In the May 25, 2008 edition of the Charleston Gazette, Editor James A. Haught wrote an article I would like to respond to. The article was entitled “In Appalachia, the mountains tell tales of geology.”
Haught tells of seeing the Appalachia Mountains in which workers have cut into to make roads in the state of West Virginia, and the splendor of the geologic wonder and beauty now seen in the rock strata lines that have been exposed. This aspect of wonder and beauty I have to agree with Haught, for we are truly blessed to be able to see this. This is just about as far as Haught and I would agree on this subject.
Haught wrote…
Originally, gravity caused rock strata to be formed flat, layer upon layer, during vast eras. But some Appalachian rock isn't flat. It twists upward at bizarre angles along exposed roadsides. When I see mountain layers tipped upright, I'm boggled by the incredible pressure that caused such a marvel.
This boggled feeling Haught speaks of has caused many evolutionists headaches since these lines of rock strata have been exposed. Something does not add up if evolution is true, for the layers do indeed “twist” as Haught claims. This was a major problem with the evolutionists when they first discovered what the layers looked like. It bothered them to the point they had to make up something in order for this to fit their world. Notice how Haught follows the evolutionist down this path towards a typical unfounded and rather huge jump to reason this boggled feeling blaming it on pressure and time.
Haught goes on to give the typical 400 million year routine that all evolutionist give, (the more years the better) saying…
”Most scientists think the plate movement is impelled by heat currents in the plastic underlayer, and by gravity's downward pull on mile-high new lava ridges in mid-ocean. A few think Earth's rotation and the moon's pull are factors.”
The “most scientist think” is a phrase added in most evolutionist writings to lend the credence of many scientists and that the idea given is not something new and is backed by many. But are “most scientists” always right? History will show us that this group of “most scientists” are wrong many, many times in their thinking. So one must ask, what do other scientists think?
Well, a Creation scientist sees the twist in the strata and smiles while saying “I knew it.”
In the early days of geology, especially during the 17th and 18th centuries, the leading explanation for the sedimentary rocks and their fossilized contents was that they had been laid down in the great Flood of the days of Noah. This was the view of Steno, the "father of stratigraphy", whose principles of stratigraphic interpretation are still followed today, and of John Woodward, Sir Isaac Newton’s hand-picked successor at Cambridge, whose studies on sedimentary processes laid the foundation for modern sedimentology and geomorphology.
Toward the end of the 18th century, and especially in the first half of the 19th century, the ancient pagan evolutionary philosophies began to be revived and promoted by the various socialistic revolutionary movements of the times.
But what do the facts tell us?
Scientist Henry Madison Morris, Ph.D. says..
“The actual facts of geology still favored catastrophism.”
This is what Haught and others have seen that does not make sense in the evolutionary scheme. It is evidence of a worldwide flood. But rather than accepting the exposed evidence and admit they were wrong, they go on to work out a wild story of rocks bending over 400 million years. Folks, rocks will never bend.
In his article “Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages” scientist John Baumgardner, Ph.D. tells of the bad reasoning and the passing of the evolutionist torch without verification of the facts.
Although creationists have long pointed out the rock formations themselves testify unmistakably to water catastrophism on a global scale, evolutionists generally have ignored this testimony. This is partly due to the legacy of the doctrine of uniformitarianism passed down from one generation of geologists to the next since the time of Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century.
Other scientists seem to agree with this..
From “"Ages" For Grand Canyon Lava Flows”
by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.
Everyone has heard about the great ages claimed by evolutionists for the earth's rocks. This is particularly true of Grand Canyon rocks. Television documentaries, textbooks, and museum displays tell us that the deepest rock layers within Grand Canyon are more than one billion years old. The same evolutionary sources tell us that the most recent rocks of Grand Canyon are just thousands of years old. The great thickness of strata in Grand Canyon is supposed to span "geologic ages" representing many hundreds of millions of years.
Have these claims of hundreds of millions of years with Grand Canyon strata been verified? Do radioactive isotope dating methods provide convincing evidence for billion-year-old rocks?
Austin goes on to tell of the research he and others have undertaken to test the "ages" idea by use of the best radioactive isotope that we have. The project was called “Grand Canyon Dating Project.”
Austin’s group found that newer “young lava flow” was showing dates to be older then the really old buried lava flows, which caused even more doubt to be cast upon the date testing method adhered to by many Evolutionists. This conclusion led Austin to end his report with this statement.
“We might ask, has anyone successfully dated a Grand Canyon rock?”
I think this is a fair issue that must be addressed. If we cannot trust the best radioactive testing process, then something is wrong with the process.
The frustration is felt by all evolution based scientists that do not believe God made the world. Their ideas do not work when the evidence is discovered just as we see in our own strata along the interstate. When a evolutionist sees the twisted strata they know something is not right with their idea, and they must invent a new idea for it to work. They resort to such bizarre things as bending rocks and millions of years, but rely on failed aging practices to back this view.
Would it not be easier to drop the evolutionist idea? To a creationist this sounds like the easiest and most logical way to handle it. But you must consider the ramifications of such action in the scientific world. If they did so, in the end, they would have to admit there is a God. People will go to great lengths to deny creation, for if there be creation, there must also be a Creator.
It is God that people reject in creation. If God could some how be removed from the creation formula, nearly all would embrace the clear facts shown in the overwhelming evidence of creation. But being a Creator is needed, in the creation model, man will insist on foolish ways, in order not to believe. For if there is a God, then man also knows that there is sin.
Psalm 19:1
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork”
Indeed the heavens do declare the glory of God, and also the strata in the West Virginia mountains declare it as well. Next time you travel down the interstate, look at the wonders and beauty of our earth. And when you come across a twisted strata, look close and see if those twisted strata lines do not look just like a wave of water. Know that these lines point to a almighty God.
What do I see when I see a rock? I see something that was made by a powerful God.
The God that made this world has also given us a book called the Bible. In it you will find many things about a powerful holy God including these words
…
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
With this verse, I rest my case.