Why Are All the Geologists Wrong?

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Thursday, April 11, 2019 4 comments

by Steve Risner

Today we'll be looking at the last question in a series of 10 that Michael Roberts wants to ask “young earth,” aka Biblical, creationists. This week's question is fairly easy and has been partially answered in the previous posts regarding his 10 questions, but we'll get on with it here:

Why do you claim that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?

As is my custom, I try to answer short and sweet if possible. This has more than one answer that's fairly obvious, at least to me. The first one is that the last 350 years of geological study disagrees with the Bible's clear teaching on earth's history. It doesn't get any more obvious. However, the second answer is a little more detailed.

Over the last 350 years, geologists frequently have started their observations of the evidence with the wrong assumptions. These assumptions force geologists to interpret the evidence a particular way. Those assumptions are that of deep time and that there was no global Flood as described by the Bible. If we reject the clear teachings of the Word of God, how can we even suggest we are following the God of the Bible? Sure, many of these old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists will say they accept Christ's teachings and the apostles’ teachings, but why? If we reject some of it, what standard do we use to know if we should accept what the Bible says in one place and reject other parts? I'm seriously asking. If the answer is “science,” then we're lost already.

The bottom line is this: if your worldview places the authority of science (or in this case what you mistakenly believe is science) over that of Scripture and you use that so-called science to determine how the Bible is to be interpreted, you've placed something before the authority God has over you. This is especially true if those portions of Scripture you're choosing to reinterpret based on your view of nature are major foundational points of the Christian faith.

Why do old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists reject the creation account and timeline for creation as clearly expressed in the Word of God? It is contrary to the time scales required by the humanist origins myth. There's really nothing more to it. It's easy to understand why an unbeliever would accept such things, but why would a follower of Christ? Generally, again, it has to do with their worldview. They've accepted the idea that the earth is old and will not reject that. There is ample evidence to the contrary, especially the most powerful evidence—the eyewitness account of God's Holy Word. However, they've determined that the Bible wasn't meant to give us these truths. They've decided that men who hated God or, at the very least rejected Him as the Creator, were the ones who would give us the truth about the earth's past. This “truth” these God-deniers have proposed is totally at odds with the clear teaching of Genesis and is necessary for the humanist origins myth, beginning with the Big Bang and following through all the way to the origin of life and, eventually, man's evolution. That's not to say that all of those who accept deep time rather than what the Bible says are evolutionists, but this is fairly common.

Then there is the rejection of the global nature of the Flood found in the early chapters of Genesis. If the old earth creationist or theistic evolutionist believes there was some sort of flood, it is a variety of flood that is inconsistent with the Flood recorded in Genesis 6-9. The Flood found in the book of Genesis is unmistakably global and violently catastrophic, lasting for a year, and many recovery events likely took place for a long time afterwards. This devastation destroyed the surface of the earth, every air-breathing land animal that was not on the ark, and every human being on earth except those found on the ark. Why would believers reject this narrative found in the Bible? Because it answers many of the questions they have concerning geology and other fields of study while destroying their preconceived ideas of deep time. It essentially erases much of their evidence for deep time.

Why are there countless rock layers all over the globe, some of which span entire continents or from one continent to another? There was a global Flood that produced all of these layers of sediment. Why are there billions and billions of dead things in mass graves all over the globe buried in some of these rock layers? There was a global Flood that killed them all. Why are there traditions all over the world that divulge much of the information found in the Bible's narrative of the Flood—cultures that, according to some, would have no connection to the Hebrews or their holy books? There was a global Flood and the people that survived passed down the story from one generation to the next. Why was there an Ice Age at all? Because all the activity that created/maintained a global catastrophe like the Flood warmed the oceans but put a great deal of dust in the air, cooling the air temperature. This with the added moisture was a perfect environment for lots and lots of snow.

Why do some cultures that seemingly have no connection to the book of Genesis trace their lineages all the way back to the sons of Noah or even to Adam? Because these people groups separated at Babel and carried their family trees with them after the Flood. Why are there places and people groups all over the world that have a direct connection to Noah's grandsons or other relatives listed in the Table of Nations? Again, these people were real people who founded these people groups and settled in these places that still have a connection to these ancestors. (More on that can be found here.)

Why are there fossil beds all over the world with mixtures of organisms from geologically different ages—vastly different in many cases—and why are these bone beds never talked about by deep time proponents or evolutionists? We find these because there is no such thing as “geologic time,” because everything was created just over 6,000 years ago. All these organisms, including humans, died together in a global Flood as described by the Bible. Check out the Ashley fossil beds in the southern U.S.

After yet another appeal to authority and appeal to majority, Mr. Roberts then explains that geologists can make mistakes. Isn't that big of him? He downplays this, saying that the mistakes geologists make are small. By whose standard is he suggesting this? If their starting point or preconceived ideas about the history of the earth is off and this forces them to interpret all the evidence incorrectly, how can he possibly suggest their mistakes are small? There's so much to say about his bias here, but I must move on.

His final statement is really just another attempt to sound like he knows what he's talking about but exposes his lack of understanding on how this all works. He says, “So far no young earther has given an argument against geological time which has any validity.” Says who? Mr. Roberts, a retired Anglican priest? I'm sorry to be rude, but who is he? If the numbers he suggests for how many creationist geologists are out there are even near correct (they likely are not, according to Creation Ministries International and others), it's rather impressive how much great material there is out there. The Flood models and theories that have arisen in just the last 40 years are astounding. This is with very few working on it and very little money to support it. How impressive is that?

There is a great deal that not only geologists but many different experts in a variety of fields of study have shown that is supportive of the Bible and its claims about creation, the Flood, and the timelines involved. It's a huge faith booster and confirms that our faith, the faith of the Bible-believing Christian, is supported by the evidence which is all around us. It's not a blind faith like that of the atheist (who looks very much like many old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists regarding these subjects). However, in all that, the ONLY argument that should matter to any follower of Jesus Christ is that found in Scripture. The case is abundantly clear, but I suppose this only matters if we view the Word of God as the final authority.

James Barr of Oxford puts it this way: “Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the ‘days’ of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”

James Barr is not a Biblical creationist at all, yet he knows fully that the text is clear. It's unfortunate that Christians will willfully toss these amazing narratives out because they don't fit their preconceived ideas. They've placed an authority higher than the standard of God's Word which in and of itself reveals their worldview.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.


ashleyhr said...


All those CMI evidences you allude to have been refuted:

Meanwhile another pro-science Christian geologist produced another list:

Steve Risner said...

Hi Ashley. Thanks for commenting.

"Refuted" is something you wish to be true, but isn't necessarily. In fact, I've found much of the "refutations" scoffers talk about are merely a difference in opinion. Is that all you have? You think your opinion trumps someone else's?

Suggesting deep time advocates are "pro-science" tells me you're either totally ignorant on what this debate is about or you're just trying to misleadingly discredit those of us who trust the Bible. The debate has NEVER (I cannot stress this enough and apparently you refuse to get it) been between Christianity and science. Not for a moment. The bulk of modern science (its branches and foundations) were wrought by Biblical creationists. I've given you long lists of examples of those who've been responsible for the birth of modern science. You've said I'm wrong but have offered nothing to counter...another "refutation" that is a baseless opinion.

Steve Risner said...

From a scientist who might disagree with your naive take on the debate here:

"I trust science completely - it is scientists that I find I often cannot trust. Two people can look at exactly the same information and draw two very different conclusions based on their worldview and both say it is science."---Steve Meyers, nuclear engineer specializing in gamma spectrometry

ashleyhr said...

"Is that all you have? You think your opinion trumps someone else's?" It's hard evidence - outlined in those links. It's not just an opinion. In any case all you have is what I have in reverse - articles trying to argue for the opposite ie shallow time.

Anti deep time advocates are anti-science. By that I mean they are the hardline non-conformist minority who are rejecting of the international scientific consensus on the age of the Earth (and the wider universe - in which we have photographed a supermassive black hole 55 million light years from Earth). They are not the consensus. They are those who refuse to accept that consensus. They are not the only kind of Christian either.

The blogger (Jonathan) at AgeofRocks is pro-science on the age of the Earth. Those words by Stephen Meyer "Two people can look at exactly the same information and draw two very different conclusions based on their worldview and both say it is science" are of course correct. And they disprove nothing I wrote above. Nothing. (Nor what you are trying to argue that I must have meant - this debate IS between your form of Christianity and geological science. Your form of Christianity rejects swathes of so-called historical science. Other forms of Christianity do not or do so to a lesser extent. I am talking not about the history of science - but arguments that take place NOW. You are not going to get me sidetracked. Sorry.)