can be accounted for in terms of assuming the same slow processes occurred in the past in the same manner that they do today.

“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application, Early attempts at calculating the age of the Earth – As previously noted, fundamental to the principle was the premise that various Earth processes of the past operated in much the same way as those processes operate today. The corollary to this was that the rates of the various ancient processes could be considered the same as those of the present day.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Hutton, James – Hutton's view as stated in these papers was that the world's geologic phenomena can be explained in terms of observable processes, and that those processes now at work on and within the Earth have operated with general uniformity over immensely long periods of time.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Not only is uniformity discarded in terms of the amount of volcanic activity but also in terms of the nature or type of volcanic activity. As the next quote below states, even the “component gases” emitted by the volcanoes of the past is asserted to have been different than in modern volcanic processes. Consequently, the uniformitarian, evolutionary worldview breaks from its defining assumption by describing a role for volcanoes that is remarkably different than the present rate and role of volcanic processes. Effectively, geology is inventing a level of volcanic activity and a type of volcanic activity that has no counterpart in the present, normative volcanic processes that we observe today.

“Earth, geologic history of, Development of the atmosphere and oceans, Formation of the secondary atmosphere – The Earth's secondary atmosphere began to develop at the time of planetary differentiation, probably in connection with volcanic activity. Its component gases, however, were most likely very different from those emitted by modern volcanoes.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

So, in summary, according to uniformitarianism, you have much more massive and extensive volcanic activity and lava deposits during earlier eras than occur now. This much more extensive volcanic activity also had different component gases than today’s volcanoes. Consequently, uniformitarianism sets aside its defining principle of “uniformity” whenever it is necessary and whenever it suits evolutionary theory, particularly when setting it aside is necessary for biological evolution to occur. So, not only is uniformitarianism an un-provable philosophical preference, but its one that adherents to uniformitarianism themselves show to be incorrect by discarding and contradicting it.

And volcanic activity is just one example. Meteorite and asteroid impacts are also described as having a significantly larger role in the past than their counterpart processes today. The quote below states that “studies of the moon” have actually demonstrated how “meteorite impacts helped shape the Earth’s surface” during its early history, around “3.5 billion years ago” causing “a violent infancy” for the planet, which lasted for “hundreds of millions of years.” Here again, the catastrophic nature of this increase become clear when we consider how such an increase in meteorite bombardment (or even just a fragment of it) would be considered catastrophic today.

“Geology, History, Geology of the solar system – Geologists also apply what they have learned about other objects to the study of Earth. For instance, studies of the moon showed how meteorite impacts helped shape Earth's surface.” Worldbook, Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn Mawr College.

“The Primeval Biosphere, Figure 11. The primeval biosphere awoke to a tempestuous world of intermittent comet impacts, a steaming-hot ocean, a very thick atmosphere and torrential acid rains. Giant comet impacts would have ejected large amounts of material into space and spun off violent hurricanes and tornadoes.” – An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere, Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientists, Volume 89, 2004

“The Primeval Biosphere – About 3.5 billion years ago large cometary impacts would have become increasingly rare, but when they did occur, they produced enormous cataclysms. The oceans would have boiled near the impact site, causing hurricanes and gigantic waterspouts with fantastic ejections of gas and water into space. Under these chaotic and seemingly inhospitable conditions, a phenomenon occurs that is going to have astonishing consequences: Bacteria begin to multiply in the hot waters of the first oceans.” – An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere, Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientists, Volume 89, 2004

“Astronomers and geologists were discovering that Earth had a violent infancy--hundreds of millions of years after the planet had formed, giant asteroids and comets still crashed into it, burning off its young atmosphere and boiling away its oceans…After the last atmosphere-killing impacts--about 4 billion years ago--smaller comets, meteorites, and dust from space could, in the space of a few hundred million years, have brought enough organic carbon to cover the planet in a layer ten inches deep.” – First Cell, by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER, Vol. 16 No. 11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine

“Earth, geologic history of, The pregeologic period – The history of the Earth spans approximately 4.6 billion years. The oldest known rocks, however, have an isotopic age of only about 3.9 billion years. There is, in effect, a stretch of 700 million years for which no geologic record exists, and the evolution of this pregeologic period of time is not surprisingly the subject of much speculation. To understand this little-known period, the following factors have to be considered: the age of formation at 4.6 billion years ago, the processes in operation until 3.9 billion years ago, the bombardment of the Earth by meteorites, and the earliest zircon crystals…It is known from direct observation that the surface of the Moon is covered with a multitude of meteorite craters. There are about 40 large basins attributable to meteorite impact. Known as maria, these depressions were filled in with basaltic lavas caused by the impact-induced melting of the lunar mantle. Many of these basalts have been analyzed isotopically and found to have crystallization ages of 3.9 to 4 billion years. It can be safely concluded that the Earth, with a greater attractive mass than the Moon, must have undergone more extensive meteorite bombardment. According to the English-born geologist Joseph V. Smith, a minimum of 500 to 1,000 impact basins were formed on the Earth within a period of about 100 to 200 million years prior to 3.95 billion years ago. Moreover, plausible calculations suggest that this estimate represents merely the tail end of an interval of declining meteorite bombardment and that about 20 times as many basins were formed in the preceding 300 million years. Such intense bombardment would have covered most of the Earth's surface, with the impacts causing considerable destruction of the terrestrial crust up to 3.9 billion years ago. There is, however, no direct evidence of this important phase of Earth history because rocks older than 3.9 billion years have not been preserved.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Although about 100 times as many asteroids as comets approach Earth, comets pack a bigger punch—they plunge toward the sun several times faster than asteroids. That means a comet could hit Earth with about 10 times as much energy as an asteroid with the same mass…In 1994 Jupiter's gravity shredded comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 into 21 visible chunks, which then plunged into the gas giant piece after piece. A typical piece detonated with the force of about 25,000 megatons of TNT. A chain of blasts around Earth might wreak more havoc than a single impact.” – To Catch a Comet, by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 24 No. 10, October 2003

“Chemical Evidence – The separation of these layers dates to the earliest period of the Earth’s formation, when it was still accumulating mass by the accretion of planetesimals. The energy of the accretionary impacts was transformed into a heat so intense that Earth’s surface was covered with a thick layer of molten lava, perhaps to very great depths.” – An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere, Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientists, Volume 89, 2004

“Meteorite – Meteorites generally have a pitted surface and fused charred crust. The larger ones strike the earth with tremendous impact, creating huge craters…The meteorites that formed craters as large as the ones in Vredefort, Sudbury, and the Yucatán must have had a devastating effect on the nearby environment, and they also probably affected global weather patterns. The force of collision would have spewed molten rock far around the impact site. Dust and poisonous gases that were produced by the crash when it vaporized minerals in the ground would have darkened the sky over a huge area for months or even years. Many scientists believe that the event that caused the crater in the Yucatán Peninsula may have created global climate changes that led to the extinction of the last of the dinosaurs…Dust and gas circulating in the atmosphere could cut off sunlight for months, killing crops and reducing the food supply for the entire world. Fortunately, astronomers calculate the average frequency of major collisions at only about one collision every 300,000 years. ” – "Meteorite," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

And the increase role of volcanoes and catastrophic impacts is not limited only to the early “infancy” of the earth around 3.5 billion years ago. There have been particular points in time in earth’s history since then when uniformitarian, evolutionary theory has to call upon major catastrophic volcanic activity and asteroid impacts to explain the geologic and biological history of the earth.

In geologic time, the Permean Period is relatively recent compared to 3.5 billion years ago. The Permean Period spans from 286 to 245 million years ago.

“Permian period – last period of the Paleozoic Era. It began about 286 million years ago and ended 245 million years ago, extending from the close of the Carboniferous to the outset of the Triassic.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

And during the Permean Period around 250 million years ago volcanic activity in Siberia is asserted to have increased so massively that it caused the greatest global extinction in the history of the earth.

“Earth, History of Earth – Several times in Earth's history, there have been great extinctions, periods when many of Earth's living things die out. The greatest of these events, called the Permian extinction, happened about 250 million years ago. Almost 90 percent of the species on Earth during the Permian became extinct in a relatively short time. The cause of this event is a mystery, though many scientists suspect that huge volcanic eruptions in what is now Siberia may have disturbed the climate, causing many organisms to die out.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Such a massive rise in volcanic activity effecting “a relatively short time” in geologic history constitutes a significant departure from uniformitarianism.

And a similar case exists with meteorite and asteroid activity. After the Permian Period, there is another extinction involving the dinosaurs near the end of the Cretaceous Period, which was about 65 million years ago. As the quotes below will demonstrate, this extinction is largely believed to have been caused by an asteroid impact in the Yucatan peninsula of North America, which would have had enormous effects on climates and the surface features of the earth. But notice from the quotes, particularly the middle of the first quote, that even if the asteroid impact did not singularly cause the extinction of dinosaurs, that impact and its timing are regarded as fact. So, this massive impact is attested to by other means and is not simply a hypothetical for explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs. However, concerning the extinction of the dinosaurs, notice also from the end of the first quote below that a once again a significant increase in volcanic activity is listed as an alternate or auxiliary explanation, which would also constitute a major departure from uniformitarianism.

“Dinosaurs, The search for dinosaurs, The K–T boundary event – It was not only the dinosaurs that disappeared 65 million years ago at the Cretaceous–Tertiary, or K–T, boundary. Many other organisms became extinct or were greatly reduced in abundance and diversity, and the extinctions were quite different between, and even among, marine and terrestrial organisms…Whatever factors caused it, there was undeniably a major, worldwide biotic change near the end of the Cretaceous. But the extermination of the dinosaurs is the best-known change by far, and it has been a puzzle to paleontologists, geologists, and biologists for two centuries. Many hypotheses have been offered over the years to explain dinosaur extinction, but only a few have received serious consideration. Proposed causes have included everything from disease to heat waves and resulting sterility, freezing cold spells, the rise of egg-eating mammals, and X rays from a nearby exploding supernova. Since the early 1980s, attention has focused on the so-called asteroid theory put forward by the American geologist Walter Alvarez, his father, physicist Luis Alvarez, and their coworkers. This theory is consistent with the timing and magnitude of some extinctions, especially in the oceans, but it does not fully explain the patterns on land and does not eliminate the possibility that other factors were at work on land as well as in the seas…The asteroid theory – The discovery of an abnormally high concentration of the rare metal iridium at, or very close to, the K–T boundary provides what has been recognized as one of those rare instantaneous geologic time markers that seem to be worldwide. This iridium anomaly, or spike, was first found by Walter Alvarez in the Cretaceous–Tertiary stratigraphic sequence at Gubbio, Italy, in the 1970s. The spike has subsequently been detected at hundreds of localities in Denmark and elsewhere, both in rock outcrops on land and in core samples drilled from ocean floors…Because the levels of iridium are higher in meteorites than on the Earth, the Gubbio anomaly is thought to have an extraterrestrial explanation…The level of iridium in meteorites has been accepted as representing the average level throughout the solar system and, by extension, the universe. Accordingly, the iridium concentration at the K–T boundary is widely attributed to a collision between the Earth and a huge meteoror asteroid. The size of the object is estimated at about 10 km (6.2 miles) in diameter and one quadrillion metric tons in weight; the velocity at the time of impact is reckoned to have been several hundreds of thousands of kilometres per hour. The crater resulting from such a collision would be some 100 km or more in diameter. Such an impact site (called an astrobleme), known as the Chicxulub crater, may have been identified in the Yucatán Peninsula. The asteroid theory is widely accepted as the most probable explanation of the K–T iridium anomaly, but it does not appear to account for all the paleontological data. An impact explosion of this kind would have ejected an enormous volume of terrestrial and asteroid material into the atmosphere, producing a cloud of dust and solid particles that would have encircled the Earth and blocked out sunlight for many months, possibly years. The loss of sunlight could have eliminated photosynthesis and resulted in the death of plants and the subsequent extinction of herbivores, their predators, and scavengers. The K–T mass extinctions, however, do not seem to be fully explained by this hypothesis…It is entirely possible that a culmination of ordinary biological changes and some catastrophic events, including increased volcanic activity, took place around the end of the Cretaceous.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Dinosaur, VII EXTINCTION, Controversy surrounds the extinction of the dinosaurs – According to one theory, dinosaurs were slowly driven to extinction by environmental changes linked to the gradual withdrawal of shallow seas from the continents at the end of the dinosaurian era. Proponents of this theory postulate that dinosaurs dwindled in number and variety over several million years. An opposing theory proposes that the impact of an asteroid or comet caused catastrophic destruction of the environment, leading to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Evidence to support this theory includes the discovery of a buried impact crater (thought to be the result of a large comet striking the earth) that is 200 km (124 mi) in diameter in the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico. A spray of debris, called an ejecta sheet, which was blown from the edge of the crater, has been found over vast regions of North America. Comet-enriched material from the impact's fiery explosion was distributed all over the world. With radiometric dating (see Dating Methods: Radiometric Dating), scientists have used the decay rates of certain atoms to date the crater, ejecta sheet, and fireball layer. Using similar techniques to date the dramatic changes in the record of microscopic fossils, they have found that the impact and the dinosaur extinction occurred nearly simultaneously. Although large amounts of ash suggest that most of North and South America was devastated by fire from the impact, the longer-term planetwide environmental effects of the impact were ultimately more lethal to life than the fire. Dust blocked sunlight from the earth's surface for many months. Scorched sulfur from the impact site, water vapor and chlorine from the oceans, and nitrogen from the air combined to produce a worldwide fallout of intensely acidic rain. Scientists postulate that darkness and acid rain caused plant growth to cease. As a result, both the herbivorous dinosaurs, which were dependent on plants for food, as well as the carnivorous dinosaurs, which fed on the herbivores, were exterminated. On the other hand, animals such as frogs, lizards, and small insect-eating turtles and mammals, which were dependent on organisms that fed on decaying plant material, were more likely to survive. Their survival indicates that, in most areas, the surface of the earth did not freeze.” – "Dinosaur," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Dinosaur, Why dinosaurs died out – Scientists have developed many theories to explain dinosaur extinction. The two major theories involve (1) gradual climate changes and (2) the collision of an asteroid with the earth. The first theory argues that, toward the end of the Cretaceous Period, the shallow seas dried up and the climate became more varied everywhere around the globe. Winters became too cold and summers too hot for dinosaurs to survive. Dinosaurs were too large to hibernate in dens, and they had no fur or feathers for protection against the cold. They also probably had difficulty cooling off in hot weather. Thus, death and extinction came as a result of gradually colder winters and hotter summers. The other major extinction theory claims that a large asteroid hit the earth at the end of the Cretaceous. This asteroid impact would have thrown billions of tons of dust and debris into the atmosphere. Heat from the impact may have caused huge fires worldwide. Together the clouds of smoke and debris would have blocked sunlight from reaching the surface of the earth for many months. Although the seeds and roots of plants had a good chance of surviving this lightless period, the plants themselves stopped growing and died. If the catastrophe was severe and widespread enough, plant-eating dinosaurs would have starved to death. As the plant-eaters died, so did the meat-eating dinosaurs that fed on them. In addition, the darkened skies caused land temperatures to drop below freezing for 6 to 12 months in many parts of the world. Such low temperatures further damaged the dinosaur populations. According to the asteroid theory, small mammals and birds survived because they were protected from the cold by fur or feathers. Mammals and birds also could feed entirely on seeds, nuts, and rotting vegetation. Other survivors may have escaped extinction because they could live at the bottom of lakes or burrow underground. Most scientists, however, feel that no single theory completely explains why dinosaurs suffered extinction. They argue that a combination of causes contributed to the dinosaurs' disappearance.” – Worldbook, Contributor: David B. Weishampel, Ph.D., Professor, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

The relevance of these admissions is simple. The uniformitarian view is not only an assumption, but it is a view that contradicts its main assumption. Consequently, uniformitarianism is shown to be scientifically less valid than catastrophism for 2 reasons. First, uniformitarianism cannot be observed whereas catastrophism has been observed, as we will see in our next section. And second, uniformitarianism contradicts itself and does so in a way that affirms the dramatic role of unique catastrophes that have no counterpart in present, slow, normative processes.

Furthermore, since uniformitarianism ends up actually asserting catastrophism, the only difference between the Biblical catastrophism model and evolutionary theory is when, or how long ago, the catastrophic period occurred. Was the catastrophe billions of years ago, or was the catastrophe only a few thousand years ago? Moreover, the potential interaction between both a cataclysmic event, such as an asteroid impact, and a climate change to cause the extinction of the dinosaurs makes the Biblical model all the more plausible (especially if the Flood was triggered in part, either directly or indirectly, by a meteor or asteroid collision).

Ultimately, given uniformitarianism’s acknowledgement of the contributions of violent catastrophic early stages in earth’s history, the major departures from uniformitarianism in terms of volcanoes and meteors at particular instances since the earliest times, and the acknowledgement of the minor role that catastrophes of this kind continue to play at their present rates and magnitudes, the insistence upon uniformitarianism as the primary mechanism for geologic feature formation and the rejection of catastrophism is shown to be meaningless nonsense. As we can see, catastrophe simply does play the role that catastrophism theory and creationism ascribes to it.

And not only is uniformitarianism contradicted by its own acknowledgements, but it is also contradicted by the evidence for the particular catastrophe of a global Flood. And that leads us to our next segment.