The Institute for Creation Research

NOTE:  The call for papers for the Sixth International Conference on Creationism (ICC) is now closed. Please visit www.icc08.org for information about attending the conference.
    [body_edit] => 
NOTE:  The call for papers for the Sixth International Conference on Creationism (ICC) is now closed. Please visit www.icc08.org for information about attending the conference.
    [typeID] => 10
    [visible] => t
    [pdf] => 
    [publishURL] => call-papers-for-sixth-international-conference-cre
    [publishDate] => 0000-00-00
    [authorAsterisk] => f
    [domainID] => 1
    [publication] => 
    [volume] => 
    [issue] => 
    [page] => 
    [author] => 
)
-->

Negative Responses to The Genesis Flood 

In the late 1980s, about twenty-five years after the publication of our book, two significant counter-movements began to appear. Both of these movements were opposed to naturalistic Darwinism, but, at the same time, were opposed to Biblical and scientific creationism. 
From a Biblical perspective, this was sadly predictable. Paul confronted the church at Corinth with these words: "There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" (I Corinthians 11:19). On the one hand, this can be a healthy process. God's people must not adopt any view just because of a human authority figure, however brilliant or eloquent. Each of us needs to examine the "Scriptures daily" to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). On the other hand, large numbers of Christians have been deceived into abandoning Biblical truth. 
Progressive Creationism
The first of these movements is called "progressive creationism," represented especially by Dr. Hugh Ross, a Christian astronomer. He believes that creation began many billions of years ago with a so-called "big bang"; that animals were supernaturally and periodically created (not evolved) through millions of years; that Adam's rebellion against God did not cause death in the animal kingdom; and that the Flood was local in extent. He believes that the Bible's 66 books are fully inspired, but need to be reinterpreted in the light of a 67th book, namely modern science. 
In January, 2003, the Institute for Creation Research responded in depth to the challenges of "progressive creationism." I was invited to join three scientists and another theologian to participate in eight panel discussions and responses to the views of Dr. Ross. (After Eden: Understanding Creation, the Curse, and the Cross.) I was especially amazed at the futile effort of "progressive creationists" to reduce the Genesis Flood to a Mesopotamian catastrophe in order to justify millions of years of sedimentation and fossilization before the creation of mankind. 
The Intelligent Design Movement
The second counter-movement is even more amazing to behold. It is called "the intelligent-design movement" (IDM), and is dedicated to the proposition that atheistic naturalism and neo-Darwinian evolutionism have completely failed to explain the irreducible complexity of living things. ID scholars also believe that evolutionism can be defeated by scientific and rationalistic arguments without any appeal to the Bible or to the Creator of the world, our Lord Jesus Christ. 
Every Christian should applaud legitimate efforts to restore sanity and reality to the study of ultimate origins. Most IDM augmentation is, to this extent, on target. The tragedy of the movement, however, is that it deliberately stops short of honoring God's written revelation on origins, the Bible. In fact, the book of Genesis as literal history seems to be an embarrassment and an unwanted and unnecessary burden to bear in their debate with evolution-oriented scientists. 
Dr. Philip Johnson, IDM's leading spokesman counsels: "Get the Bible and the book of Genesis out of the debate, because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, `Do you need a Creator to do the 



creating, or can nature do it on its own?' and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, . . . . They'll ask, `What do you think of Noah's flood?' or something like that. Never bite on such questions because they'll lead you into a trackless wasteland and you'll never get out of it" ("Berkeley's Radical" in Touchstone 15:5 [June, 2002], p. 41). 
Indeed, to assert that the universe is the product of an Intelligent Designer is an essential foundation for origins study. But it is only the very bottom rung of the ladder that leads upward to full Creation Truth. It is vastly insufficient! To truly honor God and to bring genuine light into this enormously important question, one must also believe in the divinely inspired account of origins in Genesis 1 and 2 and in God's record of the magnitude of the Flood in Genesis 6-9. True Christians should be deeply shocked to learn that the Son of God, by Whom all things were "created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth" (Colossians 1:16), the One "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3), the ultimate Designer of all life, matter, energy, space, and time, has been practically ignored by these who write so eloquently of "intelligent design." 
In response, we humbly insist that it is essential to believe the Genesis record of origins in order to please God. This obviously includes the manner in which living things were created ("full-grown," with a superficial appearance of history); the order in which things were created; and the duration of creation events (six 24-hour days only a few thousand years ago). Our Lord explained that Adam and Eve were created "at the beginning"—not millions of years after the earth came into existence (Matthew 19:4). Thus, it is also essential to believe that death in the animal kingdom did not occur before the creation of mankind, but was an effect of Adam's rebellion (Genesis 1:31; and Romans 5:12 in the light of Romans 8:20-23). Trillions of fossilized plants and animals all over the world, with very rare exceptions, can only be explained in terms of the global catastrophism of the Genesis Flood. 
In the creation/evolution debate today, there is a truly frightening element that is sadly neglected and can lead to one's eternal loss. Our Lord said: "Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of Him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He shall come in His own glory" (Luke 9:26). If we leave Christ Himself out of the discussion, how, then, can we truly help people who are walking in the darkness of materialistic evolutionism? 
We agree that discussions and debates concerning Intelligent Design can (in God's providence) temporarily catch the attention of unbelieving minds. But saving faith can only come through the acceptance of the living and powerful Word of God (Hebrews 4:12) and its witness to the finished work of Christ upon the Cross and His bodily resurrection from the dead (cf. Romans 10:9-10). That is why the apostle Paul ended his powerful presentation of Intelligent Design to the Athenian philosophers on Mars Hill by asserting that the true and living God of creation now commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:16-18). He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead (vv.30-31). It was because he honored the Lord Jesus in this address that some men joined him and believed (v.34). On another occasion, Paul wrote: "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Romans 1:16). 
Here, then, is the burning question that modern proponents of Intelligent Design must answer: are people believing in Christ as Lord and Savior and experiencing a profound renewing of their hearts and minds as a result of hearing their message? 
God's words, not ours, can change men's destiny. Saving faith, "cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:9,17). This is the only "wedge" that can separate evolutionists from the blindness of sin and bring them to a full knowledge of Christ the Creator of the world and the only Savior of men. 
Thus, while Dr. Hugh Ross and his followers have attempted to reduce the mountain-covering, year-long Deluge in the days of Noah all the way down to a local flooding in Mesopotamia, the Intelligent Design scientists and philosophers officially ignore not only the Genesis record of the Flood, but also the entire book of Genesis and the sixty-five God-inspired books which follow it. 
Conclusion
Truly, God's people around the world must make a huge decision concerning the origin of the world: either we take God at His Word because of Who He is, and the God who never lies; or surrender our minds to the ever-changing opinions of finite and sinful men who are saying more loudly than ever before: "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." But God gives us His infinite and eternal perspective on such thinking: "This they willingly are ignorant of, . . . the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:5-6). 
Our Lord Jesus Christ confirmed to us that in the days of Noah ". . . they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away" (Matthew 24:38-39). Stop to think: Our Lord said that one man survived "the flood" by entering "the ark" when "the flood came, and took them all away." Could this possibly mean that a regional flood, which did not need any kind of an ark for Noah to survive, took away only some people? Or, as some Christian men of science believe, all mankind in those days was confined to just one region, so that a regional flood could indeed take them "all" away? But even in such a highly unlikely scenario, would an "ark" really be needed? Could not Noah and his family, given even a two-month warning have escaped a regional flood? Would all birds, mammals and reptiles in the world have been destroyed by a regional flood? 
The bottom line is this: was the Son of God a dependable source of information about the Flood? Could He ever deceive people? Was He serious when He said: "If ye believe not [Moses'] writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:47). 
With all of its deficiencies, then, God has apparently used our book to help thousands of people around the world take the Bible more seriously. It does not require great skills in Biblical theology and hermeneutics and exegesis to understand God's message concerning the depth, extent, and significance of the Flood. 
Biblical catastrophism, in the final analysis, stands firmly upon the foundation of divine revelation in Scripture, not on the finite and ever-changing theories of men. 
* Dr. Whitcomb is co-author of The Genesis Flood. This article is an adaptation of a message given at the Answers in Genesis Mega-Conference on July 18, 2005. 
    [body_edit] => 
The Genesis Flood has been a life-changing experience for its authors, even since 1961 when our book was published. My highly esteemed and long-time friend, Henry M. Morris, co-author of The Genesis Flood, joins me in giving praise to God for allowing our 550-page book to be published and I quote: "The publication of The Genesis Flood made a tremendous difference in my life, culminating in a change from engineering to full-time concentration on creationism and Christian evidences. There were numerous speaking requests, then the formation of the Creation Research Society [1963], then eventually the Institute for Creation Research [1970], and extensive seminars, conferences, debates, etc., all over the world. Many have attributed the global revival of scientific Biblical creationism to the catalytic effect of The Genesis Flood." 
In His merciful providence, God sent Henry Morris to Grace Theological Seminary (where I was professor of Old Testament) in September, 1953, to present a paper to the American Scientific Affiliation meeting there, entitled, "Biblical Evidence for a Recent Creation and Universal Deluge." This revolutionized my entire approach to ultimate origins, and God motivated me to spend four years writing a 450-page doctoral dissertation entitled, "The Genesis Flood: An Investigation of its Geographical Extent, Geological Effects, and Chronological Setting" (Winona Lake, IN: Grace Theological Seminary, 1957). Soon, he agreed to co-author The Genesis Flood. Both he and I agreed that a project of such magnitude, dealing with stupendous scientific and theological issues, needed the perspectives of a scientist as well as a theologian. 
In this enormously time-consuming process, twenty-one scientists, nine theologians, and two grammarians were asked to review all or part of the manuscript. In retrospect, it seems significant to us that 1959 was also the year of the great Darwinian Centennial celebration in Chicago, at which Sir Julian Huxley, and other atheistic evolutionists, announced that creationism was essentially dead. In retrospect, however, this "graveside service" appears to have been premature! 
Negative Responses to The Genesis Flood 
In the late 1980s, about twenty-five years after the publication of our book, two significant counter-movements began to appear. Both of these movements were opposed to naturalistic Darwinism, but, at the same time, were opposed to Biblical and scientific creationism. 
From a Biblical perspective, this was sadly predictable. Paul confronted the church at Corinth with these words: "There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" (I Corinthians 11:19). On the one hand, this can be a healthy process. God's people must not adopt any view just because of a human authority figure, however brilliant or eloquent. Each of us needs to examine the "Scriptures daily" to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). On the other hand, large numbers of Christians have been deceived into abandoning Biblical truth. 
Progressive Creationism
The first of these movements is called "progressive creationism," represented especially by Dr. Hugh Ross, a Christian astronomer. He believes that creation began many billions of years ago with a so-called "big bang"; that animals were supernaturally and periodically created (not evolved) through millions of years; that Adam's rebellion against God did not cause death in the animal kingdom; and that the Flood was local in extent. He believes that the Bible's 66 books are fully inspired, but need to be reinterpreted in the light of a 67th book, namely modern science. 
In January, 2003, the Institute for Creation Research responded in depth to the challenges of "progressive creationism." I was invited to join three scientists and another theologian to participate in eight panel discussions and responses to the views of Dr. Ross. (After Eden: Understanding Creation, the Curse, and the Cross.) I was especially amazed at the futile effort of "progressive creationists" to reduce the Genesis Flood to a Mesopotamian catastrophe in order to justify millions of years of sedimentation and fossilization before the creation of mankind. 
The Intelligent Design Movement
The second counter-movement is even more amazing to behold. It is called "the intelligent-design movement" (IDM), and is dedicated to the proposition that atheistic naturalism and neo-Darwinian evolutionism have completely failed to explain the irreducible complexity of living things. ID scholars also believe that evolutionism can be defeated by scientific and rationalistic arguments without any appeal to the Bible or to the Creator of the world, our Lord Jesus Christ. 
Every Christian should applaud legitimate efforts to restore sanity and reality to the study of ultimate origins. Most IDM augmentation is, to this extent, on target. The tragedy of the movement, however, is that it deliberately stops short of honoring God's written revelation on origins, the Bible. In fact, the book of Genesis as literal history seems to be an embarrassment and an unwanted and unnecessary burden to bear in their debate with evolution-oriented scientists. 
Dr. Philip Johnson, IDM's leading spokesman counsels: "Get the Bible and the book of Genesis out of the debate, because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, `Do you need a Creator to do the 



creating, or can nature do it on its own?' and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, . . . . They'll ask, `What do you think of Noah's flood?' or something like that. Never bite on such questions because they'll lead you into a trackless wasteland and you'll never get out of it" ("Berkeley's Radical" in Touchstone 15:5 [June, 2002], p. 41). 
Indeed, to assert that the universe is the product of an Intelligent Designer is an essential foundation for origins study. But it is only the very bottom rung of the ladder that leads upward to full Creation Truth. It is vastly insufficient! To truly honor God and to bring genuine light into this enormously important question, one must also believe in the divinely inspired account of origins in Genesis 1 and 2 and in God's record of the magnitude of the Flood in Genesis 6-9. True Christians should be deeply shocked to learn that the Son of God, by Whom all things were "created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth" (Colossians 1:16), the One "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3), the ultimate Designer of all life, matter, energy, space, and time, has been practically ignored by these who write so eloquently of "intelligent design." 
In response, we humbly insist that it is essential to believe the Genesis record of origins in order to please God. This obviously includes the manner in which living things were created ("full-grown," with a superficial appearance of history); the order in which things were created; and the duration of creation events (six 24-hour days only a few thousand years ago). Our Lord explained that Adam and Eve were created "at the beginning"—not millions of years after the earth came into existence (Matthew 19:4). Thus, it is also essential to believe that death in the animal kingdom did not occur before the creation of mankind, but was an effect of Adam's rebellion (Genesis 1:31; and Romans 5:12 in the light of Romans 8:20-23). Trillions of fossilized plants and animals all over the world, with very rare exceptions, can only be explained in terms of the global catastrophism of the Genesis Flood. 
In the creation/evolution debate today, there is a truly frightening element that is sadly neglected and can lead to one's eternal loss. Our Lord said: "Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of Him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He shall come in His own glory" (Luke 9:26). If we leave Christ Himself out of the discussion, how, then, can we truly help people who are walking in the darkness of materialistic evolutionism? 
We agree that discussions and debates concerning Intelligent Design can (in God's providence) temporarily catch the attention of unbelieving minds. But saving faith can only come through the acceptance of the living and powerful Word of God (Hebrews 4:12) and its witness to the finished work of Christ upon the Cross and His bodily resurrection from the dead (cf. Romans 10:9-10). That is why the apostle Paul ended his powerful presentation of Intelligent Design to the Athenian philosophers on Mars Hill by asserting that the true and living God of creation now commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:16-18). He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead (vv.30-31). It was because he honored the Lord Jesus in this address that some men joined him and believed (v.34). On another occasion, Paul wrote: "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Romans 1:16). 
Here, then, is the burning question that modern proponents of Intelligent Design must answer: are people believing in Christ as Lord and Savior and experiencing a profound renewing of their hearts and minds as a result of hearing their message? 
God's words, not ours, can change men's destiny. Saving faith, "cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:9,17). This is the only "wedge" that can separate evolutionists from the blindness of sin and bring them to a full knowledge of Christ the Creator of the world and the only Savior of men. 
Thus, while Dr. Hugh Ross and his followers have attempted to reduce the mountain-covering, year-long Deluge in the days of Noah all the way down to a local flooding in Mesopotamia, the Intelligent Design scientists and philosophers officially ignore not only the Genesis record of the Flood, but also the entire book of Genesis and the sixty-five God-inspired books which follow it. 
Conclusion
Truly, God's people around the world must make a huge decision concerning the origin of the world: either we take God at His Word because of Who He is, and the God who never lies; or surrender our minds to the ever-changing opinions of finite and sinful men who are saying more loudly than ever before: "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." But God gives us His infinite and eternal perspective on such thinking: "This they willingly are ignorant of, . . . the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:5-6). 
Our Lord Jesus Christ confirmed to us that in the days of Noah ". . . they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away" (Matthew 24:38-39). Stop to think: Our Lord said that one man survived "the flood" by entering "the ark" when "the flood came, and took them all away." Could this possibly mean that a regional flood, which did not need any kind of an ark for Noah to survive, took away only some people? Or, as some Christian men of science believe, all mankind in those days was confined to just one region, so that a regional flood could indeed take them "all" away? But even in such a highly unlikely scenario, would an "ark" really be needed? Could not Noah and his family, given even a two-month warning have escaped a regional flood? Would all birds, mammals and reptiles in the world have been destroyed by a regional flood? 
The bottom line is this: was the Son of God a dependable source of information about the Flood? Could He ever deceive people? Was He serious when He said: "If ye believe not [Moses'] writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:47). 
With all of its deficiencies, then, God has apparently used our book to help thousands of people around the world take the Bible more seriously. It does not require great skills in Biblical theology and hermeneutics and exegesis to understand God's message concerning the depth, extent, and significance of the Flood. 
Biblical catastrophism, in the final analysis, stands firmly upon the foundation of divine revelation in Scripture, not on the finite and ever-changing theories of men. 
* Dr. Whitcomb is co-author of The Genesis Flood. This article is an adaptation of a message given at the Answers in Genesis Mega-Conference on July 18, 2005. 
    [typeID] => 2
    [visible] => t
    [pdf] => /i/pdf/imp/imp-395.pdf
    [publishURL] => history-impact-book-the-genesis-flood
    [publishDate] => 0000-00-00
    [authorAsterisk] => f
    [domainID] => 1
    [publication] => 
    [volume] => 
    [issue] => 
    [page] => 
    [author] => John C. Whitcomb,  Ph.D.
)
-->

    [stage_edit] => 
    [body] => 

	Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.

	If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.

	While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.

	If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.

	Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.

	Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!

	Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?

	* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.

	Cite this article: Morris, J. 2006. What's a Missing Link? Acts & Facts. 35 (4).
    [body_edit] => 

	Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.

	If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.

	While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.

	If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.

	Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.

	Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!

	Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?

	* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.

	Cite this article: Morris, J. 2006. What's a Missing Link? Acts & Facts. 35 (4).
    [typeID] => 3
    [visible] => t
    [pdf] => 
    [publishURL] => whats-missing-link
    [publishDate] => 0000-00-00
    [authorAsterisk] => f
    [domainID] => 1
    [publication] => 
    [volume] => 
    [issue] => 
    [page] => 
    [author] => John D. Morris, Ph.D.
)
-->

However, there is also independent evidence within these Norwegian eclogites of these flows of hot fluids that were responsible for the rapid metamorphism of the precursor granulites. A sample of related eclogite containing biotite flakes was closely examined and polonium-210 radiohalos were found in it (7 polonium-210 radiohalos in 50 microscope slides, each containing 20-30 biotite flakes).21 This discovery, the first time any radiohalos have been documented in eclogites, is highly significant.


	Biotite was not in the precursor granulites, so it had to form as a result of both their metamorphism to eclogite and the fluid flows. Of course, these radiohalos could only have been produced in the biotite grains after they formed. Furthermore, because there was no source of either parent uranium-238 or its radioactive decay products within either the eclogites or the precursor granulites, the large quantities of polonium-210 required to generate these radiohalos had to have been transported from external sources into the biotite flakes within these rocks by the hot fluids.22 But the polonium-210 only has a half-life of 138 days, and the radiohalos would only have formed and survived after the temperature in the rocks fell below 150°C. So this drastically restricts the duration of the earthquake-triggered hot fluid flows and associated eclogite metamorphism even more, perhaps to only a few weeks or months! And because the heat flow into the granulites to metamorphose them would have been primarily by convection associated with the fluid flows, rather than just by conduction,23 such a drastically short timescale of only weeks for this eclogite metamorphism is entirely feasible.

	Conclusion

	Of course, in conventional geological dogma which primarily envisages slow and gradual processes over long ages, even a timescale of ten years is almost too radical and controversial to be readily accepted. However, in the context of accelerated catastrophic erosion, deposition of thick strata sequences, earth movements, plate tectonics and continental collisions during the year-long global Genesis Flood, it is entirely feasible that rapid flows of hot fluids triggered by earthquakes were injected into shear zones within the granulites to transform them into eclogites within weeks. Once again, continued research has provided evidence that confirms the feasibility of another aspect of the Creation-Flood model of Earth history, namely, rapid metamorphism of rocks during the Genesis Flood, consistent with the infallible record of God's Word.

	References  

	

		Bucher, K., and M. Frey, 2002. Petrogenesis of Metamorphic Rocks, 7th edition, pp. 67-68, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 
	

		Snelling, A. A., 1994. "Towards a Creationist Explanation of Regional Metamorphism." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 8(1):51-77. 
	

		Snelling, A. A., 1994. "Regional Metamorphism Within a Creationist Framework: What Garnet Compositions Reveal." In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh (editor), pp. 485-496. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. 
	

		Kelley, S., 2005. "Hot Fluids and Cold Crusts." Nature, 435:1171. 
	

		Wain, A. L., D. J. Waters, and H. Austrheim, 2001. "Metastability of Granulites and Processes of Eclogitisation in the UHP Region of Western Norway." Journal of Metamorphic Geology, 19:607-623. 
	

		Austrheim, H., and W. L. Griffin, 1985. "Shear Deformation and Eclogite Formation within Granulite Facies Anorthosites of the Bergen Arcs, Western Norway." Chemical Geology, 50:267-281. 
	

		Boundy, T. M., and D. M. Fountain, 1992. "Structural Development and Petro-fabrics of Eclogite Facies Shear Zones, Bergen Arcs, Western Norway: Implications for Deep Crustal Deformational Processes." Journal of Metamorphic Geology, 10:127-146. 
	

		Austrheim, H., M. Erambert, and T. M. Boundy, 1996. "Garnets Record Deep Crustal Earthquakes." Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 139:223-238. 
	

		Austrheim, H., and T. M. Boundy, 1994. "Pseudotachylytes Generated During Seismic Faulting and Eclogitization of the Deep Crust." Science, 265:82-83. 
	

		Kühn, A., J. Glodny, K. Iden, and H. Austrheim, 2000. "Retention of Precambrian Rb/Sr Phlogopite Ages through Caledonian Eclogite Facies Metamorphism, Bergen Arc Complex, W-Norway." Lithos, 51:305-330. 
	

		Bingen, B., W. J. Davis, and H. Austrheim, 2001. "Zircon U-Pb Geochronology in the Bergen Arc Eclogites and Their Proterozoic Protoliths, and Implications for the Pre-Scandian Evolution of the Caledonides in Western Norway." Geological Society of America Bulletin, 113(5):640-649. 
	

		Jamtveit, B., K. Bucher-Nurminen, and H. Austrheim, 1990. "Fluid Controlled Eclogitization of Eclogites in Deep Crustal Shear Zones, Bergen Arcs, Western Norway." Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 104:184-193. 
	

		Austrheim, H., and T. M. Boundy (1994), op. cit. 
	

		Camacho, A., J. K. W. Lee, B. J. Hensen, and J. Braun, 2005. "Short-lived Orogenic Cycles and the Eclogitization of Cold Crust by Spasmodic Hot Fluids." Nature, 435:1191-1196. 
	

		Kelley, S. (2005), op. cit. 
	

		Camacho, A., J. K. W. Lee, B. J. Hensen, and J. Braun (2005), op. cit. 
	

		Jamtveit, B., H. Austrheim, and A. Malthe-Sorenssen, 2000. "Accelerated Hydration of the Earth's Deep Crust Induced by Stress Perturbations." Nature, 408:75-78. 
	

		Austrheim, H., and T. M. Boundy (1994), op. cit. 
	

		Bjornerud, M., H. Austrheim, and M. G. Lund, 2002. "Processes Leading to Eclogitization (Densification) of Subducted and Tectonically Buried Crust." Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(B10):2252-2269. 
	

		VanHaren, J. L. M., J. J. Ague, and D. M. Rye, 1996. "Oxygen Isotope Record of Fluid Infiltration and Mass Transfer During Regional Metamorphism of Pelitic Schist, Connecticut, USA." Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 60(18):3487-3504. 
	

		Snelling, A. A., 2005. "Radiohalos in Granites: Evidence for Accelerated Nuclear Decay." In Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (editors), chapter 3, pp. 101-207 (especially Table 4, p. 188). Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ. 
	

		Snelling, A. A. (2005), op. cit. 
	

		Snelling, A. A., and J. Woodmorappe, 1998. "The Cooling of Thick Igneous Bodies on a Young Earth." In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh (editor), pp. 527-545. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.


	* Dr. Snelling is an associate professor in the Geology Department at ICR.
    [body_edit] => 

	Where thick sequences of sedimentary rock layers have been deposited in large basins, the deepest layers at the bottoms of the sequences may subsequently have become folded by earth movements when subjected to elevated temperatures and pressures that were sufficient to transform them into metamorphic rocks. Thus the clay particles in shales and the mineral grains in sandstones were metamorphosed into the new minerals found today in schists and gneisses. Geologists conventionally envisage these metamorphic processes as having required millions of years.1

	In contrast, creation geologists maintain that just as thick sequences of sedimentary rocks were rapidly deposited and movements of the tectonic plates of the earth's crust occurred rapidly during the year-long Flood catastrophe, these associated metamorphic processes were likewise rapid. The hot waters that saturated the deeply buried sedimentary and other rocks, and/or that flowed rapidly through them, were responsible for the rapid mineral transformations.2,3

	Norwegian Metamorphic Rocks

	Conventional geologists were surprised recently by documented evidence for rapid metamorphism.4 Along the southwest coast of Norway, in the Bergen area, former igneous (intrusive) rocks were radically transformed into high-grade metamorphic rocks known as granulites by the high pressures exerted on them deep in the earth's crust late in the Precambrian.5 During a subsequent continental collision in the Silurian, hot fluids penetrated along closely-spaced shear zones, where rocks are believed to have deformed plastically as they moved sideways against each other, and transformed most of the granulites into another metamorphic rock called eclogite.6

	These eclogites are strikingly beautiful, coarse-grained, and characterized by large pink garnets in a green matrix, rich in pyroxene. They are conventionally believed to have formed at depths of some 60 km and temperatures of around 700°C.7 However, these Norwegian eclogites paradoxically exhibit features more commonly associated with tectonic processes at lower temperatures closer to the earth's surface.8,9 Furthermore, rubidium-strontium radioisotope dating of the granulite lenses immediately adjacent to these eclogites yields an "age" closer to that of the untransformed granulite,10,11 even though the temperatures supposedly required for formation of the eclogites should have obliterated that earlier "age."12 Thus it has been suggested that the Norwegian granulite-eclogite transformation must have occurred during short-lived fluid flow events over less than a million years.13

	A Radical Short Timescale

	However, a drastically shorter timescale has now been proposed,14 one that "will make many geologists draw breath!"15 An ultraviolet laser was used to measure profiles of argon-argon radioisotope "ages" across individual mineral grains in the untransformed granulite lenses.16 In this technique the abundance of argon-40 (which forms from the radioactive decay of potassium-40) supposedly indicates the elapsed time since the temperature was last high enough for the argon (a gas) to diffuse rapidly through these minerals and escape at the boundaries between grains. The "ages" thus obtained not only confirmed the earlier rubidium-strontium "dates," but demonstrated just how little the granulite lenses had been affected by the later formation of the immediately adjacent eclogites.

	Furthermore, these argon-40 data were then used to estimate what the temperature must have been in the granulite lenses during formation of the eclogites. The estimate—less than 400°C—is dramatically lower than the conventional requirement of around 700°C for formation of the immediately adjacent eclogites. The only way this glaring inconsistency can be reconciled is if the time period over which the heat was applied to these granulites during their adjacent metamorphism to eclogites was drastically shorter than the previously suggested one million years or less. It was calculated that the total heating duration must have been around only 18,000 years to explain the argon-argon "age" profiles in the mineral grains.

	However, even more radical is the conclusion from heat-conduction calculations that the individual fluid flow "events," when hot fluids (at 700°C) flowed through the shear zones in the granulites and metamorphosed them to eclogites, had to have lasted just ten years or less, otherwise there would have been significant heating beyond 400°C of the surviving granulite lenses between the shear zones. Furthermore, it was concluded that this is exactly what would be expected if fluid migration was triggered by multiple, spasmodic deformation events associated with earthquakes, in which the hot fluids were repeatedly injected into, and pumped along, the shear zones by earth movements. This is consistent with the evidence of hydraulic fracturing17 and rocks formed by friction melting along fractures18 associated with these eclogite-bearing shear zones.19 Thus this model overturns conventional long-age thinking by evoking a radically different picture for the conditions responsible for eclogite metamorphism, in which the exceedingly rapid metamorphic transformation occurs in only ten years or less!

	Confirming Evidence

	Such rapid fluid flow events are not without precedent, having been associated with vein formation during regional metamorphism of schists in Connecticut (USA).20

	However, there is also independent evidence within these Norwegian eclogites of these flows of hot fluids that were responsible for the rapid metamorphism of the precursor granulites. A sample of related eclogite containing biotite flakes was closely examined and polonium-210 radiohalos were found in it (7 polonium-210 radiohalos in 50 microscope slides, each containing 20-30 biotite flakes).21 This discovery, the first time any radiohalos have been documented in eclogites, is highly significant.

	Biotite was not in the precursor granulites, so it had to form as a result of both their metamorphism to eclogite and the fluid flows. Of course, these radiohalos could only have been produced in the biotite grains after they formed. Furthermore, because there was no source of either parent uranium-238 or its radioactive decay products within either the eclogites or the precursor granulites, the large quantities of polonium-210 required to generate these radiohalos had to have been transported from external sources into the biotite flakes within these rocks by the hot fluids.22 But the polonium-210 only has a half-life of 138 days, and the radiohalos would only have formed and survived after the temperature in the rocks fell below 150°C. So this drastically restricts the duration of the earthquake-triggered hot fluid flows and associated eclogite metamorphism even more, perhaps to only a few weeks or months! And because the heat flow into the granulites to metamorphose them would have been primarily by convection associated with the fluid flows, rather than just by conduction,23 such a drastically short timescale of only weeks for this eclogite metamorphism is entirely feasible.

	Conclusion

	Of course, in conventional geological dogma which primarily envisages slow and gradual processes over long ages, even a timescale of ten years is almost too radical and controversial to be readily accepted. However, in the context of accelerated catastrophic erosion, deposition of thick strata sequences, earth movements, plate tectonics and continental collisions during the year-long global Genesis Flood, it is entirely feasible that rapid flows of hot fluids triggered by earthquakes were injected into shear zones within the granulites to transform them into eclogites within weeks. Once again, continued research has provided evidence that confirms the feasibility of another aspect of the Creation-Flood model of Earth history, namely, rapid metamorphism of rocks during the Genesis Flood, consistent with the infallible record of God's Word.

	References  

	

		Bucher, K., and M. Frey, 2002. Petrogenesis of Metamorphic Rocks, 7th edition, pp. 67-68, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 
	

		Snelling, A. A., 1994. "Towards a Creationist Explanation of Regional Metamorphism." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 8(1):51-77. 
	

		Snelling, A. A., 1994. "Regional Metamorphism Within a Creationist Framework: What Garnet Compositions Reveal." In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh (editor), pp. 485-496. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. 
	

		Kelley, S., 2005. "Hot Fluids and Cold Crusts." Nature, 435:1171. 
	

		Wain, A. L., D. J. Waters, and H. Austrheim, 2001. "Metastability of Granulites and Processes of Eclogitisation in the UHP Region of Western Norway." Journal of Metamorphic Geology, 19:607-623. 
	

		Austrheim, H., and W. L. Griffin, 1985. "Shear Deformation and Eclogite Formation within Granulite Facies Anorthosites of the Bergen Arcs, Western Norway." Chemical Geology, 50:267-281. 
	

		Boundy, T. M., and D. M. Fountain, 1992. "Structural Development and Petro-fabrics of Eclogite Facies Shear Zones, Bergen Arcs, Western Norway: Implications for Deep Crustal Deformational Processes." Journal of Metamorphic Geology, 10:127-146. 
	

		Austrheim, H., M. Erambert, and T. M. Boundy, 1996. "Garnets Record Deep Crustal Earthquakes." Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 139:223-238. 
	

		Austrheim, H., and T. M. Boundy, 1994. "Pseudotachylytes Generated During Seismic Faulting and Eclogitization of the Deep Crust." Science, 265:82-83. 
	

		Kühn, A., J. Glodny, K. Iden, and H. Austrheim, 2000. "Retention of Precambrian Rb/Sr Phlogopite Ages through Caledonian Eclogite Facies Metamorphism, Bergen Arc Complex, W-Norway." Lithos, 51:305-330. 
	

		Bingen, B., W. J. Davis, and H. Austrheim, 2001. "Zircon U-Pb Geochronology in the Bergen Arc Eclogites and Their Proterozoic Protoliths, and Implications for the Pre-Scandian Evolution of the Caledonides in Western Norway." Geological Society of America Bulletin, 113(5):640-649. 
	

		Jamtveit, B., K. Bucher-Nurminen, and H. Austrheim, 1990. "Fluid Controlled Eclogitization of Eclogites in Deep Crustal Shear Zones, Bergen Arcs, Western Norway." Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 104:184-193. 
	

		Austrheim, H., and T. M. Boundy (1994), op. cit. 
	

		Camacho, A., J. K. W. Lee, B. J. Hensen, and J. Braun, 2005. "Short-lived Orogenic Cycles and the Eclogitization of Cold Crust by Spasmodic Hot Fluids." Nature, 435:1191-1196. 
	

		Kelley, S. (2005), op. cit. 
	

		Camacho, A., J. K. W. Lee, B. J. Hensen, and J. Braun (2005), op. cit. 
	

		Jamtveit, B., H. Austrheim, and A. Malthe-Sorenssen, 2000. "Accelerated Hydration of the Earth's Deep Crust Induced by Stress Perturbations." Nature, 408:75-78. 
	

		Austrheim, H., and T. M. Boundy (1994), op. cit. 
	

		Bjornerud, M., H. Austrheim, and M. G. Lund, 2002. "Processes Leading to Eclogitization (Densification) of Subducted and Tectonically Buried Crust." Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(B10):2252-2269. 
	

		VanHaren, J. L. M., J. J. Ague, and D. M. Rye, 1996. "Oxygen Isotope Record of Fluid Infiltration and Mass Transfer During Regional Metamorphism of Pelitic Schist, Connecticut, USA." Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 60(18):3487-3504. 
	

		Snelling, A. A., 2005. "Radiohalos in Granites: Evidence for Accelerated Nuclear Decay." In Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (editors), chapter 3, pp. 101-207 (especially Table 4, p. 188). Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ. 
	

		Snelling, A. A. (2005), op. cit. 
	

		Snelling, A. A., and J. Woodmorappe, 1998. "The Cooling of Thick Igneous Bodies on a Young Earth." In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh (editor), pp. 527-545. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.


	* Dr. Snelling is an associate professor in the Geology Department at ICR.
    [typeID] => 2
    [visible] => t
    [pdf] => /i/pdf/imp/imp-392.pdf
    [publishURL] => confirmation-rapid-metamorphism-rocks
    [publishDate] => 0000-00-00
    [authorAsterisk] => t
    [domainID] => 1
    [publication] => 
    [volume] => 
    [issue] => 
    [page] => 
    [author] => Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.
)
-->