← The Creation Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript138 lines
- [00:00]
Dr. Tim Clarey
I think most people would lean towards the Earth as old because that's who they're taught in school. All these consistencies to me is just screaming, global. Something global happened. My love of history kind of goes back to geology in some ways, because geology, you read history with the layers of the rocks, they're like the pages of the books. In the last 13 years, the research that I've been doing at ICR on what we call the column project, or really looking at all the rocks all over the world, in every continent, in every country, pretty much when you add it all up, every continent does the same thing and every kind of shows the same pattern. It's constantly infused in society that the Earth is old, Earth is old, Earth is old. But if you go back 200 years, everybody believed the Earth was young. We're going to talk a little bit about the age of the Earth and why that matters, and we're going to talk about the reading of the rocks, how we use rocks like this to read kind of what was happening and evidence that I believe points toward a flood. The third thing is we're going to talk about the flood itself a little bit about the global rock record. What do the rocks really show? I don't think anybody's done this kind of research, but icr, ever.
- [01:03]
Podcast Host
When I tell people, like, what it is that I do for work, and I specifically mention icr, literally the first question that comes out of their mouth is, so, do you think that the Earth is old or do you think that the Earth is young? And honestly, I think that is, like, such a fair question and one that sits at the center of the origins debate. So I know that this is an important topic for our viewers, but, Dr. Clary, why do you think the age of the Earth is such an important topic for us to discuss today?
- [01:31]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Well, there's a couple of reasons for that. And again, like you said, you know, churches today, even you go around, you ask the people in the church, I think most people would lean towards, the Earth is old because that's what they're taught in school, that's what they're taught on TV and the movies. You know, it's constantly infused in society that the Earth is old. Earth is old. Earth is old. But if you go back, you know, 200 years, everybody believed the Earth was young. Everybody believed the biblical genealogies and the chronologies in Genesis, you know, indicate that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old, which is what we believe at ICR. But it's very, very important because the Bible teaches that. And yet science, conventional science, is trying to tell us the Earth is old. And that all started about the end of the 18th century, early 19th century, with work by James Hutton, who said, oh, everything's uniform and everything's really old, and erosion takes a long time and deposition takes a long time. So every rock layer took so many years, he was trying to guesstimate how many years it took for each layer. And so he ended up coming up with terms like millions of years, which nobody can really comprehend. A million years. You can comprehend a thousand, 2,000, 10,000, maybe 100,000. When you jump to a million, all of a sudden it's just like. It's almost obscure. It's so abstract you can't even grasp it.
- [02:45]
Podcast Host
Yeah, unfathomable, really.
- [02:46]
Dr. Tim Clarey
And if it wasn't for the old age that they were pushing in the early 19th century, Darwin would never be able to come up with evolution to kind of match with that. He needs the deep time, the really old time frame to have evolution have a chance. And so those are like the two pillars of science today. Any deep time and evolution. You can't have one without the other. And so it became very, very important to the scientists to say the Earth is old. If we want to believe that we evolved from nothing or from some primordial little critter that showed up somehow, which they still can't figure out how, and just became the ancestor to all of us, all plants and animals on the Earth today. So that's kind of their story. The Bible tells a completely different story. The Bible tells us God very specifically created things thousands of years ago on day one, did this each day, he lists out really what he did. And so it's very different. But yet there's a lot of Christians out there that are kind of. They don't know what to do. They don't know the evidence that the Earth is young. There's a lot of evidence out there that they're not being taught.
- [03:48]
Podcast Host
We're going to give them so much of that evidence today, for sure. But, okay, you talked a little bit about Hutton. Is he the main reason why this old Earth age really got saturated into society? Or why did everybody all of a sudden just start teaching that when earlier they didn't do that?
- [04:07]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Well, I think a lot of them were trying to. You know, there's correspondence out there that really shows that some of these people are really trying to push God out, you know, trying to push the writings of Moses, as they said, out of science. And so there was there was a purpose behind it, trying to, you know, before that, all the scientists, all the founders of most of the major sciences and chemistry and physics and calculus and math and all that, they all believe the earth is 6,000 years old. But suddenly he came along and others were pushing it too, but he kind of really was the first one to really. You know, there's other. Few others that came along that said the Earth might be tens of thousands of years old or 50,000 or 100,000, but he's the one that came along and started trying to use layers of the earth and say that these layers took a long time because that's what we see today.
- [04:47]
Podcast Host
Yeah.
- [04:47]
Dr. Tim Clarey
The idea of uniformitarianism, he kind of. He didn't coin the phrase, but he came up with the concept.
- [04:52]
Podcast Host
He was like the pioneer.
- [04:53]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Yeah. And then the next generation, Charles Lyell, wrote the books and started saying that here's the first geology textbooks. And he was using that old Earth idea and the old uniform uniformitarianism ideas of everything's going slow, there's no beginning, no end. That's exactly what Peter wrote under the direction of the Holy Spirit in second Peter, how they'll say in the end time, there's no beginning, there's no end. And that's exactly what we're seeing in modern sciences playing out. They're living exactly what the Lord predicted. So it's really amazing. The Bible's always shown to be true, and even the predictions of the end times are coming true.
- [05:32]
Podcast Host
Crazy to think about. So when you actually began studying geology professionally, what was it that surprised you the most that you learned?
- [05:39]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Well, I first started working as a geologist after I got a master's degree. I went to school, bachelor's, and then I went and got a master's because that was kind of the ticket to get a job. And so I was looking at jobs at oil companies that were booming in the 70s and early 80s. And then suddenly when I came out of School about 1984, all of a sudden, everything was shutting down. Companies were buying each other, going out of business. The company I started working for, Chevron, just had bought Gulf Oil, which was a big company, and bought them out. And so because of that, they had too many geologists. They were laying people off. But what I found out, to answer your question, is I started looking for oil. And so I was looking for places to find oil or develop an oil field that's already found. And it really doesn't matter how old you say the oil is. It's there or it's not there. And the same thing is true with coal or any minerals that you're looking for. Any practical side of geology, it doesn't matter if you say it's millions of years old or if it's really only a thousand years old. If it's there, it's there. And the more you think into it, oil can't be old. These resources can't be that old. And they have decayed away by now, just like an animal you hit with your car. They don't last very long. Oil underground still is bacteria down there, they're still eating, they're still biodegrading. It goes quicker at the surface. If we spill oil, for example, in the ocean, it biodegrades quicker because there's more oxygen. But underground, there's still bacteria as deep as we've drilled. And so old oil can't exist. But the bottom line is, as a young Earth geologist, I was able to find oil just like the old Earth people, because it really doesn't matter. That's the bottom line. It doesn't matter if you say it's old or if it's young. It's whether it's there or not. And to me, the only reason it's still there is because it is young.
- [07:22]
Podcast Host
Yeah, super interesting. I didn't know that. So what do people misunderstand the most about young Earth geology?
- [07:30]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Well, they think there's no evidence for it.
- [07:32]
Podcast Host
Okay.
- [07:32]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Now, most people like to ask you, you know, they're surprised you think the Earth is young. It's like, well, there's no evidence for that, is there? I'm like, yes, there is. You know, if you read our literature, read other creation organizations literature, there's a lot of evidence that the Earth is young. Some of that, which we'll talk about a little bit here if you shortly. But there really is evidence that it's never really discussed in the public schools or in the movies or anything. They just assume the ages are real and they're factual.
- [07:56]
Podcast Host
Yeah.
- [07:56]
Dr. Tim Clarey
You know, they'll say dinosaurs went extinct 66 million years ago, like it really happened. And, you know, but 20 years ago, they would say 65 million years ago. So, you know, they keep changing the narrative. It's a million years between friends.
- [08:09]
Podcast Host
Right.
- [08:10]
Dr. Tim Clarey
They report all these dates as facts. It as if they're real. And they don't even put the plus and minuses. You know, in science classes they teach you there's always plus and minus to everything. There's always a little bit of slop. But they just report these pretty much as these are the real dates, and they just push it upon people. Push it upon people. Push it upon people. So it is hard to push back. But there is a lot of evidence that people don't hear about in the conventional world that shows that these systems are flawed, that these radiometric dating things are flawed.
- [08:39]
Podcast Host
I'm excited to be able to get into that a little bit later and talk about the flawed system.
- [08:42]
Dr. Tim Clarey
We can do that.
- [08:43]
Podcast Host
Oh, we will. Don't you worry. I've got tons of questions for you. So before we discuss, like, conclusions, let's talk a little bit about how geologists actually interpret Earth's history. So when a geologist looks at a rock layer, any of these, for example, what information are they actually gathering from that layer? What are they doing?
- [09:05]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Well, one of the things I look for is I look for sedimentary structures, which are things that were left in the rocks when they were being deposited. Things like this particular rock sample. It's a little heavier than I thought. But this is a ripple. So these are. You know, the whole surface here would have shown actual ripples where the waves were actually making these ripples, just like you see at a beach or in the bottom of a stream. You can see the direction. There's a gentle side here and a steeper side. So this would be called an asymmetrical ripple, which the water was flowing in this direction. As a geologist, you kind of can tell how these form by studying these things in the field. You can see the ones today, and you can see how ripples form. So this is a sandstone. So commonly, just like a sand you see in the bottom of a river or a stream or somewhere, there's a lot of sands that were deposited during the flood. We don't think this was necessarily a river or anything like that, but it was part of a big layer of rock that was deposited. This is a much bigger, vast piece. But this particular ripple is kind of smooth on the top.
- [10:01]
Podcast Host
It is smooth. It's a little sandy, too.
- [10:02]
Dr. Tim Clarey
You know, to preserve that, you have to bury that fast by another lay. And so all these layers, even fossils, that's buried fast, but this tells us this was deposited by water. And so that's one of the things we can tell from the rocks. We can also look for different layers of rocks, you know, with sandstone, limestone, shale, and you can kind of piece together what happened in an area. You can see rocks that are folded. We look for faults and fractures and cracks. We call them joints, but those are just, you know, every rock has fractures in them.
- [10:33]
Podcast Host
Why is that? Important though, like on the sandstone, like yes, there's ripples on top of it. But why is that important? Why do we need to know that
- [10:39]
Dr. Tim Clarey
it's important that this was deposited by water. And people argue sometimes if they're really big, that they're deposited by sand dunes. But there's also other indicators in the rocks. We can cut thin sections of this particular sandstone. Look under a microscope and you can see other little minerals in there. You can see how well rounded the grains of the sand might be or not. So you can learn a lot about how much energy was required to deposit a nice clean sandstone like this versus something that has lots of cobbles or pebbles in it. And so different energy environments as well. But the bottom line is, even evolutionists and people in conventional science would agree that at least 90% of all the cemetery rocks are deposited by water. We would say probably closer to 100% because they argue that some of these were these big sand dunes or there's ones that have cracked. Like this is actually a cross bedded sandstone. And you can see what the layers are here, top and bottom. And then you see layers that look like they cross the bed. Oh, they do. And so they go at a different angle. That's kind of sometimes what ripples do. Unfortunately, this one doesn't show, but there's often ripples up here. And this is the direction of movement, as you can see is coming over the ripple and dropping down, over the ripple and dropping down. So this direction, if this is down, would the 1o have been transported in that direction? So you can actually use it to map up ancient current directions or ancient directions of water flow.
- [11:57]
Podcast Host
Is that one also sandstone or is that.
- [11:59]
Dr. Tim Clarey
This would be a sandstone as well. This one was a little deeper in the earth. It got cooked a little bit more.
- [12:03]
Podcast Host
Yeah, I was like, they're two completely different colors.
- [12:05]
Dr. Tim Clarey
You could call this maybe a quartzite, cause it's slightly metamorphic, but it's really a sandstone. The still preserves what we call the sedimentary structures, the ripples or the crossbeds. So it wasn't that highly metamorphosed. But this one's from fairly deep in the geologic column. This one's from a little higher in the geologic column. So this one got a little hotter. But it's pretty amazing. It still shows the patterns. Even this is actually a part of a ripple. But you can't, it's not big enough to see it. But what they tell us, all these little structures and even the fossils, they tell us where these things were buried. What type of environments? These marine fossils are telling us these are ocean critters. They got buried. And you often see ocean critters all the way across the middle of the countries, middle of the continents. And so it tells us that water at one point covered the entire continent, if we believe all of it. Many of the evolutionists would say it didn't cover everything, but it came really close. But we think it covered everything just because erosion removed some of it. As the water receded from the flood, you removed a lot of sediment that was deposited and taken away. So today we don't see sediments covering the entire world. That's one of the arguments. They often say, well, there's no global flakes in that. Well, of course not, because of water eroded so fast and there was an ice age and all these other things that scraped away rocks. So you see areas like in Canada that are mostly just crystalline rock, you know, granites and metamorphic rocks. You don't see sediments on them, but we see that every continent shows the same patterns, no matter where you go. Almost all the sediments are deposited by water, if not all of them, or melting water, glaciers, that sort of thing. So you see, most of the sediments do match up with what the Bible talks about and, you know, the age of it. We'll see later. There's some. There's evidence to back that up as well.
- [13:50]
Podcast Host
Really exciting.
- [13:51]
Dr. Tim Clarey
So there's a lot of information you ask, kind of. You threw a blanket question, what a geologist record. Well, there's a lot of stuff where you record. You know, sometimes we map up the joints and the fractures and try to figure out the stress field that made a certain fold. There's other things like that. We're looking for. Looking for oil. You're shooting seismic data, looking at oil wells, trying to find folds that haven't been drilled before, for example, that are under the Earth that you can't see at the surface. There's a lot of data gathering. Then eventually you get to make the maps and maybe find some oil, or in my case, show the progression of the flood, which is really amazing.
- [14:26]
Podcast Host
Yeah, well. So one of the biggest differences between young Earth and old Earth geology is whether Earth's rock record, like we see right here, was shaped primarily by slow processes or like one big catastrophic event, which we've already talked about. Creationists believe that is the global flood. What evidence leads you to conclude that much of the rock record formed rapidly rather than gradually or slowly?
- [14:49]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Well, there's been a lot of studies. One thing I mentioned earlier, like to bury These, you got to bury these things fast. You don't just see ripples lasting for thousands or thousands of years or what they claim would be millions of years by the old earthers, but you have to bury this with something else. These ought to be buried with something else. So these are pieces of rock that are exposed today by uplift. But to preserve footprints and fossils and ripples and crossbeds, you have to bury those rocks fast or they would be destroyed. You can't just leave them at the surface. So that's one thing that tells us something different was going on, because you don't see that happening today. We have evidence from Mount St. Helens, for example, in 1980, where they had a major eruption. And you saw, you know, massive layers deposited within hours, several different times. And so there's evidence that it isn't. Everything's not slowly being deposited, you know, inch by inch by inch over thousands and thousands of years.
- [15:40]
Podcast Host
Because those were the same layers even after.
- [15:42]
Dr. Tim Clarey
We're seeing that again and again. And there was a study about a year ago by the English and Scottish over the boundaries between England and Scotland and the west coast, where they showed that sedimentary rock, you know, rock itself, like this, solid rock, not just sand, can be formed in just a few decades because they found coins in it, they found some original tops of bottles in it to show these things are only decades old.
- [16:07]
Podcast Host
Yeah.
- [16:07]
Dr. Tim Clarey
And it went from loose material, you know, busted up material like this that got transported by the waves just on the beach and buried into flat layers and cemented together all within just a matter of decades. Whereas the geologists that studied it scratched their heads and went, well, we thought that took thousands of years, if not tens of thousands of years for that to happen. The whole rock cycle basically within just a matter of a couple of decades. So a lot of things can happen fast. We've been finding that limestone is deposited faster than we thought. Shales are deposited, clays are deposited faster. They don't. Slowly, you shake up a glass of. With a tube or something. Glass, tube of clay. Shake it up and it might take overnight to settle out.
- [16:43]
Podcast Host
Yeah.
- [16:44]
Dr. Tim Clarey
So they always would argue, well, you got thousands of feet of clay over here that must have taken millions of years or tens of thousands of years to deposit. But really we see clay and limestone and all these rocks that supposedly were deposited slowly are actually being deposited by moving water. They find that out by flume experiments.
- [17:02]
Podcast Host
Yes, that's actually one of the topics that I really wanted to talk to you about.
- [17:05]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Knew that was coming. And that's Been going on for well over a decade by secular geologists, people doing conventional geology in the laboratory, showing to get the layers that we see, these thin layers, which I don't have an example of, called laminations, these really thin layers in shields that we often see, you have to have moving water moving at least a foot per second. So a lot faster than slowly settling out of stagnant water column or something like that. We're slowing.
- [17:31]
Podcast Host
What does the flume experiment look like? Can you describe it for me?
- [17:34]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Well, they'll usually have something in a container, almost like a fish tank, but usually longer, sometimes really long. And they'll put flowing water in and they'll add some sort of type of sediment, one size sediment, and they'll see what happens to that. And then they'll add a different size and see what happens to that. And you'll see that everything's pretty much laid down flat in order. And we actually did some here at icr. And so it's pretty amazing how layers are almost deposited horizontally as they go across. You get layer upon layer upon layer, but they're transported by massive waves. And so I think the flood year was dominated by rapid plate movement and things that you were making all these tsunami waves. You had wave upon wave upon wave. Thousand a day being generated, probably well over a thousand a day from all these rapid plate movement that happened. And that's another whole episode in itself. But that generated all these waves. And as the ocean water went higher and higher, of course the waves went higher and higher. So you're able to keep adding to the layers and keep adding to the layers. So you end up with many places, tens of thousands of feet of sediment. Yeah, some of these areas were sinking as well. And you're building up these basins that are called. You load it up. So some locations you've got 20, 30,000ft of sedimentary rock all deposited pretty quickly. There's no evidence of time between them. That's the other thing they don't tell you about in schools. You see these layers, just like the bricks that are showcased here, they're layer upon layer upon layer. Like Grand Canyon. You see those layers, they had to be deposited quickly because there's no evidence of rivers and gullies and canyons and the layers where they were, you know, they claim 160 million years of time between this layer and that layer. Pete's perfectly flat.
- [19:12]
Podcast Host
Yeah.
- [19:13]
Dr. Tim Clarey
So where's all this evidence of time? And there should be lots of erosion. Grand Canyon itself is supposed to have carved in 6 million years. And you've got 160 million years between the Redwall limestone and the rocks below it, and they're flat, whereas the canyons. That much time you should have. A lot of it goes on and on. Throughout the whole world, we see layer upon layer, like pancakes, pancakes, pancakes. Which to me is telling you that those are deposited rapidly in quick succession without a lot of time in between.
- [19:46]
Podcast Host
And so we can use these phloem experiments to kind of see how the layers were laid on top of each other. And then that kind of shows that goes into the Grand Canyon and why those layers look the way that they do.
- [19:58]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Exactly. And that's why they're flat.
- [19:59]
Podcast Host
Exactly. But a uniformitarian would look at that and be like, that's deep time. Like, that took forever. Like, that's their counter argument to the flood. Right.
- [20:07]
Dr. Tim Clarey
They argue in one layer and then then a massive amount of time and another layer in a massive amount of time. But why wasn't there? You know, today, the Earth does not erode flat.
- [20:16]
Podcast Host
Yeah. Okay.
- [20:16]
Dr. Tim Clarey
It rolls gullies and creeks and everything else. Right away you start seeing things, you know, the canyons and stuff will form, but we don't see that. We see flat layers. Just like those flume experiments show one layer, then the next layer. Just like in a flume, you know, it happened within minutes or hours. You know, if you had another layer, if you don't let anything erode, even on the ocean, there's currents, so there should be erosion, even the bottoms of the ocean in many places.
- [20:43]
Podcast Host
So the flood is like a giant flume experiment.
- [20:46]
Dr. Tim Clarey
It really was. Yeah, it really was. It was like a giant flume experiment for the whole Earth. You know, that was the way God chose to judge the earth for its wickedness was by this flood that took, you know, a lot of people think took 40 days. But that was just the beginning. It really lasted 150 days to reach the peak, and then it took over half a year to go down again. So the flood was, you know, Noah and the animals are all in the ark and his family over about 370 to 371 days, depending on the county. Again, that's very specific in the Bible. You know, the days are very specific of the creation, but they're also very specific in the account of Noah. It's written as real history because it was real history. And the rocks show that they. The rock showed there really was a global flood.
- [21:29]
Podcast Host
Well, you know, there are some Christians out there who, they believe that the flood happened, but they think that it was local and it was not global all over the world. So what evidence leads you to actually reject that view?
- [21:41]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Well, again, it goes back to the research I talked about earlier, that every continent I looked at, I looked at all these continents. I don't just take the evolutionary worldview and accept their story. And because they'll tell you a story. They sure will if they want it to. That they want it to fit their story, kind of pushing God out of it. They don't want to talk about the Bible. Maybe it's all true. But there really is evidence on every continent that shows the same patterns of progressively flooding, same order of fossils, because you're going up different ecological zones and you see the same animals being buried. You see a lot of mixing of marine. You see sharks and T. Rexes in Montana, for example, six species of sharks. You see coelacanth fish, these big old fish that live in the deep ocean today in the Indian Ocean, which they thought were extinct, same as the dinosaurs. You don't see them in the fossils since the Cretaceous, which is down with the dinosaurs, but they're still swimming around today, but they're in the deep ocean. So why you find them mixed with dinosaurs? And the evolutionary answer to all these things, of course, is, oh, those are all freshwater sharks. Those are all freshwater coelacanths. But it doesn't fit the data. The most logical conclusion is those are marine animals, along with marine clams and things like these things we find mixed in with animals, land animals, a lot of marine mixing going on. All this, to me is screaming that there was a big flood event that took place when every kind of does the same thing at about the same time, the same order of rocks, the same order of fossils.
- [23:10]
Podcast Host
It's not a coincidence.
- [23:11]
Dr. Tim Clarey
But even my critics will say, well, Tim, we love your data because it's the real rocks that are. That I mapped up in place. And it took a lot of work and a lot of time and compiling things. That's why it took 13 years to really get it all done. But it really shows every continent does the same thing. How is it not global? And they don't really have an answer. They just go back to their stories and their books that they learned and stick with their story. And they just kind of ignore me. They ignore the evidence that John Baumgartner put forth about the catastrophic plate tectonics or a real rapid movement of the plates. None of his data has been shown to be in error. And we've even got verification of that. We've even got really cold slabs of Crust way down deep, all the way down to the bottom of the mantle, 1800 miles down, they're still cold. So if they move down there slowly this much per year, it would take about 75 million years to get down there, but yet they're still cold. So obviously you had to go down there faster to maintain that temperature because it's 3,000 or 4,000 degrees hotter down there.
- [24:11]
Podcast Host
Yeah, well, you have a lot of very convincing evidence right there. But local versus global flood is not the only thing that people will debate.
- [24:19]
Dr. Tim Clarey
The people that talk about the old Earth, almost all old Earthers seem to be it's just a local flood. I don't know why that is exactly. That's where you were going to go.
- [24:28]
Podcast Host
Yeah, that's exactly where I was going to go.
- [24:30]
Dr. Tim Clarey
But it's because they accept the conventional science is like they know more than we do. But I think I've looked at more rocks than most conventional scientists in the last 13 years. Creation scientists have come a long way in terms of research, not just brag about, but ICR in general has done so much research on a lot of different things, including this. But for some reason, if you think the Earth is old, then you almost have to accept a small flood because you can't accept that there was a complete flood because that would have killed everything. It would have killed all the land animals at some point. So if you believe the Earth is millions of years old and you hit a global flood, then suddenly you have to wipe everything out. There was a land air breathing animal. You just have marine animals again. So you should see a big change in the fossils. And you don't see that. You see marine animals first because you're flooding shallow seas. Then you see land and marine. Land and marine. Land and marine. Just go to fully marine across the world at any particular time. So it does show that you were flooding the land and it was a massive flood. And you can, you know, talk about, the Bible talks about birds. Why bring birds on the ark if you're going to have a local flood? They could just fly away and fly back.
- [25:44]
Podcast Host
Yeah.
- [25:44]
Dr. Tim Clarey
And you know, even Noah could have left and gone somewhere else with his family if it took, you know, many, many decades for him to build the ark, he could have just left.
- [25:52]
Podcast Host
Yeah. So if you believe that the Bible is true, shouldn't you believe all of that at all?
- [25:56]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Even if you believe, like some critics have said, that the world was so wicked, Noah would have been killed. God could protect them like he protected, you know, Lot and his family at sodom when they were leaving and so, you know, blind the people. Whatever we would have had to do, God could have taken care of that. But he decided to, you know, Noah would have to step out on faith and build this ark and tell people, you know, this is salvation. You walk through the door, it's salvation. And only eight people walk through that door.
- [26:23]
Podcast Host
Yeah.
- [26:23]
Dr. Tim Clarey
And so. But two of every kind God brought to the, to the ark. Two of every kind of dinosaur, two of every kind of land breathing air, air breathing land animal came on the ark. Not every species, but every kind. But it's pretty amazing. But I think if you accept the local, if you believe old Earth, you almost have to believe in a local flood because you would have to destroy the earth and the rocks really don't reflect that. And they know.
- [26:49]
Podcast Host
Yeah, I can see that line of thinking for them for sure. But how do you also respond to the claim that some of these old Earth creationists, they don't. That Genesis was intended to be this literal chronology. Day one, this happened day two, it was all 24 hour periods and chronological. So how would you, what do you believe, how would you dispute what it is that they say?
- [27:12]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Well, I think there were days, there were one turn of the earth. You know, you can argue whether it was exactly 24 hours or not. And you know, maybe the earth sped up a little bit or slowed down a little bit, but it's pretty much the same day we have now, give or take a few minutes. Maybe I have a problem with that because that's what the Bible says. It even talks about it was evening, it was morning the first day, it was evening, morning the second. He talks basically, how much more clear could God have made it that this was one turn of the earth and not a vast amount of time because you'd have a vast amount of darkness and a vast amount of light. If these are long, long, long, long, long days. And he gives numbers to them all. So whenever God uses numbers, you know, like the first day, second day, third day, and then he talks about a turn of the earth. I don't know how much more clear you can write something and actually believe what the words mean unless you change the meaning of the word. And that's what I think people are trying to do. Just like you'll see in society, a lot of things are trying to change the meaning of what's a male, what's a female, and all that kind of stuff going on. So that's kind of what people do. They try to say it's mytho. History, these are just stories. And you know, the first 11 chapters of Genesis are just stories. But when it's written, just like the account of the flood, it's written specific days. Noah was this old, this month, this day when this happened, and then 40 days later, this happened. And the numbers are in there for a reason, because it's written as history. People have studied it, it's not poetry. But yet they have to say, well, this is too hard to believe. So this has to be mytho history. This is too hard to believe that science can be that wrong, conventional science can be that wrong, that they're making up these millions of years and billions of years, but they really are. And they're basing it on the idea that they wanted to push Moses and the writings of God out of the scientific realm. And so they went all the way to say, we can come up with our own story. It explains the origin of the universe, the origin of the Earth and everything. Just basically it made itself. And they need, of course, that shroud of deep time. Just like the wizard of Oz needed the curtains to hide behind. They need deep time to be that curtain. That's their curtain. That's their, you know, and the wizard of Oz is the, is basically, you know, it's Satan and his angels trying to confuse people, trying to push people away. You don't need God, you don't need. There's no creator. You created yourself that sort of story. And that's kind of whether you believe that or not. I know there's a lot of well meaning Old Earth Christians out there, but many of them don't understand that there really is a lot of evidence that the Earth is young. And it's really contrary, really contrary to what they're being taught. I know, but some of them just think, well, they can't all be wrong, can they? And the answer is yes. Look at the people that didn't get on the ark. Maybe a billion people were wrong. Eight people were right. And so God's word is always true. If it says it was a global flood, if it says the earth is young, if it goes through all these things, specifically day one, day two, you know, evening, morning, evening, morning. I think that's how it goes. How much more clear can it be that these are just literal days? And if you confuse them as long days, you can argue that, you know, why would God make the sun and the moon on day four, but he made plants on day three? So, you know, what happened there? And the people have to make up sort of silly Stories, in my opinion. I try to explain that, but, you know, God specifically puts things in order. That makes no sense if they created themselves because you couldn't have the plants without the sun, but God couldn't provide the light before that.
- [30:42]
Podcast Host
Yeah.
- [30:44]
Dr. Tim Clarey
And also today it's very popular to say that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Oh, yeah.
- [30:49]
Podcast Host
Saturated everywhere.
- [30:50]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Yeah. But God created birds on day five and land animals like dinosaurs on day six. So it's completely opposite order. If you believe there's millions of years for each of these days, it doesn't match modern science anyway.
- [31:03]
Podcast Host
Yeah.
- [31:04]
Dr. Tim Clarey
And so modern science, you know, what they call science is kind of like it's just not scientific. It might be consensus, but consensus isn't science. And so, again, millions of, you know, billions of people out there, maybe, maybe a billion or more perished in the flood, but only eight people were right. And so it doesn't mean. It does. You know, it doesn't matter if 99.9% of the world is saying something. Doesn't mean it's right if it goes against God's word.
- [31:32]
Podcast Host
Yeah, that's exactly true.
- [31:34]
Dr. Tim Clarey
And there's science to back up God's word. That's the whole point of icr.
- [31:37]
Podcast Host
That's why we're here.
- [31:38]
Dr. Tim Clarey
That's why he put the last name in icr, the research, because it really does show there is evidence for a global flood and a recent flood. And the Bible is young, or the Earth is young, based on what the Bible says. There's science to back it all up. Unfortunately, most people don't hear that.
- [31:53]
Podcast Host
Yeah, I want to take things back a little bit to what it is that old or old Earth. Christians specifically believe a lot of the times there's the argument about the word yam, because sometimes they say it's used to represent 24 hours, but it might also be used to represent just a period of time. In general. What are those two arguments? What is it that creationists believe? And honestly, the most important question, why?
- [32:18]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Well, they argue kind of like, you know, you could say like the days of Noah or the days of this, you know, the days of, you know, the Victorian era, that sort of thing. You know, it's like it's a period of time, and they argue that that's used in some cases. But in most cases, Yom, or Yom, however you say it exactly in Hebrew, means a day. But not always. I mean, some, like I said, the days of Noah, that sort of thing. But, you know, they try to milk that for more than it's worth, because as I Mentioned earlier, the days of creation are listed as numbers. And whenever that happens, that usually refers to just a single day. You don't say the 10th day of Noah, you just say the days of Noah. You just mean like his lifetime type of thing in the past. But when you have specific days that are listed, and again, God lists evening and morning, evening and morning, evening and morning. How else do you interpret that? Unless you're looking at long periods of evening and long periods of morning, it doesn't make any sense. So either God was writing something that he wanted you to misinterpret and not quite get the story right, which I don't believe that's true, because then you can start saying, well, maybe I don't want to believe this part of the Bible either. Well, maybe Mary wasn't a virgin. Maybe Jesus really didn't die. Maybe there really wasn't an Adam. That's pretty common out tertiary people don't believe there was an Adam. Adam came along by evolution, you know, that God was using. And then suddenly there was this person, which we're going to call him Adam. But there was, you know, a lot of people discount that real historical Adam. Adam had no mother. God created him as he was, and Eve as well. So Adam and Eve are both created out of nothing, essentially. God spoke them into existence, although he did use some of the earth to make them, but he made that out of nothing. So ultimately, you know, without the creation week leading up to day six, there would be no, there was no Adam up until God made him, breathed life into him, and made him the image of himself. And so it's, you know, we're different than animals out there. A lot of people think that, you know, we're just some animal. They just evolved and got our consciousness. But that's, you know, that's part of the three parts that God made us out of. So it's really different. To me, it's hard to interpret the Bible when you read it any other way than literal days of creation. And even though you can use that word other times, and even God talks in Exodus several times, in Exodus 20, in the Ten Commandments, he wrote in his own hand, you know, he says God made the earth and all that's in it in six days. So, and he could have said six long periods of time eras, he could have used different words. He probably has a pretty good command of the language. He could have used different words to apply. But there's no implication in the Bible whatsoever of long ages if you didn't have modern Science out there in the last 200 years telling you the Earth's got to be old. It's got to be old. You would read the Bible and you would think the earth is only 6,000 years old. They ate up the genealogies. You need to get about 6,000 years plus the mass a little bit.
- [35:26]
Podcast Host
Yeah. So it's those genealogies really, when you trace those back, that's what gives us that big 6,000 to 10,000 number.
- [35:32]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Right. And so that's, that's, you know, but there's also evidence in science that does. Of course, there's things like, you know, the mutation rate of humans goes back 6,000 years ago and you make the decay of the magnetic field. And you go back too far on that decaying so quickly. If you went back beyond six or 10,000 years, magnetic field be too strong. And so there's a lot of things out there that again we put forth. But the evolutionary community, based on their consensus, just kind of ignores or just literally what we'd say in Michigan, pooh poos it. And just kind of like that's the problem we have with many of the things when they're actually right and they can't find a mistake in our math, like John Baumgartner's work, they did this sophisticated computer model showing you runaway subduction, rapid plate movement, and they never found a mistake in any of his math. They just look at, they have to ignore him. But yet again, as I mentioned, the cold slabs deep in the earth they're finding the last 20 years are verifying that he was right. And they don't have a way to explain those. So there's a lot of things out there even, it's another whole topic. But even the soft tissues, we're finding dinosaurs and fossils way down the bottom of the column, supposed to be 500 million years old. They're finding worm proteins that are still there. How can they still be there?
- [36:47]
Podcast Host
Because they should be decayed.
- [36:48]
Dr. Tim Clarey
They should have decayed away just like all the oil we talked about earlier. All this stuff that telling you the Earth is young. It just blows people's mind to think about that.
- [36:56]
Podcast Host
Because they weren't taught that.
- [36:57]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Right?
- [36:57]
Podcast Host
Yeah. So that's what we're here to do.
- [36:59]
Dr. Tim Clarey
So a lot of the people in the church, well meaning people, think the earth is really, really old. Cause that's all they know. But we're not here to argue with them, just to tell them, like, look, you've been snowed. You haven't been told the whole story. You've been told one version of the story, you know, the evolutionary version, the deep time version, that's taken over science taken over. Unfortunately, the Church has started. I don't want to really pick on them too much, but the Church has started to compromise, for lack of a better word, back around the early 20th century, and they started trying to figure out, how can we fit all this time in there? Because they were saying, well, science is telling us. Because science was kind of taking over. As you worked your way through the 19th century, suddenly Earth, Earth became. Went from 6,000 years old at the start to millions of years old at the end of the 20th century or end of the 19th century. And then it got even older into billions and stuff now. But it's, you know, that's science. But none of that is verifiable.
- [37:56]
Podcast Host
You're right, it's not. Okay, Dr. Kleer, I got a big topic coming from you for you. Are you ready for it? We're gonna talk about radiometric dating. What is that? A lot of the time, scientists will just, like, point to it. They'll be like, oh, we dated this one rock on top of this volcano, and it was millions upon millions of years old. So that's absolute fact.
- [38:19]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Right? And they treat it as fact.
- [38:20]
Podcast Host
Yeah. So can you explain radiometric dating, what it is and then what it is that creationists believe that's different and what the whole process is?
- [38:30]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Well, many elements have radioactive isotopes, which is you have carbon, for example. People talk about carbon 14. Geologists, since they assume the Earth is millions of years old, billions of years old, they rarely use Carbon 14. But Carbon 14 is one people always hear about. Carbon 14 decays away so fast that anything beyond 100,000 years old, if it really were that old, there'd be no carbon 14 left. And so there shouldn't be any carbon 14 in things like diamonds. But during the RATE project, ICR sent off, like, 20 diamonds or so to different laboratories and dated them all, and they all came back showing they're thousands of years old. There's measurable carbon 14 in diamonds and measurable carbon 14 in dinosaurs. Everything we send off, even the evolutionists send off coal samples thinking we're going to get to zero because this stuff's supposed to be 200 million years old, and they always found measurable carbon 14. So the carbon 14 is a whole different issue, though. Most things in geology, we use things like rubidium, strontium, and other. Other isotopes, which is the same element with a different atomic mass, means it has more or Less neutrons. There's protons in the nucleus of an atom and there's neutrons which essentially just add mass or weight. Then you have electrons buzzing around, doing whatever they're doing. And they don't really add any mass to speak of, but they help for electrical charges. Here's your basic chemistry lesson for the day.
- [39:53]
Podcast Host
Thank you.
- [39:54]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Really, really, really basic. And so some of these have more neutrons or less neutrons than others, but they have the same number of protons, so they're the same element. Protons determines the element. So carbon, for example, has six protons. If it has something different, it's a different element. Sometimes it has six protons, six neutrons. So it weighs 12. That's the most common isotope of carbon. And there's always the most common isotope. Then there's the rare ones that are still stable. Carbon 13, where you have seven neutrons but you still have six protons to make a carbon. Then there's the even rarer variety, the radioactive isotope, carbon 14, which has six protons and eight neutrons. And that one kind of like a tire that's out of alignment and wobbling, wobbling, wobbling. Eventually it's going to blow. And that's what basically radioactive elements do. Unstable elements are the same thing. They're eventually going to spontaneously decay to some other element. So carbon turns into nitrogen 14, and every element that's radioactive or unstable will eventually, sometimes really quickly, just milliseconds. Other times it takes half lives. They measure how slow they decay away. Just start with a big thousand grams of something. How long does it take for half of that to decay into something else? You end up with 500 grams and 500 grams of something else. That's the half life. How long did that take? They measure that in the laboratories and they can measure today's rates, but it doesn't mean that the rates always stay the same. Some of these things are finding under different conditions can speed up and slow down. Again. The Rate project found that maybe many elements went through a period of rapid decay. So the decay rate they assume is always the same. And then they assume they can find the exact amount of parent or the original radioactive element, like carbon 14 and then the daughter isotope, which it turns into, in this case, nitrogen 14 from carbon. But other elements like lead and lead, uranium to lead, there's other intermediate products. Along the way, it gets more complicated. But you don't know what you started with originally and you don't know what. All you know is what's there today. So. So if you pick up a rock and you measure the amount of rubidium and strontium in here, you'll assume it's so old, based on if you have 50, 50 ratio, you'll assume you went through one half life. So you know the half life of it from measuring it in the laboratory. So this is 400 million years old, for example. I forget what they have. Life. Yeah, forgive me, people, but I know it's pretty slow, but anyway, so that's how they date it. But how do they know they got the exact amount? You know, how do they know when they turn over the hourglass, so to speak? They know the rate, but you don't know when the hourglass was turned over. You don't know when it started, was it last week or millions of years ago in their worldview? And it's very difficult to backtrack that out. So they have all these methods, and essentially it comes down to they have to assume a bunch of things. So they assume the decay rate doesn't change. They assume they can measure the exact amount of parent to daughter, even though there's groundwater flowing through everything all the time, moving things in and out of the system. They have to assume a closed system. But the bottom line is they get the numbers they want. And so it's like having four unknowns. They assume two of them, then they have two equations, they solve. It look scientific, and they are good. This is really scientific. And they teach that these methods work. They don't really talk about the assumptions too much. They just kind of ignore those. And as long as it fits their system. Once they started hitting the hierarchy where Cambrian rocks have to be around 500 million years old, but a lot of times you'll date a Cambrian rock and they'll say 300 million. You do two different techniques. You get two different numbers.
- [43:41]
Podcast Host
Wow.
- [43:41]
Dr. Tim Clarey
They're vastly off by hundreds of millions of years. And we found that out with the Rate project. So the numbers are not consistent. You can't take two methods and get the same answer. That rarely happens. You can't, because you're always guesstimating. Even though they claim it's a fact, it's science, you know, scientific. But they don't know how much original parent and daughter originally was there and how much has moved in out of the system. Uranium is very soluble, for one thing. They find it in when they mine uranium. It's in sandstones like this because it flowed into them really quickly. And so you're losing uranium out of the system. How do you know what was There originally.
- [44:16]
Podcast Host
That's a great question.
- [44:17]
Dr. Tim Clarey
It's the same thing with carbon 14. You don't know the ratio in the atmosphere of carbon 14 in process the past. So it works as long as you have coins and things to kind of make sure everything is kind of working okay. But once you jump back to the ice age, for example, suddenly the ages go way up to 40,000 years, or the dinosaur, they date at 40,000 years consistently. But it's because the ratio in the past in the atmosphere was different, which is where your carbon 14 really comes from. So if you have less in the atmosphere, everything's going to look older. And so age dating is a bit of a game. It's a very precise game, but it's not accurate. So it's precise but not accurate. So like you're hitting a target, you're hitting the same area every time. But over here is where it really should be. You're missing the deer. If you're shooting at the deer, you're hitting the tree over here, but you hit the same place every time. But even that's not the case when you do different methods. So the whole system, in my opinion, is flawed. It can't really be trusted. And case in point is lava's like this.
- [45:22]
Podcast Host
What is that?
- [45:23]
Dr. Tim Clarey
This is a piece of lava from Hawaii that erupted in 1992. But we're going to assume that this was a piece of rock that Steve Austin collected, who worked for ICR, Steve Austin back in, I think around 1990, he collected a sample of rock from Mount St. Helens eruption that happened about 10 years earlier. And so he sent those off for analysis to Tudor, different labs. He did one of them. He did one individual mineral analysis on and then he did the whole rock.
- [45:50]
Podcast Host
Can I hold it?
- [45:51]
Dr. Tim Clarey
It's a little sharp, so watch out because it's fairly fresh lava. It is pretty sharp. It is pretty sharp. A lot of bubbles in there from the gas that rose. But he sampled it, sent it off, and he did whole rock and one mineral and you get two different ages. You got some that was like 340,000 years old, I believe. And the other number was like 2.8 million.
- [46:07]
Podcast Host
You said in the same rock.
- [46:08]
Dr. Tim Clarey
It was a ten year old rock.
- [46:09]
Podcast Host
Wow.
- [46:10]
Dr. Tim Clarey
The same rock, but different techniques again. And you got these ridiculously old ages. So the critics said, well, maybe some of those minerals crystallized millions of years ago and came up when lava came to the surface. But he did the whole rock on one of them and that was the one that got the oldest age. And they did Individual mineral on the other one. But it isn't just his work. In the 60s, the evolutionary geologists themselves tested the potassium, argon, date. They went to Laos, all over the world, Sicily and Hawaii. Like that's from Hawaii. And they knew the age of the eruption, 500 years ago, thousand years ago, whatever the case was. And they sent all these samples in and they got numbers that were in the millions of years. And it went on and on and on. Two pages, three pages of these numbers. To my knowledge, none of them were right. They're all off by, instead of a thousand years, there are millions of years. Instead of 500 years old, 200 years old, a million years. And their conclusion is. Well, we can't date young rocks like. Well, if you know the exact age and you don't get the answer right again and again and again and again and again.
- [47:14]
Podcast Host
Something's wrong with the.
- [47:15]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Something's wrong with the system.
- [47:16]
Podcast Host
Yeah.
- [47:16]
Dr. Tim Clarey
So why are we supposed to believe that you can take an old rock then and get the actual accurate number there when there's no way to go back and verify it? We just have to take their word for it. So it's almost like you keep building a bridge and it keeps collapsing, but they keep telling you to drive over it anyway, it'll be fine. You know, it just keeps falling. But it's kind of silly. But again, they can't give up on the old Earth because they need the old Earth to have evolution, to have any chance for evolution.
- [47:43]
Podcast Host
They do.
- [47:43]
Dr. Tim Clarey
So you can't pull away the curtains and reveal, you know, behind it is to push God out and try to claim that universe and Earth and life can create itself somehow. And so here we are looking at Mars and all these other planets thinking, oh, there might be some water on there. Just add water and there's life. But we've been trying to make life here on Earth with all this water in the laboratories. And it's too complex. Only God can create life. The more we look into it, the more complicated it is. It's not just there's nothing simple about any life. There's no simple life. Darwin thought there was simple life to complex life, even every single cell, down to the one cell organism, even viruses are strange things, but all those things are. You just can't create them. You can modify them, which they did with COVID 19, but you can't really create something new that's actually a living organism of any sort. It's too complicated. It's not just to be a cop out, it's just the more we look into it, the more complicated it is. And the digger, you know, the better science we get, the deeper we can dig into it. That's why there's people that whether they believe in a God or not, they at least have to admit there has to be a designer, there has to be an engineer out here to make these things.
- [49:00]
Podcast Host
Yeah, absolutely.
- [49:02]
Dr. Tim Clarey
We think, why beat around the bush and just Jesus was the great engineer, he was the great designer, he made it all. Just like you said in the Bible. There really was a flood. There's evidence out there all over the earth, water deposited sediments, layer upon layer upon layer with no time in between. We see the age dates, even the age dates are flawed. How do you know? And so they just have to say on the consensus, well, we know they're this old because the numbers come up and so they build this almost like a tree, you know, like a Christmas tree. And the numbers got to fit that now. So you, it's hard for them to go back and find numbers that even if they're not the correct number, they'll say, well, that must have been contaminated. Yeah, until they get the number they want.
- [49:41]
Podcast Host
Just a bunch of excuses.
- [49:42]
Dr. Tim Clarey
And I don't think, you know, and there's a lot of well meaning people doing this, of course, but they've bought into it. They bought into the system. And without really, you know, a lot of well meaning Christians who think the Earth is old because they don't really understand the ins and outs of what they're doing. And one guy accused me one time and said, you're saying these people are doing this on purpose just to fool us all. I'm like some of them did, yes, but then others of us just kind of get bought into it and we kind of passively accept it all and it's. And they just can't believe that so many people can be wrong.
- [50:10]
Podcast Host
Yeah. Well, Dr. Clary, I think you've given a lot of very compelling evidence for a young Earth today on this episode. But what would you say to somebody who is truly debating with themselves, like, do I believe in the Old Earth? Do I believe in Young Earth? Like, what should they do in order to investigate this for themselves and come up to their own conclusions?
- [50:31]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Well, I would say look into the research that we've done here at ICR and other organizations, but particularly here, and go to our website, ICR.org and look that up and look. And do some searches on our webpage, even buy our books, subscribe to Acts and Facts where we put out scientific information in each of the issues, eight issues a year. I think there's a lot of evidence that you're not being told about. It sounds like a conspiracy, but it really is. This one is a real conspiracy because the world is taken over by the conventional scientists who have pushed him back. Say the earth is old, earth's a million years old, that the Bible is obviously not true, that wasn't a flood. Even a lot of well meaning Christians and theologians are going, well, that's just mythical history. That's just. We don't have to believe that. You know, we're a New Testament church only. But everything starts in the Old Testament. All you know, the original sin was the Old Testament. Now all these things that happen goes back to why we need Jesus goes back to because Adam and Eve sinned. Jesus is the second Adam. He came along and became that sacrifice for our sins, for Adam's sins, for everybody's sins. In the past, he sacrificed once and for all. God himself took on a human body and then ultimately shed his blood for all of us. But really, I encourage the audience to investigate for yourself. Look up what we've done, look at what other creationists have done. There's a lot of evidence out there. You don't have to believe the old earth stories just because that's what most science is teaching. Again, think of the numbers. Do we always vote? The right person in the majority is not always right. In fact, it probably isn't right for the most part. Same thing is true the people that in the days of Noah it was so wicked. Jesus says we're going to get that way before he comes again. Only eight people out of maybe over a billion people on the earth at the time believed God was telling Noah the truth. There was going to be a flood. Even if there's a few of us telling us that God's word is true, you know, that we're just telling you the fact that, you know, that's the one factual thing we have is God's word. Science is not true. Science comes and goes. There's scientific evidence. But modern science, what they call science, is not truth. Like God's word is truth. I used to ask my college students at a Christian school, I ask them what's truth? And they're like, well, science and this. I'm like, no, no, it's always an answer. Only God's word. There are scientific facts, rocks are real and things like that. But how they're interpreted in modern science, you know, what's called science today is completely different and contrary. To what the Bible says. It comes out of that worldview.
- [53:21]
Podcast Host
Yeah, absolutely does.
- [53:22]
Dr. Tim Clarey
So check it out. Check out ICR.org and watch more of our podcasts and other things. And you know, they might go along like this one.
- [53:30]
Podcast Host
But this is a good one though. Dr. Cleary, I have had such a great time having this conversation with you. I feel like I've learned a whole.
- [53:38]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Well, there's a lot of. We covered a lot of topics. We did briefly, believe it or not. Some of you could go on and on and on and on and on. But there's so much information out there that I just encourage people to really dig into it for themselves. Don't just accept one side or the other. Way it out. You'll see the evidence does hold that God's word is true. The Earth is young.
- [53:59]
Podcast Host
Well, thank you. I appreciate your knowledge and appreciate this conversation today. It's been great.
- [54:04]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Thank you. It's been wonderful.
- [54:05]
Podcast Host
The question of Earth's age touches geology, biology, astronomy, and ultimately how we understand God's word. Today, Dr. Clary walked through the geological evidence that has led him to conclude that Earth's rock record points to a recent catastrophic past rather than billions of years of slow, gradual change. Whether discussing massive sedimentation layers or large scale water deposition or the formation of features like Grand Canyon, we've seen that the evidence itself is often interpreted through very different worldviews. But geology is only one piece of the puzzle. In our next episode, we'll shift from rocks to living things as we sit down with Dr. Jeff Tompkins to explore the biological evidence surrounding the age of the earth and the history of life. Then we'll wrap this series with Dr. Jake Hebert examining what the universe itself reveals through astronomy and cosmology. So stick around, we have some exciting things coming. But Dr. Clary, before we wrap up today, what is one thing that you want viewers to get get from watching this episode? Just one.
- [55:24]
Dr. Tim Clarey
I want them to know that there is ample evidence of a global flood. Ample geological evidence of a global flood.
- [55:31]
Podcast Host
Short, Sweet. To the point. Totally agree. You can partner with our ministry by joining our members and patrons community using the link in the description. Their names are actually scrolling on the screen right now. And as always, one of our viewers actually had question for you Dr. Clary. This is a surprise question everybody.
- [55:51]
Dr. Tim Clarey
These are always fun.
- [55:52]
Podcast Host
I know they are. So Terry Brown asked what was the intensity of earthquakes when catastrophic plate tectonics began at the start of the flood?
- [56:03]
Dr. Tim Clarey
Well, that's a very good question. I don't know if I can provide a real Answer. But there were, you know, John Baumgartner has done probably the best work on this and he's modeled this. And with his catastrophic movements, I mentioned a little bit earlier in our broadcast, there probably would have been thousands a day of earthquakes. And some of those earthquakes were probably bigger than anything we've seen today. We get to nines on the so called Richter scale. 9.6, I think, is the biggest ever recorded. 1960, I think, in Argentina, oddly enough, the year I was born. But not the same day. But that's one of the biggest earthquakes ever. You get to the nines because the scale goes up, but it's exponential. And so each number is, you know, you're jumping way up there. So we've never recorded a 10, but I imagine during the flood year there would have been tens. Yeah, would have been tens. Maybe even something as big as an 11. Because once you got everything off the earth in the arc and you get the water out in the deep ocean, those tsunami waves aren't gonna affect something out in the deep ocean, only the things near shore. And the water just kept piling higher and the sediments piling higher and higher and higher. So I would imagine there had to be some tens, lots of them. Yeah, bigger than anything we recorded today. But I'm not sure if you needed 11s or not. But again, plenty of earthquakes. A lot more earthquakes than we see today for sure. You know, instead of. You can argue there's thousands of them today, but most of them are so small we don't feel them. Yeah, but these had been thousands of big ones. You know, sevens, eights, nines, and maybe even tens.
- [57:28]
Podcast Host
That makes sense. Well, thank you for sharing your expertise with us.
- [57:32]
Dr. Tim Clarey
My best guess.
- [57:33]
Podcast Host
And thank you viewers for joining us on the Creation podcast. If you've enjoyed today's conversation, be sure to, like, subscribe, leave a comment and share this episode with someone who's interested in the Age of the Earth discussion. We'll see you next time on the Creation Podcast.