53005 research outputs found
Sort by
Helble\u27s Critique of Creationist Research on the Coconino Sandstone Fails
Full text linkHere we present an initial critical response to Tim Helble’s 2011 and 2024 analyses of creationist research concerning the Coconino Sandstone (Permian, Arizona). His 2011 paper focused on why ordinary subaqueous sedimentary processes could not have deposited the Coconino, and his 2024 paper focused on defending the conventional interpretation of the Coconino and responding to creationist data challenging the conventional viewpoint. However, Helble offers almost no new data of his own but simply reasserts the conventional arguments, many of which we have already addressed in our publications. Some of the same arguments were made in Grand Canyon Monument to an Old Earth, a book for which Helble was a co-editor (Hill et al. 2016). By contrast, Whitmore, Garner, Strom, Brand, Maithel, and others have presented new evidence based on original field and laboratory work that forcefully challenges traditional eolian interpretations of the Coconino.
In Helble’s 2011 paper, he essentially builds a strawman argument for how creationists must explain the deposition of the Coconino. He calls the sediment transport problem “the Achilles’ heel of Flood geology.” While creationists do not yet have a comprehensive understanding of how the Coconino was deposited, we think it must have been non-eolian (underwater) based on the new data we have presented. We have suggested that the best modern analogue for the cross-beds and other features found in the Coconino are marine sandwaves, but we realize this is an imperfect model. Helble is correct that the processes he outlines could not have formed the Coconino during the Flood, but the Flood model requires extrapolations beyond conditions that prevail in the present-day. If a Flood model is correct, we will never be able to observe the depositional processes that made the Coconino in the laboratory or in nature. There is, however, some potential in developing a realistic model through computer-based numerical modeling.
In Helble’s most recent paper (2024), he parrots many eolian arguments that have been presented for the Coconino for more than 90 years. Besides our work, few papers since McKee’s seminal monograph in 1934 have been published describing the Coconino in detail. We have argued in many places why Helble’s arguments are flawed, based on our new data (e.g. Whitmore and Garner 2018). Helble either glosses over the importance of our new findings (concerning, e.g. rounding and sorting, micas, angular feldspars, dolomite, cross-bed angles, footprints, ripples, timing of the sand injectites, “raindrop” prints, frosting, thickness of the deposit) or does not appreciate their significance in his defense of an eolian origin. One area where we commend Helble is his attempt to give an alternative explanation for what we claim are parabolic recumbent folds in Sedona, Arizona. Gerald Bryant, someone who has studied the folds in the Navajo Sandstone, analyzed the Lizard Head fold (Helble 2024, see note 62; also personal communication with JHW in 2021). Only one of our Sedona locations was apparently examined. Although they present some new details, they fail to grapple with or even mention an important piece of data. When viewed from all sides, the Lizard Head fold is clearly a recumbent fold that can be traced along both sides of the outcrop for at least 50 meters within a bounded cross-bed set. They fail to explain how a slumped desert dune, or a groundwater migration hypothesis, can form a consistent parabolic fold covering this distance. We continue to contend that the best explanation for the Coconino involves subaqueous deposition as proposed in our 2018 paper.
Selected references:
Helble, T. 2011. Sediment transport and the Coconino Sandstone: A reality check on Flood geology. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 63(1):25-41.
Helble, T. 2024. Flood geology and conventional geology face off over the Coconino Sandstone. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 76(2):86-106.
Hill, C., G. Davidson, T. Helble, and W. Ranney (editors). 2016. The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications.
Whitmore, J.H., and P.A. Garner. 2018. The Coconino Sandstone (Permian, Arizona, USA): Implications for the origin of ancient cross-bedded sandstones. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 581–627. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship
Banded Iron Formations: What Are They, and Why Should We Care?
Full text linkBanded iron formations (BIFs) are anomalous iron-rich chemical sedimentary and metamorphic deposits that occur in Precambrian strata around the world. Because they offer crucial insights into earth’s earliest oceanic, atmospheric, and biological conditions, conventional geologists have performed extensive research on these lithologies. However, dedicated creationist efforts to incorporate BIFs into a Biblical model of earth history have remained few and far between. The goal of this study is to raise the creation community’s awareness of general BIF characteristics. Georef, Google Scholar, and the Paleobiology Database were used to compile data regarding conventional age, geochemistry, geographical placement, depositional environment, and presence or absence of microfossils in these rock layers.
Three primary types of BIFs emerged: Algoma, Superior, and Rapitan. A successive progression from those interpreted to be deep-water basin, nearshore-tidal, and glacial depositional environment was observed upon decreasing BIF age, but specific formation conditions varied widely among the same type in different geographical regions. BIFs have been mapped on all continents, with some particularly massive formations correlating across today’s oceans. They often display chert, slate, and iron oxide lithologies, with common constituents including hematite, magnetite, stilpnomelane, greenalite, grunerite, jaspilite, and minnesotaite. Indications of biologic activity show up prevalently in Neoproterozoic Superior-type formations through trace element compositions, excellent preservation of cyanobacteria fossils and stromatolite-like mounds, and association with surrounding organic shales and phosphorite deposits. While researchers still debate whether biogenic or chemical process were more important in creating BIFs, conventional opinions are shifting to favor microbial formation mechanisms due to their rapidity. Rapid deposition of BIFs is proving necessary to explain the immense thicknesses of the deposits (Dickens 2017), excellent microfossil preservation, included sedimentary structures, and timing of later diagenetic events.
Traditional interpretations of BIFs have involved formation criteria such as a reducing Precambrian atmosphere, anoxic seafloor conditions, and slow chemical precipitation. However, more recent research is indicating that alternating ‘oxygen oasis’ zones in the ocean, hydrothermal processes, and microbial mediation actually may have been responsible for BIF genesis. These observations accompany a revolution in scientific understanding of the Great Oxygenation Event and its role in life’s origin story. For creationists, this is exciting news, and it should inspire renewed efforts to formulate a Biblical model for the rocks. Creation authors such as Snelling (2009), Clarey (2020), and Dickens (2018) have offered thoughts regarding their synthesis, classifying them as Creation Week rocks, initial Flood deposits, or a mixture of both. These varied interpretations indicate that much more work is needed to create a working model of BIF formation. A possible research opportunity would include whether the switch in depositional styles from the Archean Algoma-type to the Neoproterozoic Superior-type BIFs might indicate hydrothermal activity associated with Creation Week uplift, unique pre-Flood processes, or the very beginning of the Flood. Also, issues such as the BIFs’ disappearance in the Phanerozoic, their ambiguous formation mechanisms, microbial roles, and the GOE’s validity in earth history would also need to be addressed in a thorough Biblical model.
Clarey, T. 2020. Carved in Stone: Geological Evidence of the Worldwide Flood. Dallas, Texas: Institute for Creation Research.
Dickens, H. 2017. Banded iron formations formed rapidly. Journal of Creation 31, no. 2:14-16.
Dickens, H. 2018. North American Precambrian geology–A proposed young earth biblical model. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, vol. 8, pp. 389-403. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship. 10.15385/jpicc.2018.8.1.34.
Snelling, A. A. 2009. Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation, and the Flood, pp. 362, 637. Dallas, Texas: Institute for Creation Research
2025-2026 Graduate Academic Catalog
Full text linkhttps://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/graduate_academic_catalogs/1018/thumbnail.jp
Cedarville Magazine, Spring 2025: Building for Transformation
Full text linkhttps://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cedarvillemagazine/1034/thumbnail.jp
