Are the Genesis Creation Days

Literal or Symbolic?

by Sean Pitman

I received the material posted below from Dr. Sean Pitman, a talented young physician whose hobby is religion. He was contacted by Zach Armstrong, who believes that the story of creation, as recorded in Genesis, should be interpreted in a symbolic manner. He argued his case using certain biblical texts allegedly suggesting that each day of creation might have been long seasons instead of literal 24 hours as interpreted by young creationists. Dr. Pitman answers each argument with reasons why he rejects this manner of reading the story of origins. This exchange is followed by Pitman's response to Desmond Ford interpretation of the Genesis record of Creation. [Nic Samojluk]

*********

Hey Sean,

I understand now that you are a "young life creationist". Now I have tried to explain in detail, from the Scriptures, why I think that the days of creation are more than literal 24 hour days. It seem that the terms "evening and morning" are basically why you think that they had to be literal. I found something interesting regarding these Hebrew words (as  I do not read Hebrew, and rely on other researcher's work for that) here: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html

-

You may still feel that because the Hebrews had a seven day week, this must mean that the seven days of creation are literal. However, consider this: The history of a weekly 24-hour sabbath observance begins with the nation of Israel in the wilderness in the second month after their Exodus from Egypt in 1513 B.C.E. (Ex 16:1) God had told Moses that the miraculous provision of the manna would be double on the sixth day. When this proved true, the chieftains of the assembly reported the matter to Moses and then the arrangement for the weekly Sabbath was announced. (Ex 16:22, 23) That Israel was obligated from that time forward is shown by Jehovah's words at Exodus 16:28, 29.

-

That the Sabbath was not enjoined upon any of God's servants until after the Exodus is evident from the testimony of Deuteronomy 5:2, 3 and Exodus 31:16, 17: "It was not with our forefathers that Jehovah concluded this covenant, but with us." "The sons of Israel must keep the sabbath . . . during their generations. . . . Between me and the sons of Israel it is a sign to time indefinite." If Israel had already been observing the Sabbath, it could not have served as a reminder of their deliverance from Egypt by Jehovah, as shown at Deuteronomy 5:15. The fact that some of the Israelites went out to pick up manna on the seventh day, in spite of direct instruction to the contrary, indicates that Sabbath observance was something new.. (Ex 16:11-30) That there was uncertainty in handling the case of the first recorded Sabbath breaker after the Law had been given at Sinai also shows that the Sabbath had only recently been instituted. (Nu 15:32-36) While in Egypt the Israelites, being slaves, could not have kept the Sabbath even if they had been under such law at the time. Pharaoh complained that Moses was interfering even when he asked for a three-day period to make a sacrifice to God. How much more so if the Israelites had tried to rest one day out of every seven. (Ex 5:1-5) While it is true that the patriarchs apparently measured time in a week of seven days, there is no evidence that any distinction was made as to the seventh day. Seven was prominent, however, as a number that often denoted completeness. (Ge 4:15, 23, 24; 21:28-32) The Hebrew word "swear" (sha‧va‛’) is evidently from the same root as thhe word meaning "seven."

-

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done (Gen 2:2,3).

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". (Mark 2:27)

Furthermore, the weekly Sabbath was made an integral part of a system of sabbaths when the Law covenant was formally inaugurated at Mount Sinai a short time later. (Ex 19:1; 20:8-10; 24:5-8) This sabbatical system was composed of many types of sabbaths: the 7th day, the 7th year, the 50th year (Jubilee year), Nisan 14 (Passover), Nisan 15, Nisan 21, Sivan 6 (Pentecost), Ethanim 1, Ethanim 10 (Atonement Day), Ethanim 15, and Ethanim 22. So we can see here, that the Law Covenant was a pattern, not that it necessarily indicated that the days of creation were literal. For instance, how do we know they weren't the 7-year lengths of time, or the 50-year lengths of time of the Jubilee? We don't, as the Law Covenant was a representation of unseen realities.

-

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Ex. 20:11). 

It is also interesting that the Sabbath Day was not enjoined upon Christians. Jesus, being a Jew under the Law, observed the Sabbath as God's Word (not the Pharisees) directed. He knew it was lawful to do fine things on the Sabbath. (Mt 12:12) However, the inspired Christian writings state that "Christ is the end of the Law" (Ro 10:4), which results in Christians' being "discharged from the Law." (Ro 7:6) Neither Jesus nor his disciples made any distinction between so-called moral and ceremonial laws. They quoted from the other parts of the Law as well as from the Ten Commandments and considered all of it equally binding on those under the Law. (Mt 5:21-48; 22:37-40; Ro 13:8-10; Jas 2:10, 11) The Scriptures plainly state that Christ's sacrifice "abolished . . . the Law of commandments consisting in decrees" and that God "blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees . . .. and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake." It was the complete Mosaic Law that was "abolished," "blotted out," taken "out of the way." (Eph 2:13-15; Col 2:13, 14) Consequently, the whole system of Sabbaths, be they days or years, was brought to its end with the rest of the Law by the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. This explains why Christians can esteem "one day as all others," whether it be a sabbath or any other day, with no fear of judgment by another. (Ro 14:4-6; Col 2:16) Paul made the following expression concerning those scrupulously observing "days and months and seasons and years": "I fear for you, that somehow I have toiled to no purpose respecting you."—Ga 4:10, 11..

-

Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.  He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.  But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of god is perfected in him.  By this we know that we are in Him.  He who says he abides in Him ought also to walk just as he walked.  Brethren, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning.  The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning. (1 John 2: 3 - 7 & 5: 2, 3)  

Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Pray that your flight will not take place in the winter or on the Sabbath. (Matt. 24:20)

After Jesus' death, his apostles at no time commanded Sabbath observance. The Sabbath was not included as a Christian requirement at Acts 15:28, 29, or later. Nor did they institute a new sabbath, a "day of the Lord." Even though Jesus was resurrected on the day now called Sunday, nowhere does the Bible indicate that this day of his resurrection should be commemorated as a "new" sabbath or in any other way.

-

First Corinthians 16:2 and Acts 20:7 have been appealed to by some as a basis for observing Sunday as a sabbath. However, the former text merely indicates that Paul instructed Christians to lay aside in their homes for their needy brothers at Jerusalem a certain amount each first day of the week. The money was not to be turned in at their place of meeting but was to be retained until Paul's arrival. As for the latter text, it was only logical that Paul would meet with the brothers in Troas on the first day of the week, since he was leaving the very next day.

- 

From the foregoing it is clear that literal observance of Sabbath days and years was not a part of first-century Christianity. It was not until 321 C.E. that Constantine decreed Sunday (Latin: dies Solis, an old title associated with astrology and sun worship, not Sabbatum [Sabbath] or dies Domini [Lord's day]) to be a day of rest for all but the farmers.

-

But what about the command to "enter into God's rest"? According to Genesis 2:2, 3, following the sixth creative day, or period, God "proceeded to rest on the seventh day," desisting from creative works with respect to the earth, as described in Genesis chapter 1.

The apostle Paul shows in Hebrews, chapters 3 and 4, that the Jews in the wilderness failed to enter into God's rest, or sabbath, because of disobedience and lack of faith. (Heb 3:18, 19; Ps 95:7-11; Nu 14:28-35) Those who did enter the Promised Land under Joshua experienced a rest, but not the full rest to be enjoyed under the Messiah. It was only typical, or a shadow of the reality. (Jos 21:44; Heb 4:8; 10:1) However, Paul explains, "there remains a sabbath resting for the people of God." (Heb 4:9)

-

Those who are obedient and exercise faith in Christ thereby enjoy "a sabbath resting" from their "own works," works by means of which they formerly sought to prove themselves righteous. (Compare Ro 10:3.) Thus Paul shows that God's sabbath, or rest, was still continuing in his day and Christians were entering into it, indicating that God's rest day is thousands of years long.—Heb 4:3, 6, 10. Again, the internal biblicall evidence indicates that the creative days were not literal 24-hour periods in length, but possibly hundreds, or even thousands, of years long. Now notice that I say "possibly", as I am not going to be dogmatic on this, however, again, it seems to be more in harmony with various types of scientific evidence, than for them to be literal 24-hour days.

-

From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the LORD. (Isaiah 66:23)

Similarly, while on earth, Jesus Christ referred to himself as "Lord of the sabbath.." (Mt 12:8) The literal Sabbath day, which was meant to bring the Israelites relief from their labors, was "a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ." (Col 2:16, 17)

-

In connection with those "things to come," there is a sabbath of which Jesus is to be the Lord. As Lord of lords, Christ will rule all the earth for a thousand years. (Re 19:16; 20:6) During his earthly ministry, Jesus performed some of his most outstanding miraculous works on the Sabbath. (Lu 13:10-13; Joh 5:5-9; 9:1-14) This evidently shows the kind of relief that he will bring as he raises mankind to spiritual and physical perfection during his coming Millennial Rule, which thus will be like a period of sabbath rest for the earth and mankind.—Re 21:1-4.

-

It should also be noted that God  had warned Adam that if he disobediently ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad he would positively die "in the day" of his eating. (Gen. 2:17) True to God's word, on the very day of Adam's sinning God called the transgressors to account and pronounced sentence of death. The punishment was inescapable. Judicially, from God's standpoint, Adam and Eve died that day. (Compare Luke 20:37, 38.) But so as to carry out his own stated purpose regarding the populating of the earth, Jehovah allowed them to produce a family before they literally died. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of God's viewing 1,000 years as one day, when Adam's life ended at 930 years, this was within one "day." (Gen. 5:3-5; compare Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8.) Thus Jehovah's truthfulness was upheld as to the time when punishment would be executed, and his purpose to populate the earth with Adam's offspring was not thwarted.

-

I find this last paragraph particularly pertinent to our discusion, because you have said that we cannot necessarily take the "1,000 years as one day" literally. However, it seems that in Adam's case it is literal, as it is in Jesus' Millennial Reign, that constitutes Judgment Day. It seems reasonable, then, to believe, that even if each day was not a literal 1,000 years, it could still be a relatively long time, as indicated also by a study of the Sabbath.

-

Hope this explains my position better,

-

Zach

-

P.S.: I don't have time right now to address this, but I will soon address some more questions on the Flood, and animal suffering. As I think I may have given an unclear explanation of my position.

-

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:33:13 -0700

*********

 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:59:43 -0700

From: "Sean Pitman"
Subject: Response to Desmond Ford's Arguments re: The Age of the Earth

"How Old is the Earth?"

Response to Desmond Ford's Arguments

Sean D. Pitman, MD

www.DetectingDesign.comAugust 2008   

Ford:

Date (thick chalk deposits):

Is it quite certain that the earth is old as geologists declare? Yes, it is quite sure. Even the Geoscience Research Institute of SDAs now admits this (after denials of decades). The proofs run into scores, of which perhaps five percent are questionable. For example, under the South Downs of England lie about 800 feet of chalk. These deposits are composed of tiny organisms, which sank to the ocean floor after death, taking about 1,000 years to form one inch of chalk. Think of the White Cliffs of Dover. Every microscopic fragment of it was once living. The present color testifies that these cliffs were not the product of a catastrophic flood.

Pitman: 

 Thick chalk deposits, such as those as dramatic as the White Cliffs of Dover, are actually evidence of catastrophe on a massive scale - not the slow uniformitarian interpretation so common in mainstream literature.  These white chalk deposits are a very pure type of limestone composed almost entirely of calcium carbonate, which originally belonged to trillions upon trillions of microorganisms to include foraminifera, calcareous algae, coccoliths, and rhabdoliths. 

While living, the habitat of these creatures is in the upper 100 to 200 meters of the open ocean. When they die, their calcium-rich shells settle down on the bottom of the ocean floor up to 5 km below the surface of the ocean.  Below this depth there is little accumulation due to the dissolving of the calcium carbonate into the ocean water before it reaches the bottom.  That is why tall underwater mountain peaks have a "snow-capped" look to them.  It is estimated that it takes up to 10 days for the bodies to settle onto the bottom of the ocean floor with an overall average accumulation rate of 1 to 8 cm per thousand years.   

Well, given that the White Cliffs of Dover are about 400 meters thick, it would seem to be a matter of simple math to establish the hypothesis that this much chalk would take at least 10,000 years to produce just one meter of chalk or over 4 million years to produce a layer 400 meters thick!  In fact, mainstream geologists suggest that it took around 10 million years to form the Cliffs of Dover. Obviously, that's a very long time.  How then can the Cliffs of Dover really represent catastrophic conditions and extremely rapid formation? It gets worse than this. 

Some geologists have estimated that if all of the creatures that form the chalk beds were living at the same time, they would cover the entire planet to a depth of at least 45cm.¹ It is argued that there wouldn't have been enough energy from the sun to support such a biomass or enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to enabled the production of all the calcium carbonate needed by that many microorganisms.² How are these challenges answered by Young Earth Creationists (or Young Life Creationists like myself)?  

Well, under certain conditions these microscopic creatures are able to mass-produce themselves in truly enormous quantities - millions of times more than usual.  These massive collections of algae are called, "algal blooms".   Usually, these blooms are associated with significantly increased nutrients that enrich the water as the result of some sort of contamination/pollution event or catastrophe or when the water becomes exceptionally warm.  Sometimes these blooms become so massive that they can be seen from outer space (see illustration; Link). These bloom conditions produce up to 10 million organisms per liter of ocean water.⁶ Now, consider that calculations that assume only 100 organisms per liter of ocean water show that the entire thickness of the White Cliffs of Dover could be produced within 1,000 years.³ What would a concentration 100,000 times as great do to this time span?     

 But what about the sheer mass of chalk-type calcium carbonate produced?  All the limestone contained within the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary layers form around 17.5 million cubic meters of rock.  Not all of this is chalk, of course, but let's just assume that it is for a minute. Some fairly simple calculations show that only 12.5 million square kilometers of ocean area (only 2.5% of the Earth's surface) is needed to produce 17.5 million cubic kilometers of chalk within 1,700 years given a concentration of only 100 organisms per liter.⁴ Again, given the nutrient-rich bloom conditions described above, that certainly doesn't seem all that overwhelming to the concept of a young geologic record - does it? 

The problem with anti-catastrophist arguments is that many of them assume that these chalk beds had to have been formed within the one year of the Noachian Flood.  That's not true at all.  The Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary layers likely followed the main flooding event before the continents had been split apart and started formed large mountain chains and ocean trenches.  The ocean basis immediately after the main catastrophe of the Noachian flood would have been fairly shallow and filled with massive quantities of nutrients. 

The microorganisms would have gone wild producing diatomaceous blooms larger than can be imagined - large enough to bury and preserve very large creatures, like articulated whales!  How does one bury a whale in chalk at a rate of a few centimeters per thousand years?  In this line, the fairly recent discoveries of fossil whales (Miocene/Pliocene) in western Peru are quite interesting. Leonard Brand (Ph.D. in Paleobiology from Cornell) comments, "In our survey of the area, we found the fossil remains of more than 100 whales in an area of less than two square kilometers… What was even more exciting was the well-preserved nature of the fossil remains. . . 

Typically, when a whale dies at sea, the carcass falls to the bottom and becomes the source of a rich ecosystem. Many species of sea life benefit from the decaying remains at each stage of the process. Within four to six months, the whale carcass has been mostly stripped down to the bones. At that point, other species of organisms burrow both into the bones and the surrounding sediment. Within a year or two, the whale bones show much evidence of these burrowing animals." ⁵  So, how did the whales in western Peru meet their end? "These whales were incredibly well-preserved," Brand observes, "suggesting that they were covered quickly." Brand found that the whale remains were blanketed by a thick layer of diatomite (silica remains of diatoms).

These tiny creatures, known collectively as plankton together with dinoflagellates, are part of the food source for whales. In modern times, diatomite normally accumulates on the sea bottom at a rate of a few centimeters per thousand years. "We also found beautifully preserved baleen," he adds. Baleen refers to the filtering feather-like structures in the whale's mouth that are used to strain out food (plankton) from the water. "Whales feed by gulping in water and forcing it out through the baleen, trapping the tiny plankton." Baleen is actually more akin to the human fingernail or toenail in its structure. "The well-preserved baleen supports the theory of a quick burial to an even greater extent." ⁵ 

Other similar though arguably less dramatic discoveries have also been published in earlier papers.⁷  But why did these whales (and other kinds of preserved creatures) die in the first place? "There is more and more evidence that red tides--blooms of diatoms and dinoflagellates--produce toxins which can kill large animals and fish," he says.⁵ These massive blooms were so large that they not only killed the whales, but buried them in thick layers before any significant decay could set in.  If this find does not prove the reality of rapid chalk deposition, I don't know what does? The very purity of these chalk beds should cause one to question the uniformitarian paradigm.  

It is very hard to imagine how the very high level of purity of calcium carbonate could have been maintained over millions of years without the incorporation of significant amounts of contaminate material?  Rather, given a period of relative calm following a series of shortly spaced massive watery catastrophes on a global scale (as indicated by the Biblical account and numerous extra-Biblical cultural legends of a Noachian Flood), the oceans would have been both relatively warm and nutrient rich (from all of the killed, buried, and floating organic material).  Such a situation would have produced massive algal blooms on a global scale such as the world has never seen before or since.⁸    

1.       Schadewald, R.J., 1982. Six 'Flood' arguments creationists can’t answer. Creation/Evolution IV:12–17 (p. 13).2.       Morton, G.R., 1984. The carbon problem. Creation Research Society Quarterly 20(4):212–219 (pp. 217–218).3.       Roth, A.A., 1985. Are millions of years required to produce biogenic sediments in the deep ocean? Origins 12(1):48–56.4.       Woodmorappe, J., 1986. The antediluvian biosphere and its capability of supplying the entire fossil record. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh, C.L. Brooks and R.S. Crowell (eds), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Vol. 2, pp. 205–218.5.       Leonard Brand, Taphonomy of fossil whales in the Miocene/Pliocene Pisco Fm., Peru, Dept. of Natural Sciences, Loma Linda University, 2004 ( http://www.llu.edu/llu/grad/natsci/brand/whale.htm )6.       Seliger, H.H., Carpenter, J.H., Loftus, M. and McElroy, W.D., 1970. Mechanisms for the accumulation or high concentrations of dinoflagellates in a bioluminescent bay. Limnology and Oceanography 15:234–245.7.       (Reese, K.M. 1976. Workers find whale in diatomaceous earth quarry. Chemical & Engineering News 54(42):40.).8.       http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/chalk.asp  

Ford:

Think of coral reefs, sometimes forty miles long and of great height and thickness.

Pitman:

 This is a common argument, which is interesting to me since these supposed "reef" formations aren't really reefs at all.  In other words, they do not represent in situ growth and formation.  Rather, they are conglomerate deposits of fragments of coral and other materials into an embankment of sorts.  For example, the Thornton Quarry 'reef', near Chicago, does not match any of the characteristics of a modern reef.  The 'core' of this reef shows no growth structures and is the wrong shape.  The angle of the reef is too steep, reef binding organisms are absent, a solid foundation rock is absent, and the reef is riddled with fossil tar, indicating rapid deposition, not slow growth.¹ 

Also, investigations of assumed 'reefs' in Australia² and Europe³ also reveal that they did not grow in situ, but were transported and dumped into place.   When investigated with more than superficial interest, fossil reefs really do not pan out as true reefs, but are depositional structures much more consistent with catastrophic flood models than with slow uniformitarian notions of formation.  Rather than being a problem for catastrophic models for the geologic column, these 'reefs' actually provide very good evidence for the catastrophic model. 

 1.       D’Armond, D.B., Thornton Quarry deposits: a fossil coral reef or a catastrophic Flood deposit? CRSQ 17(2):88–105, 1980.2.       Roth, A.A., Origins: Linking Science and Scripture, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Hagerstown, Maryland, pp. 239–241, 1998.

3.       Scheven, J., The Flood/post-Flood boundary in the fossil record; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2^nd International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 247–266, 1990.

Ford:

Think of the varves that run sometimes into millions in some geographic locations, such as the Green River district in USA. Each varve (a varve is a pair of distant layer of sediment) represents the climatic changes of a single year . . .   

Pitman:

Varves are sedimentary layers generally interpreted as being laid down in a yearly banding pattern with one varve being laid down once per year, like tree rings.  A true varve consists of a couplet of summer silt and winter clay, a period that is difficult to demonstrate.  It is thought that by counting the varves in a lakebed, one can determine a fairly accurate age for that lakebed. Ancient dates are calculated for these lakebeds using varves, sometimes into the millions of years based on varve estimates.

In the fall 1994 issue of Science Speaks, Don Stoner (1994) stated that the Green River Formation of Utah, Colorado and Wyoming "contains more than four million annual layers." He then says, "Obviously, this means that the lake existed for millions of years before it disappeared."  This is a great theory.  It certainly sounds reasonable at first glance.  However, there are just a few problems with this theory.  Multiple varves are now known to form very rapidly in certain situations. Buchheim and Biaggi (1988) measured Green River Formation "varves" between two volcanic tuff beds each two to three centimeters thick. 

Geologists consider each tuff bed a synchronous layer, i.e., every point on that tuff bed has the same age. The two tuff beds thus represent two different reference times. If the laminations in between these two beds are annual layers, the same number of layers should be present everywhere between the two beds. Buchheim and Biaggi found the number of laminae between the tuff beds ranged from 1160 to 1568.   Lambert and Hsà (1979) measured "varves" in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and found up to five laminae deposited during one year. From 1811, which was a clear marker point (because a newly built canal discharged into the lake), until 1971, a period of 160 years, they found the number of laminae ranged between 300 and 360 instead of the expected one per year or 160.  

Some rather interesting experiments with varve formation have also been done.  Julien, Lan and Berthault (1994) experimentally produced laminations by slowly pouring mixtures of sand, limestone and coal into a cylinder of still water. Using a variety of materials, they found that laminae formed if there were differences in size and density of the materials and that the thickness of the laminae depended upon differences in grain size and density. Fischer and Roberts (1991) state, "In some cases the observer counting varves is left in doubt as to which couplets are varves and which are subvarve units, a matter that was handled in our image analysis varve counts by arbitrarily counting only variations above the 30 micron level."

In other words, they arbitrarily chose 30 microns as the minimum thickness to be used for computer analysis. However, many laminations are less than 30 microns thick. Also, many of the "varves" consist of organic layers squeezed together with very tiny carbonate laminae in between. There is no consistency in varve structure.  Geologists have suggested other causes of lamination as potential contributors to varves, including storm events, turbidites and glacial meltwater. Each one of these is aperiodic, producing laminations with no relation to annual or other cyclic processes. For example, turbidity currents from melting snow or heavy rain produce extra couplets. 

Our investigations supported de Geer's first contention that sediment-laden floodwaters could generate turbidity underflows to deposit varves, but threw doubt on his second interpretation that varves or varve-like sediment are necessarily annual.  (Lambert and Hsa, p. 454)  Turbidity currents can mimic varves, especially at the end of the flow that is farthest from the source or sediment. (Hambrey) Many supposed varves are multiple turbidity current deposits and do not represent seasonal changes. 

It is very unfortunate from a sedimentological viewpoint that engineers describe any rhythmically laminated fine-grained sediment as 'varved.' There is increasing recognition that many sequences previously described as varves are multiple turbidite sequences of graded silt to clay units...without any obvious seasonal control on sedimentation. (Quigley, p. 151) 

Turbidity flows have the surprising ability to deposit silt and clay quickly in equal thicknesses. Under normal conditions, silt usually settles in a few days and clay can take years to settle. As both clay and silt fractions are transported to the site of deposition at the same time, successive surge deposits are likely to have similar proportions of silt and clay. In other words, thick silt layers will have thick clay layers, and thin silt layers will have thin clay layers. (Smith, pp. 198-199) Turbidity flows are independent of season and can continuously deposit microlaminae throughout the year, including the winter: 

In many cases where large ice lobes or glaciers sit or float in lakes, there is year round delivery of sediments and turbidite activity occurs almost continually resulting in graded laminae that are not true varves. (Quigley, p. 152) How many varve-like layers form from year to year becomes anyone's guess. Wood (1947) describes peak river inflows after light rain that deposited three varve-like couplets in two weeks. Just as we have seen in many situations, e.g., stalagmite and canyon formation, strata deposition, and fossilization, time is not the essential factor for their development, although evolutionists insist that such things took much time to form. While evolutionary catastrophists admit rapid formation, they almost invariably propose long periods of tedium between catastrophic events. (Ager)  

Steve Austin, who has done much field work at Mount St. Helens, documented in his new book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (see announcement on last page) that the volcano eruption produced 25 feet of volcanic ash varve-like deposits from hurricane-velocity surging flows in five hours.⁹² To summarize the above findings:1). Controversy exists as to the source material comprising varves as well as the mechanism of their cyclic formation. 2). Lamination counts in historically known sections have been demonstrated not to correspond to elapsed years or counts are inconsistent. 3).

There is frequently uncertainty as to how many laminations constitute a varve and the use of arbitrary minimum sizes may lead to erroneous conclusions. 4). There are many nonseasonal mechanisms for producing laminations such as storms, floods, turbidites, glacial meltwater and spontaneous segregation of dissimilar materials. All of these causes of laminar deposits indicate that varve-like laminations are a common effect of many nonseasonal processes.⁹² 5). Various materials that decay rapidly over time, such a delicate leaves, have been found extending through many "annual" varve layers (see above photo). For references and additional information see Link. 

Ford:

 . . . and a multitude of other features of earth give the same testimony as radiometric dating.   

Pitman: 

The problems with radiometric dating are legion.  It might not seem like it at first glance, but the whole process is highly subjective.  Many of the methods do indeed "agree" with each other - but this is not an objective agreement because they are calibrated against each other.  I go into the problems of calibration, 'tuning', and other problems with various radiometric and other related dating techniques at:

 ·         http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html·         http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html·         http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html#Tree·         http://www.detectingdesign.com/aminoaciddating.html·         http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html#Dating   

Ford:

"God spoke, and it was. He commanded, and it stood fast," refers to the certainty of his creative work, not its duration.

  Pitman: 

I suppose that is why God took the time to repeat himself so often by describing his act of creating life on this planet "in six days"?  - - to include the additional description of "evenings and mornings"?   I find it hard to imagine how one could describe literal days of creation any more clearly if one wanted to?  If all God wanted to convey to us is the certainty of his work, why all the extra filler detail describing spans of time and other specifics of his creative or miraculous activity? 

You see, in order to establish a firm basis for belief in the certainty of God and his creative work, we must have some sort of evidence of his activity that is actually testable and consistent with his own claims of what he has done.  Otherwise, where is the basis for a reasonable belief in the very existence of God - much less the certainty of his creative work?  

Ford:

Other evidences of the earth's great age, which are almost universally accepted by specialists in the earth sciences include the following:

The multitude of oil drills in the U.S. alone testifies to the reliability of accepted geological data. A fortune is regularly spent based on this research. There are literally hundreds of places around the world where the same sequence of strata appear.

 Pitman:

The massive size of similar sedimentary layers covering major portions of continents and sometimes the majority of the entire globe is actually more consistent with catastrophic conditions acting over a very flat landmass.  Notice that these sedimentary layers are universally very flat relative to each other. The world millions of years ago must have been a very very flat place indeed.  Notice also that there is little erosion preserved between these flat layers.  The contact zones themselves are very flat as well.  Strange that such features should exist given the uniformitarian notions of those proposing such long spans of time to explain these sedimentary layers. http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html 

-

Ford:

The oilfields of the Great Lakes area, Texas, and Alberta were originally beneath the sea and the thousands of feet of sedimentary rock that piled up contain multitudes of marine fossils. On top of these sedimentary deposits coral reefs grew which ultimately because fossilized into limestone. Some of these are many miles long and about a thousand feet thick and required many thousands of years to develop. On top of these reefs are more layers of sediment upon beds of mud - only after the sediments became rocks did coral edifices begin.

The Bahamas Banks are underwater mountains of sedimentary rock enormous in size and containing what has been described as "one tremendous stack of fossil material". These banks have steeply sloping sides, evidence that the fossils grew in place and were not deposited from elsewhere. Millions of years were required for these massive banks to grow. 

 Pitman:

The coral reefs of the Bahamian Banks are tertiary reefs.  Even according to mainstream thinking these reefs are no older than 120,000 years old.  No older in situ fossil corals, or other subtidal deposits, have been found subaerially exposed anywhere in the Bahamas (Link).  Millions of years where not required for these in situ formations to grow - even by mainstream thinking.   Beyond this, other reefs, like the Eniwetok Atoll (~4,600ft thick) thought to have taken around 175,000 years to form, aren't really built entirely of coral. 

The Eniwetok Atoll rests atop the surface of a submerged volcanic seamount. The entire thing is composed of corals as well as calcerous algae, foraminifera, echinoderms, oysters and so forth, which are cemented together to form the 'reef' (Link).  In other words, the framework of a coral reef can trap sediments and other materials.  In this situation the live coral would not have to build the entire mass of the reef, but only build a framework to hold the sediments. This situation would allow for a much more rapid growth of a reef vs. that suggested by coral growth rates taken from surface measurements (i.e., usually less than 10 mm per year). 

In fact, actual soundings of reefs carried out during the 1930s suggest that a reef framework can grow much more rapidly.  Sewell (1935) reported 280 mm/year in the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal, and Verstelle (1932) reported a maximum rate of growth of 414 mm/year in the Celebes (Dutch East-Indian Archipelago). At such a rate, the entire thickness of the Eniwetok Atoll could have been formed in less than 3,500 years instead of the usually suggested 175,000 years of growth.  Even by surface measurements, some species of coral can grow quite rapidly. Lewis et al. (1968) found in Jamaica a maximum rate of 264 mm/year.

Shinn (1976) studied the growth of this species following destruction in a hurricane near Florida. He estimated linear growth rates of 100 mm/year.  Experiments also suggest that one can nearly double such rates of coral growth by raising the temperature 5ºC or by increasing the carbonate ion content of seawater (Link). Even by conventional dating, the seas are supposed to have been over 100 meters lower 20,000 years ago, before the "great ice melt", and, before then, the sea-level was abruptly higher and the coral could not have survived. Therefore, a continuous coral reef vertical development "for 175,000 years", according the uniformitarian calculations, would be highly improbable.  J. Verstelle, ‘The Growth Rate at Various Depths of Coral Reefs in the Dutch East-Indian Archipelago’, Treubia 14:117–126, 1932. 

Ford:

-