Is Genesis History? Page #4

It reached that distance.

Think lava flows in India ...

... where you have an accumulation of up to one thousand feet ...

... over an area measuring one third of the subcontinent of India.

What we see in this is really just tiny ...

... compared to what we have seen in the past ...

... and that is saying something about the historical past.

We can not use the present rhythms of these processes to understand ...

... how fast and how majestically in terms of scale ...

... the accumulated geological record.

Well, that's the point that brought me to you ...

... because how we determine the age of these rocks?

Well, the important thing is to first recognize ...

... This lava flow is in a sense a moment in time.

It is an event.

And when it is melted, you have all the different elements ...

... leaving the volcano all mixed ...

... and the rock begins to crystallize.

Any of the atoms are radioactive ...

... begin to accumulate in what we call ...

... products son, the decay products.

Now, the point is that the decay rate is so slow ...

... where we measure in this ...

... it takes millions of years ...

... so that the atoms decay into atoms father son.

And it is that where are the millions of years,

that the decay rate at present is slow.

But we would say that this is not ...

... really the key to the past ...

... because obviously the past contains some events ...

... catastrophic mass that are not happening today.

In fact, the Bible would say ...

... the past is the key to the present.

If you want to understand why the world is as it is today ...

... you have to understand what happened in the past.

So we have many clues that geological processes ...

... they have not been in constant rates over time ...

... and now we have other clues that decay rates ...

... it could not have been constant.

So we've taken rock samples from a variety of places.

Many signs in the Grand Canyon ...

... each of those layers of rock.

I have done in New Zealand.

We have done elsewhere in the world.

And what we have done is to submit the same samples ...

... more than one of these dating methods.

And what we found is that in the same samples ...

... with more than one method, we are getting dates ...

... which they differ by hundreds of millions of years ...

... and even billions of dollars in some cases.

We are seeing big differences using different methods.

Well, if there is that kind of difference ...

... among all dating methods ...

... then that it seems to confirm that in fact we ...

... an open system here, no one closed.

Right.

And if we have an open system, then we can not trust him ...

... to give us reliable dates for these rocks.

And that changes the whole way of thinking ...

... about the history of the Earth because suddenly ...

... now these radioactive clocks are unreliable.

We have evidence that the rate was faster in the past.

Of suddenly we could not be thinking in terms of millions of years.

We might be thinking in terms of a story that is much shorter.

You were saying that this kind of evidence is ...

... in the literature now.

Yes Yes.

Why you are not making an impact?

Well, I've been wondering that ...

... when I've spoken in geology departments of the universities ...

... and the answer is that there is a commitment ...

... with the millions of years.

And so when people clung to that approach ...

... anything outside his field of vision that conflicts ...

... with that approach it is marginalized.

And the reason why ...

... the millions of years are important,

If we go back in history of scientific thought,

Charles Lyell in England proposed the millions of years ...

... and they multiplied ages for rocks.

And that was the foundation on which Charles Darwin built.

In fact, he read Charles Lyell's book and became convinced ...

... of millions of years of geological evolution ...

... so now he could say that given enough time ...

... what we see not happen in the present.

Could see only small changes in the present.

But if we have millions of years, small changes ...

... they can accumulate to become big changes.

So if you want to have a new way of looking at history ...

... that says we arrived here by chance,

random processes over millions of years,

then you have to have rocks that are millions of years old.

Otherwise you've undermined the whole foundation ...

... that way of seeing the history of the Earth.

So time becomes the critical element ...

... for the conventional paradigm ...

... and that time has to be a deep time.

Andrew said that when studying the rock formations,

One shows evidence of a young earth transformed ...

... by a global catastrophe.

So he took me south of Sedona for him to see with my own eyes.

The important thing to note here is that ...

... This landscape is really very stable.

There was a lot of erosion in the past ...

... to till this whole field,

but those cliffs and valley floor are very stable,

why we vegetation.

Today everything is much, much quieter.

Current processes are extremely slow ...

... but they can not explain how we got this erosion,

how do we get these layers, how do we get these cliffs.

Okay, you wanted to come here because you saw the evidence ...

... of a young Earth by what we found here.

What do you see?

Yes. Well, the first thing we noticed ...

... it is the extension of these layers.

It's like a stack of pancakes.

For example, the red unit that crosses all ...

... our view, that is the formation Schnebly Hill.

And on it you can see it first white unit,

Coconino Sandstone.

And on the horizon you have the Kaibab limestone,

which it is the rock on the surface of the Grand Canyon.

And we are, 70 miles from the Grand Canyon here ...

... and these layers are still here.

It is hard to imagine the volume of material it represents.

Yes.

For instance, sandstone Coconino.

We can trace it from here right through New Mexico,

Colorado, up to Kansas ...

... and Oklahoma, or even in Texas.

We're talking about at least 200,000 square miles ...

... consisting of a rocky drive for miles and miles and miles.

That's not the scale we see today,

with localized sedimentation.

And to get this way is lying in such a large area,

it's like having to do a pancake ...

... at the same time very quickly.

So these layers show evidence of rapid sedimentation,

the extension of these layers.

Well, Andrew, you were talking about that red training ...

... but that does not sound familiar.

No, that's the Schnebly Hill formation.

Not in the Grand Canyon.

At the Grand Canyon we Coconino formation Hermit.

And that limit is sharp edge ...

... and there is no evidence of erosion here,

which means that the formation was deposited quickly Hermit ...

... and then immediately Coconino was deposited thereon.

But here we are 70 miles from the Grand Canyon ...

... and we have this training Schnebly Hill ...

... between Coconino and Hermit.

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes