Category Archives: Science Related

Science news related


In Proverbs 25:2, it says “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings (NIV84).” We like to think we can figure out the universe. Sometimes I wonder if God is sitting back laughing at how little we understand about what He made. Today’s technology used in astronomy research is truly amazing. For example, some researchers in Spain recently used a new satellite called Gaia to do what you could call an actual measurement that seems to show our galaxy, the Milky Way, is a Barred Spiral in its shape. Click here to read about this. We can obtain all sorts of pictures of objects in space. Computers can simulate cataclysmic events in space like galaxies colliding and watch what happens. We can figure out the distances to the stars, what they’re made of, how they are clustered together, and the speed and direction of their motion. There are always limits to how precise we can be, but there is a bigger limitation in how we figure out things in astronomy. We should be mindful of how limited we are as human beings. We weren’t there at the beginning of the universe. So there is much we haven’t actually seen because we weren’t there in the past. We don’t have a video of what was happening at the beginning of the universe. Also, there is a lot of assumptions and interpretation that goes into inferring what happened in the past, based on what we see and measure in the present.

Galaxies were an unexpected thing in the early days of science. Johannes Kepler and Tycho Brahe never imagined galaxies in the early 1600’s. Telescopes had to improve for a long time before people figured out that galaxies were actually gigantic collections of stars. Our galaxy was called the Milky Way long before anyone knew what it was. For many years people thought it was a nebula, a cloud in space. So mankind’s understanding of galaxies has come a long way. Even just a few years ago, scientists estimated the number of stars in our galaxy to be something like one half to one fourth the number scientists believe today. Today estimates run in the range of 200 to 400 billion stars just in our own galaxy. Galaxies represent a surprising level of organization of stars in the universe. Scientists still debate a fundamental chicken and egg question about galaxies. Which came first, the stars or the galaxies that the stars are within. In other words, do galaxies form from the top-down or from the bottom-up? The current leading answer to this is the bottom-up approach. Scientists today would say stars formed first and then stars clustered together, clusters grew into galaxies, and eventually galaxies merged together to form bigger galaxies.

Galaxies come in many shapes, sizes, and colors. There are spiral galaxies, elliptical galaxies, and others that are just called “irregular” in shape. Our galaxy is a special kind of spiral galaxy called a Barred Spiral because there is what looks like a straight strip of stars that goes through the center of our galaxy’s central bulge. Then from the ends of the straight strip, the galaxy has spiral arms like other spiral galaxies. Many galaxies are of odd shapes and there are pairs or groups of galaxies that are near each other or they may even blend together. Galaxies have a lot empty space, so they can pass right through each other. But, if they do this, it can generate fireworks and they distort each other’s shapes. Scientists tend to judge the age of a galaxy from the color of the stars that predominate in it and from the question of how much dust is in it. White and blue stars are assumed to be younger and yellow and red stars are assumed to be billions of years older. I would say these differences are more about how they were created, not their age. Also if a galaxy is very large, it is thought to be older as well. Scientists believe galaxies have collided and merged together and this is how galaxies grow over billions of years.

How do galaxies relate to the Big Bang?
Actually the Big Bang theory does nothing to explain how galaxies actually form. But the models scientists have for galaxy formation are like an addon to Big Bang models. Some scientists would say that it could take 3 to 6 billion years for large galaxies like we often see today to form. This also implies that the early universe not long after the Big Bang should have mostly small galaxies, not big ones that look like today’s galaxies. But this has not been what scientists have discovered as they get better telescopes that peer farther and farther out into the universe. The formation of galaxies is a tough problem if you leave out a Creator-God. Even more so, the formation of large superclusters of clusters of galaxies is an even tougher problem. (See the article and podcast about ‘Things too big for the Big Bang.’)

In 1988 a well known physicist, James Trefil, made this statement about galaxies and the Big Bang:

“It has always been difficult for astronomers to explain why stars are clumped into galaxies instead of being spread out more uniformly in space… There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are….
The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.”

So since 1988 scientists have worked on the problem some. But occasionally scientists still comment about the questions of the formation and evolution of galaxies being an unsolved problem. In an article in the journal Nature from 2004, several scientists said this:

“Nearly a century after the true nature of galaxies … was established, their origin and evolution remain great unsolved problems of modern astrophysics.”

There are some very technical aspects of galaxy formation that researchers have spent time and effort on. But I don’t think astronomers have a good handle on galaxy formation because there are so many layers of assumptions that sort of ‘cloud’ the issues. One of those issues is the topic of dark matter.

What is dark matter?
Dark matter is believed by astronomers and physicists to be some form of exotic particles that don’t interact much with normal matter. It is thought to be very hard to detect because it doesn’t interact with light or normal matter much. Not all physicists and astronomers believe in dark matter, but most do. Dark matter is used in many computer simulations and in cosmology calculations, and it is assumed to make up most of the mass of most galaxies. But there is one big problem with dark matter. Particle physicists can’t find observational evidence for it. There have been a number of proposed exotic forms of matter that physicists suggested but these theories so far have no clear evidence. What is the evidence for dark matter? The primary argument for it has been the velocities of stars in galaxies.

In our solar system, the planet orbits follow a predictable mathematical law discovered by Johannes Kepler that tells us how the velocity of a planet along it’s orbit decreases the farther away from the Sun the planet is. Planets, moons, asteroids, and other objects in our solar system follow Kepler’s laws of orbital motion beautifully. But the stars in a spiral galaxy don’t quite follow the same pattern. If you measured the speed of stars moving in the plane of a spiral galaxy, and compare these speeds going from the inner part near the galaxy center outward toward the edge, a funny thing happens. The star velocity is nearly constant for a long way moving outward from the center of the galaxy. But as you get beyond a certain distance, the velocities of the stars increase. This brings up a problem because if the galaxy is billions of years old, why are the outer stars still there? The galaxy would come apart over time. Also, in spiral galaxies the spiral arms tend to “wrap up on themselves” over time. So I think this suggests they could be much younger than most astronomers think.

Scientists debate the possible explanations of the galaxy star velocities to this day. But the answer most astronomers believe is that there is dark matter that makes up a large part of the mass of the galaxy, though we can’t detect it. So this dark matter would be distributed in and around the galaxy in a way that is different than the stars we see, so it is thought to explain the odd motion of the outer stars. I think the assumption that the galaxies are billions of years old is wrong. But if there were real evidence for detecting dark matter so that we knew what kind of particles it was, I could perhaps be persuaded. But without that, I’m skeptical. There have been some cases of galaxies that have been claimed to be evidence of dark matter, but I don’t buy those claims because there have been critics of those cases and I think there are other ways to interpret the evidence. I’m also skeptical when scientists say that maybe 90% of the mass of a galaxy is dark matter and only 10% is normal matter we can detect or see. This is not believable to me. It’s interpreting what we see incorrectly somehow. Most of the matter must be in the stars. Certainly there could be exotic forms of matter we don’t know of, but it seems to me that modern science makes way too much out of dark matter when we can’t even detect it or explain what it is. To read a couple of good articles about the lack of evidence for dark matter, click here and here. If you want to try a very interesting Goggle search, try searching for “Dark matter doesn’t exist.” There are many videos and articles saying this and they are from intelligent people including some astronomers.

There are some very strange and interesting looking galaxies. Many of them look like two or more galaxies have collided or have come close to each other and have distorted each other. Creationists have some differing opinions about these galaxies. I would lean toward the view that they were created essentially as we see them. But I think we should not get so hung up on the scientific questions they raise that we can’t just sit back and say “Wow! God made this!” There are many mysteries about the universe we haven’t figured out yet. There is nothing too large in the universe for God to be able to control it. Also, it may be at least as important that we can sit back and enjoy the beauty of the universe as it is that we understand it. In fact, we really should think of God as like an artist when we see pictures of galaxies and nebulas in space. Sometimes God created things very orderly and sometimes he seems to have created with a bit of chaos or with what you might call “artistic flourish.” A human artist painting on a small canvas may flick his wrist and create a splash or curve of color on the canvas. But God’s canvas was the universe. With a “flick of his wrist” He could spread stars across a million light-years!

Below are some links to some interesting galaxies:

MACS J0717
Considered a galaxy cluster. This cluster is thought to have formed from the collision of four other galaxies. But no one has actually seen such a collision, it is inferred by scientists. The image below combines a picture from the Hubble Space Telescope to show the white galaxies with an X-Ray image from the Chandra X-Ray Observatory. The blue color shows gas of the highest temperature, with purple showing lower temperatures.

Considered a dwarf irregular galaxy. It is also called a starburst galaxy. It is much smaller than our galaxy, the Milky Way, at only 3,000 light-years in diameter. Scientists generally judge the age of a galaxy by the color of the stars in it. Bright white and blue stars are thought to be young. But yellow stars are older. This galaxy has a mix of both young and old stars, by this way of thinking. The yellowish nearby galaxies would be considered old. But how do we know that star color is an indication of age? If this galaxy is old, it is a mystery why it is so blue. The blue color is believed to indicate star formation. Thus scientists debate what would cause so much star formation.

The Antennae Galaxies
This is thought to come from a collision and merger of two spiral galaxies hundreds of millions of years ago. These two galaxies have designations NGC 4038 and NGC 4039. But what if God just made it this way? It is wild but beautiful. To me, it looks like a bent over tadpole with lights.

The Milky Way
What about our own galaxy – the Milky Way? Here are some numbers on our Sun’s motion orbiting the center of the galaxy, and the Milky Way’s motion through space. You may think you’re sitting still to read this, but you’re not. Our Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way (a barred spiral) about 26,000 Light-Years (LY) from the center. This means our Sun is moving in a circular orbit at around 225 kilometers (km) per second (or 140 miles per second) around the galaxy. Earth orbits the Sun while the Sun orbits the galaxy. Our galaxy is also moving at a speed of 552 km per second (343 miles per second) with a ‘local’ group of galaxies. Our galaxy is also in a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy. But they wouldn’t collide for billions of years. Since everything is in motion in this way, think of what God must have done when he created Earth before the Sun, Moon, and stars. I would guess he created the Earth already in its motion first then put the Sun, Moon, stars and the galaxy in place already in motion as they were created on the fourth day. This is a mind-boggling dynamics problem. This way Earth would not undergo massive geological forces from being accelerated into motion. Of course, God could solve these kind of problems however he wanted. This is only my speculation. After all, I wasn’t there.

We are placed at a good spot in our galaxy for observing the rest of the universe. If we were in or near the central bulge of the galaxy, there would be too much scattered light from dust and gas for us to see out beyond our own galaxy. But since we lie in a region between two spiral arms, it’s a good spot for seeing the universe. In the center of our galaxy is a supermassive black hole, called Sagittarius A. Sagittarius A contains the mass of about 4.3 million Suns. Black holes are strange but very real. The observational evidence for them is very good. The central black hole seems to act like a kind of anchor for the galaxy. There is one other thing about our galaxy that is a bit unusual, it has two satellites orbiting it. These are called the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, but they are actually considered dwarf irregular galaxies. These can’t be seen from the Earth’s Northern Hemisphere.

I think we should think of God as an artist when we think of the variety of wonders out in space. Young age creationists have multiple ways of understanding what we see in space. Some would take the view that God created things pretty much as we see them and they have not had time to change much since the beginning. Others would argue that during the creation week there could have been some acceleration of processes, or time dilation, that made things happen very rapidly on the fourth day of creation week. I tend to take the first view. I think we cannot tell if the universe is young or old by just looking at it. But the Bible does imply the universe is only thousands of years old. There are some interesting scientific puzzles to unravel yet regarding this but I will always side with the Bible.

Image of galaxy UGC 12158 (NASA/ESA). This is a Barred Spiral, thought to be similar to our own galaxy, the Milky Way.

Was there a Global Flood?

The Bible has long taken flack from skeptics. One of the most popular targets for jokes about the Bible is the story of Noah, the Ark, and the global Flood. Christians often call it Noah’s Flood. I think it would be more appropriate to call it God’s Flood. It wasn’t actually Noah’s idea, but he was fortunate enough to be along for the ride and be saved through the disaster. Genesis says God judged the world by this Flood. But because Noah was a righteous man, he and his family were spared on the Ark while the world perished. Often people have trouble with the idea of God judging the world, or with God judging sin in any way. But I would say that if God just allowed evil to continue indefinitely he would not be holy or worthy of our worship. He has to judge sin to be good. But to wipe out all human life on Earth seems harsh to us. But it is not actually God judging sin that is made fun of as much as the idea of an Ark and a global Flood of water. There is an effort from skeptics to make people think that the judgment is implausible because the idea of a global Flood and saving the animals is implausible.

But is it implausible for there to have been a global Flood on the Earth in the past? The plausibility of the Ark is another question. I’d say that question is best answered by visiting the Ark Encounter in Kentucky, built by the Answers in Genesis ministry. Young age creationists have been defending the idea of a global Flood for a long time. It’s worth pointing out that Jesus himself taught that the Flood was real. He said that his own return will be similar to God’s judgment of the Flood of the past (see Matthew 24:37-39). People will be going on with their lives, until it’s too late. Also the Apostle Peter wrote about the Flood as well (2 Peter 2:5 and 3:3-7). So even if we somehow fail in relating it to science, how can a Christian say that both Jesus and Apostle Peter were wrong to believe in the Flood? Also, it won’t work to claim the Bible doesn’t really teach that the Flood was global. That is too easily refuted by reading Genesis and that would also contradict Jesus and Peter.

I would like to briefly list some of the best geological evidences for the global Flood judgement described in Genesis. The Flood is something that likely involved God supernaturally intervening into history. But even if it was caused supernaturally there should be physical evidence of the effects of such a massive catastrophe. Well qualified creationist geologists have done field work and good research for over 50 years to look for evidence for a global Flood. I believe creationist research on this has had a lot of success. There used to be a number of difficult questions evolutionist geologists could bring up to challenge creationists. But today I would say most of those questions have been answered. There are always particular sites that there are differences of opinion about and there are ongoing mysteries. Establishing good arguments often requires years of work. But people in science should not think that the Flood has been disproven. Creationists have been quietly and sometimes not so quietly collecting evidence. The evidence is there if you look for it. Sometimes it requires learning to look at the facts a different way. Evolutionist scientists rarely know hardly anything about any of the research creationists have done.

One more clarification on Flood evidence. Some things that are used by Christians as Flood evidence are actually just local examples of processes that are rapid and catastrophic. The Mt. St. Helens volcanic eruption in 1980, for example. The Mt. St. Helens eruption doesn’t conclusively prove Noah’s Flood. But it doesn’t need to. What it did was it gave us examples of catastrophic processes that could do things in a rapid fashion that geologists had thought would require long periods of time. So it demonstrated the kind of processes that could happen on a bigger scale in the real global Flood. The processes relevant to Mt. St. Helens I’m thinking of would be rapid erosion of solid granite in one place, hundreds of layers of sediment deposited in hours, and various effects from large mudflows, just to mention a few. Sometimes Christians who try to argue for the Flood don’t quite know enough to present it properly. I think some of the best evidences for the Flood are things that require large scale catastrophic events. God’s global judgement in the Flood is one giant catastrophe that would have spawned many local and regional catastrophes. Evolutionary geologists tend to believe in many smaller catastrophes, or sometimes storms, spread out over long periods of time. But creationist geologists interpret the same facts differently, as catastrophes that happened in a shorter time. If they were events that happened in a shorter time, this often makes them related to the Flood. But creationist and evolutionist geologists actually use the same methods of investigation and good field work, but interpret the facts differently.

Evidence 1 – Megasequences

Megasequences are groups of layers of sedimentary rock that cover large areas. They can cover thousands or tens of thousands of square miles and they can be hundreds to sometimes thousands of feet thick. The sequences of rock give clues about what happened to the Earth in the past. Creationists have documented how many of these large layers and sequences of layers are better explained by a global Flood than by the evolutionary ideas. Evolutionist geologists tend to look at these layers as forming over long periods of time, such as by rivers that sort of migrate or by temporary inland seas. But these kind of local effects are often inadequate to explain the details. A global Flood would not happen in a simple manner like steady rising water. It would involve water flowing from multiple directions and sea levels that would go up and then down then up more, and so on. One extraordinary example would be the Coconino Sandstone that is in the Grand Canyon. This rock layer has a total volume of about 10,000 cubic miles! In other terms, this means a rock layer that averages over 300 feet thick and covers an area of about 200,000 square miles. Evidence shows that the sands in this layer were transported large distances. There are a number of sandstone rock layers similar to this. Some include sand that must have been transported over 1000 miles. It is sometimes possible to identify the sources of the sand, and this just makes evidence for a global Flood stronger. Below are a few webpages that explain some of this evidence.

Evidence 2 – Bent or Tilted Rock Layers on a large scale

What happens if you try to bend a hard rock? Obviously, it breaks. So then how is it that there are many examples of sites where rock layers are actually bent. How did they bend without breaking? Also, related often are layers that tilted large angles. Sedimentary layers must form horizontal, unless something were to cause them to move before they could harden. This can be a very good evidence for a large scale geological event that would fit a global Flood. The larger the scale of the bend or tilts, the better it indicates something like the Flood. A now famous example is called the East Kaibab Monocline in the Grand Canyon. This is near the Eastern end of the Grand Canyon. In that area there are dramatic folds and bends of thick layers. There is one famous site that shows a bend of about a 90 degree angle in thick layers of rock! The layers must have been rapidly deposited, then bent by tectonic movement of the Earth all in a relatively short time before the sediment had totally hardened (or lithified as the geologists say). Sometimes critics bring up the fact that these rocks have cracks in them. But minor small scale cracks misses the point. It’s to be expected that some cracks would form after the layers were bent. You can’t confuse minor small scale effects with large scale effects in this. Bent and tilted rock strata is fairly common if you look for it. It brings up questions about what kind of event would be big enough to do this. It’s often not just that in one place there is one site with bent rock. It’s that if that rock is so bent, what happened to all the other rock around it? If you look at the evidence surrounding these places you see that it would require an event much bigger than anything in recorded history. Here are some webpages that discuss this.

Evidence 3 – Fossil Graveyards

Fossil graveyards are sites where many fossils are in one place. There are a variety of examples. Sometimes there are thousands or millions of the same creature in one place, and in other cases there are many types of animals that were buried and fossilized together. Sometimes marine creatures are buried with land animals, which doesn’t happen in normal circumstances. A well known example from years ago was the Cumberland Bone Cave in Maryland. A wide variety of land animals, that would live in different climates today, were all buried together. Today this cave has ben excavated such that there may not be much left there. In Flourisant, Colorado there are many insect fossils as well as plant and other fossils that are of amazing detail. The more detail is preserved in the fossil the more it shows that there must have been rapid burial. If a creature is not buried quickly under the right conditions, it will simply decay away and not fossilize.

Recent reports have mentioned fossils in North and South Dakota. Sometimes marine fossils have been buried very near land animals. In dealing with fossil evidence it is often not just the fossils that point to a large-scale catastrophe like the Flood, but the rock the fossils are found in. Often questions are raised about what could cause fossil graveyards. Often it requires conditions drastically different than today.
For example in the Atacama dessert in Chile there is evidence that 40 Baleen whales as well as some dolphins, seals, and sharks were all buried together. I was once fossil hunting in Western Kansas and we found a tooth of a Manta Ray along with many fossil shark teeth. Many fossils found all over Kansas are of marine creatures that live in the ocean. I even have a sample of fossilized coral that was found in Kansas. You won’t find coral or Manta Rays in Kansas farm ponds! Yet, there are also fossils of Mammoth teeth and bones occasionally found in Kansas. A global Flood is the best explanation of these cases because of where they are located. Evolutionists often say that marine fossils in places like Kansas would come from a time in the distant past when the sea came over the continent, in a limited region in the middle of the continent. This is what they call the Western Interior Seaway. But the marine fossils in Kansas are not always where this seaway was believed to be. Another interesting find was in Inner Mongolia, in China. There is a site where a herd of 25 dinosaurs called Sinornithomimus were found fossilized together. These creatures were similar to a Velociraptor but the entire herd had gotten stuck in mud in a place that is now part of the Gobi dessert. The entire group got stuck in mud and were buried alive and then fossilized. There was clear evidence that their bodies decayed after burial. There are also many examples of large animals like large mammals and dinosaurs buried together under catastrophic conditions very different from anything in recorded history. The fact that the burial and fossilization points to conditions different than today is explained very well by a global Flood. It’s not that evolutionists don’t know about these fossils, but often their explanation of what caused the burial of these creatures and the formation of the rock layers is inadequate. Here are some relevant links:

Evidence 4 – Marine Fossils on Mountains

This issue is an example of a topic where Christians and atheists often seriously misunderstand each other. So a Christian will say, “See, there are marine fossils on Mt. Everest and this is because Mt. Everest was covered with water in Noah’s Flood.” Then the atheist would reply saying, “Yeah but the fossils formed when they were on the ocean floor and then the mountain pushed up over a period of millions of years.” In this kind of discussion, both are right in a way and both are wrong in a way. The Christian often misunderstands when they say that the Flood covered Mt. Everest. I say this for the simple reason that Mt. Everest didn’t exist in the time before the Flood. Then the atheist isn’t usually aware of how creationists with a science background really explain mountain building, or these type of fossils.

Creationists and evolutionists explain marine fossils on mountains in a very similar way. They almost agree, except for the timeframe involved. The creationist geologists would say the marine fossils were buried and fossilized on the ocean floor during the Flood. Then many layers of rock formed and the mountain started uplifting during the Flood and it continued to push up in a period of a few hundred years after the Flood. The atheist would say Plate Tectonics pushed up the mountains we see today. I agree with this but I would say Plate Tectonics could have happened in a much shorter time frame than the evolutionists assume. That this is possible has been theoretically demonstrated by very good geophysics simulations of the Earth’s interior and it also agrees with a variety of geological evidence related to Earth movements and continent movements during the Flood. Another puzzle about fossils on mountains for evolutionists is that in their time scale, the erosion of material off the mountain is faster than the uplift of the mountain. This means that in their time scale the fossils would erode off the mountain before they could uplift to today’s altitude. So a shorter time scale actually makes more sense. The concept of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics for how the Flood took place is I think the best scientific model we have of the Flood. There are some creationists who do not accept Plate Tectonics at all, but they propose the mountains pushing up by different mechanisms. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics makes the creationist explanation of this very similar to the evolutionist explanation, except for the controversial question of how long did it take. Below are some relevant links:

Evidence 5 – Massive Erosion of the Continents

There is evidence that thick layers of sediment once existed on the continents that no longer exist because they were eroded away. This is about layers that sometimes covered large regions and represent massive scale erosion. A good example is in the Western United States. The topmost rock layer at much of the Grand Canyon in Arizona is the Kiabab Plateau. If you follow rock layers from the top of Grand Canyon away from it, especially Northward, there are sites where the Kaibab has other layers on top of it. In fact there are other canyons North of Grand Canyon that are higher in elevation than Grand Canyon, such as Zion Canyon and Bryce Canyon. There are buttes and cliffs showing that there was once much more sedimentary layers than what is seen at the top of the Grand Canyon today. So these layers have often been called the Grand Staircase.

The question is what happened to the layers of the Grand Staircase? It’s a very large amount of sediment that was eroded off and the formation of the Grand Canyon seems related to this erosion. Evolutionists have debated various ideas on the formation of the Grand Canyon for years. Creationist geologists have also spent a great deal of time researching Grand Canyon and have found a number of fascinating things that suggest a great Flood. Though creationists have proposed multiple scenarios to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon, I think the scenario that is best is to say it formed from waters running off the continent late in the Flood. As waters started to run off the continent, for a period of time there would have been very large scale rapid erosion, some of which may have started underwater. There could also have been sheet erosion where water flows as a wide flat sheet very rapidly. The sheet erosion could explain the flat surface at the top of the Canyon. Then the water channelized and could erode side canyons as it went. The time scale of a year long Flood event makes explaining the Grand Canyon easier because you could have very thick layers of sediment deposited, then they are eroded before they have time to harden to solid rock. This is not an option in an evolutionist long time scale approach. The Grand Canyon also is a canyon that is cut through an uplifted hill. This has been difficult for evolutionary geologists to explain.

To see a graphic of the Grand Staircase and a possible scenario for formation of the Grand Canyon see this article by Peter Scheele:

Evidence 6 – Hummocky Cross-Stratification

There are a number of special types of rock formations that can happen in water or underwater. Scientists have learned more about these formations. Some rocks once considered to have formed from wind-blown sand in desserts are now seen as having formed underwater from wave action. There are also rocks that are now regarded by geologists as having formed by underwater turbidity currents, where sediment flows down a slope under water. These are examples of cases where the prevailing view of certain things in geology has changed and it sometimes tends to provide examples of what a global Flood could do. One of the best examples of this is something I have not seen much documentation or published papers on from creationists, yet it seems like a very good indication of the Flood to me. It is called Hummocky Cross-stratification. This is where sedimentary rock forms in hump-like structures underwater. They form because of the action of strong underwater currents, often changing or crisscrossing currents. The way they were explained to me by a Ph.D. geologist is that they usually represent evidence of a hurricane. It requires a powerful storm to form these structures underwater. They must form underwater in a powerful storm. The interesting thing is where they are found. I was shown pictures of these hummocks at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Think about this, a hurricane in Arizona? There are examples of this in Colorado also, but those are tiny compared to the pictures I saw of the Grand Canyon. Another place where they occur is on a mountain mentioned in Genesis. Genesis says the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. Ararat is a mountain range and the largest mountain there is called Greater Ara. This mountain is over 16,000 feet in altitude today, which makes it taller than Pikes Peak in Colorado. I saw pictures taken by a geologist showing large hummock structures at a fairly high altitude on the Ara mountain, perhaps halfway or more up the mountain. I don’t remember the exact altitude. This is very significant. So this suggests that the mountain was covered with water and that the mountain probably began forming during the Flood. Creationist geologists have suggested this from other evidence also for this mountain as well. So this seems to fit the book of Genesis.


I find that if you look into it seriously, you can see that the Bible really does fit the real world. The book of Genesis and the Old Testament are historically accurate. But there are some hard to answer questions and there are some differences of opinion between various Christian scholars regarding how to relate the Bible to archeological evidence. In the New Testament the most important “evidence” for Jesus being both man and God and the Savior of the world is his resurrection from the dead. God’s judgment may be an uncomfortable subject. But today, God waits to give people time to believe and ask him for forgiveness. The Flood described in Genesis chapters 6-9 is affirmed by Jesus and the Apostle Peter. There is plenty of evidence for the truth of the Bible, but people have to be open to accept it. That’s the mysterious part but God can help a person make this change in their attitude and mind. God has provided all the proof people should need to believe, so that we can escape his judgment to come. The Apostle Paul put it this way in Acts 17:31, “For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”