October 2nd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
What is the loop of Creation? How is there something from nothing?
In spite of the fact that it is impossible to prove that anything exists beyond one’s perception since any such proof would involve one’s perception (I observed it, I heard it, I thought about it, I calculated it, and etc.), science deals with a so-called objective reality “out there,” beyond one’s perception professing to describe Nature objectively (as if there was a Nature or reality external to one’s perception). The shocking impact of Matrix was precisely the valid possibility that what we believed to be reality was but our perception; however, this was presented through showing a real reality wherein the perceived reality was a computer simulation. Many who toy with the idea that perhaps, indeed, we are computer simulations, deviate towards questions, such as, who could create such software and what kind of hardware would be needed for such a feat. Although such questions assume that reality is our perception, they also axiomatically presuppose the existence of an objective deterministic world “out there” that nevertheless must be responsible for how we perceive our reality. This is a major mistake emphasizing technology and algorithms instead of trying to discover the nature of reality and the structure of creation. As will be shown in the following, the required paradigm shift from “perception is our reality fixed within an objective world,” to “perception is reality without the need of an objective world ‘out there,’” is provided by a dynamic logical structure. The Holophanic loop logic is responsible for a consistent and complete worldview that not only describes, but also creates whatever can be perceived or experienced.
Stating that it is impossible to prove the existence of anything beyond one’s perception is not saying there is nothing beyond perception, only that if there is anything, then whatever that is, is indefinite. It could be argued that the existence of physical laws, the universal perception that the apple falls to the ground is proof of an objective reality. However, this universal agreement is also our perception. It could be argued that if we cannot decide what to perceive, and everybody perceives the same physical reality, then there must be some lawfulness that dictates how we perceive and therefore, this lawfulness could be external to our perception. However, this lawfulness, as we shall see later on, is the precise lawfulness that creates perception, the process of definition, which is not external to perception (this process creates the perceived and the perceiver, which then gives meaning to this process &ndash a loop &ndash but about that, later). It could be argued, that hitting our knee on the table &ndash whether we believe in the table or not &ndash will hurt. The table is external to our body, but not to our perception. What then is perception? It is relating, a process of definition, defining and thereby rendering meaningful what has been perceived.
What then is this process of definition? It is creating borders within which one’s perception gains meaning. The word “definition” comes from the Latin de finire, meaning, making finite or limited. In Hebrew, definition is HAGDARA (הגדרה), meaning, to border. Any definition necessarily implies what the definition is not, or stated differently, to have meaning, whatever is defined explicitly includes the meaning by implicitly excluding everything else. Consequently, to define means to place the defined object within borders that by default create something beyond the borders of the definition. What is this something beyond the defined? The implicitly excluded everything else, or in other words, the indefinite. The paramount importance of incorporating the indefinite within a consistent logical structure cannot be overemphasized. The indefinite itself is a paradox, and incorporating it within the Holophanic logical structure engenders the loop of Creation where the dynamic structure of paradoxes is both the creative force of existence, and also the proof of the necessity of existence.
To better grasp the impetus of Creation, let’s look at the indefinite and paradoxes. What does “indefinite” mean? Anything as long as it is not specified (not defined); anything that appears both within and beyond the borders of the definition and thereby rendering the border superfluous, which means, no border, no definition. If nevertheless we would attempt to define the notion “indefinite,” then that’s a paradox because if we succeed, then it is defined, which contradicts its meaning &ndash its indefiniteness &ndash and the word “indefinite” means that it cannot be defined. This is an example of a paradox, that in essence means, if it is what it is, then it is not what it is, yet if it is not what it is, then it is what it is. A paradox is a creature that consists of a structure (how it is defined, the dynamic process on its way to stabilization) that contradicts its significance (what it is, the stabilized entity). What characterizes a paradox is the motion between its structure and significance, where the structure implies that its significance contradicts its structure, and vice versa.
Another example of a paradox would be “wholeness.” Wholeness (totality, infinite, boundless) can only be wholeness if we can find a way to define it so that it includes everything and there is nothing beyond it. However, if we define wholeness, then to have meaning, it must be bordered within the walls of the definition, which implies that there is something beyond this border, in which case it is not wholeness. Or in more formal language, wholeness is only wholeness if it is not wholeness, which is an inconsistency. If we are satisfied with that, then we have completed the definition of wholeness. However, if we try to include the beyond created by our earlier definition within the borders of our next attempt at defining wholeness, then we gain a new definition of wholeness, which by the sheer structure of the process of defining creates a new beyond. In this case, the process of defining wholeness will be consistent but incomplete, and wholeness will remain indefinite.
Contemplating the paradox of Creation, the ancient Egyptian myth of Creation springs to mind, the myth of the self-creating god, Amun (or Amon). Amun masturbated and swallowed his semen, after which he spit it out in the form of a ball, thereby impregnating his mother, the sky. And only then, was he born. Thus Amun was his own father. Those pious who discovered the illustrated version of this myth in Karnak covered up the erect phallus of Amun, and with it, this story of Creation was laid into obscurity. The Holophanic model of Creation could regard this Egyptian myth as Amun retromorphously creating himself. I have coined the word retromorphous to mean, defining in retrospect, turning non-being into the potential of whatever the observation is made from, or in other words, creating the past from the present, creating the source from its outcome, which is the basis of complexity in the context of the loop logic. That is, only after Amun was born can he give meaning to his mother, the potential from which he emanated and to the process that created him (as represented by masturbation and incest) whereby he was born. Of course, neither the sky nor the masturbating Amun have meaning until Creation takes place de facto and Amun emerges. I find this an enticing illustration of the basic paradox of existence.
So how can there be something from nothing? What is “nothing?” Nothing is what didn’t turn into the potential of something. If there was something from nothing, then that nothing would have turned into the potential of something, because when we ask, how is there something from nothing, we ask this question from something, when something already exists. If we take a deeper look at “nothing,” we’ll discover that “nothing” is a paradox. Any definition is something, so if we defined “nothing,” then it would become something, which contradicts its essence of being “nothing.” Another way of looking at “nothing” would be by means of it being something that is meaningless. That is, “nothing” could be something that does not relate and that no thing or no one relates to. That is, if there was something totally alone in the universe, then that would be nothing, but it would be meaningless. If such existed, its existence would be external to our perception, and as such, this “nothing” would be indefinite.
We said that the indefinite could be anything, as long as it is not specified (not defined). However, if we nevertheless tried to define “nothing” (the indefinite), what would we get then? Since “nothing” is non-definable, it is transparent as the object of our inquiry. So when we attempt to define it, all we have is what we put into it, which is the process of definition. “Nothing” stayed nothing, we didn’t define it, only made the process of definition explicit. “Nothing” gains meaning when we fail to define it; but having tried, we are left with a bonus, a something, which is our process of defining “nothing.” Creation of something from nothing is not a function of defining something, but a function of attempting to define “nothing.” And then, if that process of definition &ndash which already is an existence &ndash looks back at its origins, if this process of defining investigates into its own genesis, then what does it see? It sees itself. It sees the process of definition &ndash self-reference.
If there is nothing external to perception, then this process of definition is the overall wholeness, the creator of meaning when it can relate to itself. However, to have meaning, the process of definition has to be defined; this definition would be a self-referential quasi-infinite and continuous process of establishing borders that create the indefinite beyond that establishes borders creating the indefinite beyond that establishes borders… which means, wholeness would continuously and forever fail to define itself while succeeding to define something &ndash anything but itself.
Of course, both the totally defined and the totally indefinite are idealized notions that would be inconsistent with the Holophanic loop logic, nor can they be found in nature. The totally indefinite would be the total meaningless nothing, the kind of non-being that cannot be fathomed because if we would think about it, it would already be something. On the other hand, there can be no total definition either. I have used the term uncertainty of sameness to describe the logical impossibility of total definition. A defined entity can be said to have reached sameness &ndash it is the same as itself &ndash which means that it is, it exists as something definite, no matter which parameters defined it. However, no sooner does our object achieve sameness than the uncertainty of sameness raises its ugly head. Could it have been defined differently? Yes, of course. Could it have additional parameters? Yes, of course. Could it have been defined more precisely? Yes, of course. This uncertainty of sameness is the indefinite included in the definition, which is the result of including the tools of definition in the definition. Since ‘a’ can only be defined as ‘a’ with meaning if it implies ‘not-a’ (the indefinite beyond the borders of the definition), and since ‘a’ can only have meaning as ‘a’ because it is different from everything else (the everything else is the indefinite beyond the borders, which actually gives meaning to ‘a’), the meaning of ‘a’ depends on ‘not-a.’
When the meaning of something depends on the indefinite, on what our defined object is not, then this indefinite is necessarily included in the process of definition. This logical implication that perception of meaning is only possible if and only if the indefinite is included within the perception is the reason why the 19th century dream of a consistent and complete axiomatic system with only well defined (explicit) empty signs had to fail (see more about that in my article, The Loop Logic). In spite of the fact that logic is the fundament of algorithms and computer science, it had neither the aspiration nor the ability to be connected to the real world precisely because its propositions were so anemic regarding meaning. In the effort to exclude any hint of the indefinite, logical inference was confined to a binary type of world of true and false and lacking any correlation with life and experiencing. However, including the indefinite in the process of definition not only makes the loop logic the fundament of existence, but determines the necessity of existence. With the birth of Holophany, Heidegger’s question, “Why is there anything at all, rather than nothing?” becomes irrelevant. When existence is relations, and relating is the act of perceiving, and perceiving is the process of definition, then existence is the overall lawfulness, the isomorphous lawfulness of the process of definition &ndash the loop of Creation. What is being perceived, what is being stabilized, which significance is brought to the foreground from the amorphous background of the indefinite, depends on the non-linear rules of complex interactions. Thus the loop logic emphasizes the creation of essents rather than their interactions.
Is there a lawfulness responsible for any and every existence? An electron and a dog are very different creatures; so what invisible lawfulness is responsible for the existence of both? What kind of lawfulness would fulfill such demands? The answer is, isomorphism &ndash the same logical inner structure in entirely different representations. Whether an electron, a dog or the weather, each could be a different realization of the same inner logical structure. Creation of anything is the creation of meaning, which is an act of definition. The act of definition attempting to define itself is consciousness. So consciousness, or the soul if you wish, is not some invisible copy of our body carrying our identity, but the lawfulness of Creation expressed as our individual qualitative essence. Of course, it has been endlessly stated that we are God, that we are parts of God, and similar phrases. This is true, but true in the sense that God is the lawfulness that unfolds Creation, and this lawfulness is inherent in all creation including the creatures therein. It could be argued, that a soul, a person is more than mere definitions and intellect. If this logic is the logic of anything and everything, then it should be able to delineate the logical structure of experience as well. Indeed.
Anything that has meaning has to be defined, which places it somewhere on the scale between the continuous and the discrete, between the indefinite and the definite. The indefinite, continuous, infinite tends in the direction of the meaningless, whereas the meaningful is at best imprecise. Experience is the process of attempting to define the indefinite. When we try to capture an experience in a description, we are actually defining our attempt at defining the indefinite. The experience is continuous whereas its description, the definition is discrete. Just as we can never define wholeness, we can never define experience. Any description, any definition, is by nature discrete, whereas the net experience is continuous. So when we have an experience or perception and we become aware of having that experience, then we give it meaning by defining what it is. By doing this we create a discrete replica of the experience, yet the experience remains continuous and non-definable, non-discretizable. Experience is connected to learning. The person encounters something new. How do we know that something is new? Because it is inconsistent with our system. So when we interact with it, we have to integrate it, to assimilate it into our system. If we met something that was not new to the system, then our system would recognize it as part of itself. When that recognition does not occur, the system is interacting with something new. That is the impact. The system adjusts to include the new &ndash that is the change. One’s selfhood is the path of changes following one’s experiences.
Our knowledge of the experience &ndash whatever it might be that we experience &ndash makes it exist for us. We could say, one only experiences when one is aware of experiencing. How do we know that we are aware of experiencing something? By experiencing it, we experience the awareness of experiencing. In this sense, experience and awareness of the experience, experiencing the awareness of the experience, being aware of experiencing the awareness of the experience, etc. is an infinitely continuous chain, which is what defines what experience is (not the interpretation of a specific experience, but experience in its general sense). And that’s the definition of experience: an infinite loop of the process of becoming aware.
When “nothing” is the limit of both the totally indefinite and the totally defined, then that’s like a circle of going from something to nothing to something to nothing, etc. The ‘going’ here means perception. “Nothing” is only a notion that has meaning if it has been perceived, in fact, a paradox. If it really is “nothing,” then it cannot be defined, and hence, it has no meaning. Yet if I relate to it, then it is something. So whenever I relate to “nothing,” whenever I say, Creation of something from nothing, that “nothing” has meaning for me, and hence, it is significance &ndash it is something just like any other something. That is, the structure of “nothing” is the same structure as that of something. Essentially, something from nothing is formation, not Creation, since nothing is also something. Then what is Creation? Creation is rather the creation of nothing from something, because Creation is the process of definition, and when we define, we create the indefinite beyond the definition, which at its limit is nothing, and only then can we have something from nothing… Oh yes, the loop. A true loop is only such if it contains its own source. If nothing can be proven to exist external to perception, then logic must be a loop, and existence is a logical necessity inferred by the loop.
Including the indefinite in the process of definition has far reaching consequences. It means that the tools of the definition are necessarily included in the definition. It means that meaning can only occur when there is both definition and also experience. It means that consciousness (whether it succeeds to define or not) must be part of science or any so-called objective endeavor. It means that any and all perception includes experience. The interaction with the indefinite, the experience, is what gives meaning to the defined. Perception, meaningful definition, can only occur in a highly flexible complex system that can learn and change. That’s the difference between us and an electron, which only has fixed relations, and consequently, limited interactions. An electron always succeeds in defining, or it would be more correct to say, it can only interact with what it succeeds in defining. If it encounters the indefinite, it assumes a state of superposition.
Where is God in the loop of Creation? If we wanted to define God, the totality, we could not define God, because by the act of definition we would create the beyond, what is beyond God, which contradicts God’s totality. Therefore, no definition of God would do justice to God, and every such definition would truncate God’s wholeness. If God is indefinable, then God is indefinite. If God is indefinite, then I create God by the implication of the act of definition &ndash any definition, because every definition creates the beyond, the indefinite beyond the borders of the definition. In that sense, this is consistent with the statement that I create God by my perception (definition). This does not say that I perceive God, but that my perception implies the existence of the indefinite (God). This means that if I perceive a dog, this perception implies the existence of God. If I perceive that I perceive, then that implies the existence of God. If I perceive dust, a table, an idea, whatever, then that implies the existence of God. If I experience, then that implies the existence of God. That’s because any existence implies the existence of God. And that’s because any existence is such if it relates or is related to, if it has meaning, if even partially it has been defined, which means, its mere definition implies the indefinite beyond the borders of the definition, it implies God, the indefinable. So one cannot directly perceive God (perhaps that is why it was stated in the Bible that no one could see God’s face and live = exist &ndash “no man shall see me and live…” &ndash Exodus 33: 20), but only know about God by implication, which means, the implication of the indefinite &ndash God &ndash is what attributes meaning to any existence.
However, “God” does not equal “indefinite,” but the process that implies the existence of the indefinite is what could be said to be God, since that’s the process of Creation. This is the process of Creation that both creates something, existence, and also nothing, the indefinite. This is why this logic is a loop.
Young earth creationists commonly point to the fossil record in order to support their position. In one instance, the article “The Fossil Record: Becoming More Random All the Time” by John Woodmorappe, has some very good points to it (Footnote 1). Read it if you like, (its a long one), but you don’t have to much farther than the abstract to see problems. Actually, some are problems, and some are deceptions.
The abstract states that “The reality of the geologic column is predicated on the belief that fossils have restricted ranges in rock strata.” Of course it is…this has been the “reality” all along. His wording makes it sound as if the geologist has been up to some deceit…but this is not the case. He goes on to claim, “as more and more fossils are found, the ranges of fossils keep increasing.” Welcome to the world of science! This is nothing new. As new discoveries are made, the timelines that we thought species were living is extended. So what! He states that stratigraphic-range extension is not the exception but the rule. OF course it is, by its very nature it HAS to be. You are not going to “shorten” ranges…the only way to go is to extend them. It has always been this way, and always will be this way. It in no way makes dating through the use of fossils invalid.
Does it make “it easier for the Genesis Flood to explain an increasingly-random fossil record” as the author claims? Yes, if it were “increasingly random,” but it is not. Because you increase the range of an organism’s lifespan on earth does not prove more “randomization.” He states further down, when expressing questions from evolutionists, “why a layer of rock containing trilobites is never found to contain dinosaurs,” and vice-versa. Great point…if we are to suddenly find a trilobite in a dinosaur layer…great, they lived longer than expected. If we find a trilobite with a human fossil, then great. It has no implications for young or old earth creationism.
The author is trying to establish credible proof for a completely random fossil record. A completely random fossil record should have been created from the Flood, if you follow the model proposed by young-earth scientists. What is meant by “random?” If the fossil record was random, we should have humans, and dinosaurs, and trilobites all together…but we don’t. In fact, look at the Grand Canyon…you would expect many fossils in the rocks at the bottom, but starting from the bottom, you have to go thousands of feet up the rock strata before you even get to any vertebrate fossils. Why are they not lower down? By the flood model, while these thousands of feet of strata were laid down, all the vertebrates were busy “treading water” for months, until they finally died and sank? Not only is this not possible, it is not supported in the fossil record. The fossil record shows increasingly complex organisms, as you go upward (or, younger) in the geologic column, which is exactly what you would expect in an old earth.
Boundary Fossils
Many points on the geologic time scale were made with the use of boundary fossils. This is a means of dating a rock, albeit not precisely, by using the range that an organism existed as a boundary. In other words, for instance, the Cretaceous period ended 65 million years ago. You could use a dinosaur fossil in a rock layer, and state with certainty that the rock is older than 65 million years.
Yes, boundary fossils are used to create imaginary timelines, so that earth history can be better understood. Does finding a boundary fossil outside their previously-believed range invalidate the timeline…no, it just increases that organism’s life range. So what if new timelines are made. That’s just science reacting to a change of the “evidence” in the rock record. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it a reliable method that considers all the evidence fairly, and reaches a logical, reliable conclusion? Yes.
What’s So Hard to Understand?
That’s what we call science…something familiar to a scientist, but for some unknown reason it is a hard concept to grasp for a young-earth scientist. When new discoveries are made, theories change, textbooks re-written, research articles published. It is a great process.
Why do young-earth scientists like to disavow scientific methods? Mud-slinging, mis-statements, and controversies over ages which are taken out of context are all the weapons that a young-earth scientist has left, because they can’t prove a young earth from science.
The author claims, “Creationists, including myself, have provided a variety of alternative explanations for fossil succession.” Have they been accepted by the scientific community…NO, because there are no facts to back them up from the geologic record. They are only accepted within the small community of young-earth scientists, and their devoted followers. They say the world scoffs at them, because the Bible says they will be persecuted for holding to their faith…no, that’s not true. The world scoffs because they hold to an unprovable, unbelievable theory based on an inaccurate interpretation of the Bible and science.
The God of the Bible is real, and yes, the earth is old. God’s creation testifies to this. The Bible says, “speak to the earth, and it will teach thee” (Job 12:8). Let’s all listen to what the earth has to say.
Conclusion
The author assumes that the fossil record is becoming more random, and will eventually prove the flood. Unfortunately for him, this is far from the truth. Randomness will never be proved. In fact, the rock record has already disproved it.
Footnote 1: “The Fossil Record: Becoming More Random All the Time” (answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/v14n1_fossil-rec.asp)
Young-earth creationists have a problem. According to their creation model, all the fossil-bearing rock layers in the world need to be created during the Flood of Noah. Fossils, in ancient rock layers, imply that death occurred before the Fall of man, which is contrary to their interpretation of Scripture.
The most visible rock layers in the world are those in the Grand Canyon. For many years young-earth creation scientists have invested a lot of time and research into the Grand Canyon. They believe that if they can find a model to explain the canyon rocks, then their followers will probably accept the rest of the earth’s rocks as young.
Coconino Sandstone
One of the problems that the young earth model encounters in the Grand Canyon is the Coconino Sandstone. I’ve already discussed this in another article, so let me only summarize here. Geologists have stated that this formation of 315-foot thick sandstone was created by a desert environment, and is a deposition of wind-deposited sand dunes.
The problem for the young earth creationist is that this rock layer is topped by two other fossil-bearing marine rock layers, the Toroweap Limestone and the Kaibab Limestone. This presents a problem to the young-earth model because if the sandstone originated by wind, then obviously it could not have been produced by Noah’s Flood. The young-earth scientist would have to explain how the water receded, then the sandstone formed, then the water came back and deposited the other layers. However, in the Biblical Flood account, the waters rose, then fell. There were no cyclic water levels, nor was there a massive amount of time during the flood for a desert environment to create a 315-foot thick rock layer. The desert formation of this sandstone would disprove its formation during the Flood, and would disprove the young age of the earth.
Several young-earth scientists have attempted to explain this away, claiming that this sandstone was created underwater, and thus is not a desert sandstone. I dispute this theory because their model does not have the necessary forces to create the Coconino Sandstone (for more on this, see Coconino Sandstone). However, that is not the purpose of this article.
Other sandstones which are desert in origin will also disprove the young age of the earth. Therefore, the young-earth scientist must discredit every desert sandstone in the world. If one desert sandstone exists with a fossil-bearing ocean-deposited layer on top, it discredits the entire young earth flood model, and proves the old age of the earth.
Let’s look at other desert-origin sandstones. I will continually add to this article as I read through the research and discover other sandstones.
Navajo Sandstone
I’ll start with the Navajo Sandstone. This sandstone is most evident in the tall cliffs of Zion Canyon National Park in Utah. The thickness of this formation varies from 1,600 to 2,200 feet. It is evident from the excellent cross-bedding in this formation and other features that this is created from a desert environment. Below the Navajo there are thousands of feet of rock layers, including the layers of the Grand Canyon. Again, please note…all the layers of the Grand Canyon are below the Navajo.
Looking at the rocks above the Navajo, the problem for the young-earth scientist gets even more complicated.. Looking at the Navajo at Arches National Park, there are at least 1,500 feet of rock layers above the Navajo at this location alone. The first is the Entrada Sandstone, which consists of three units, the Moab and Slick Rock members, (which are themselves desert dune sandstones), and the Dewey Bridge Member, which is about 200 feet of marine deposits. Above this is the thin Summerville Formation, siltstone from a lake/lagoon environment. Then comes the most serious problem for the young earth model…the Morrison Formation. This formation has yielded thousands of dinosaur fossils, supposedly killed during Noah’s Flood. Above the Morrison are the Dakota Sandstone (beach environment) and the Mancoa Shale (shallow marine).
In fact, all the dinosaur fossils are far above the Grand Canyon sediments. The young earth model says the Flood killed most of the dinosaurs1…and according to their model, all the layers of the Grand Canyon were deposited during the Flood2. That is over 1 mile of sediment. The first dinosaur fossils appear in the Chinle formation, which is two formations above the Grand Canyon layers.
How did these dinosaurs survive the deposition phase of the flood, which deposited over 8,000 feet of sediment before we see the first dinosaur fossil? Young earth explanations (see sources below) fail to offer a valid explanation of this problem…they make absolutely no sense out of the solid facts of the rock layers.
Given the young earth model, the flood waters must have created all these layers. However, you can’t have Flood-deposited rocks of the Grand Canyon, topped stratigraphically by a desert sandstone, the Navajo, to the north of the Canyon, and then covered by more sea-deposited layers. None of these layers above the Grand Canyon, including the layers above the Navajo, can be accounted for by the young-earth model.
Evidence From Creation Scientists!
Here is the most amazing evidence for the desert, wind-formed Navajo Sandstone. Creation scientists themselves admit it! I don’t know if they are aware of this or not. I’ve done a review of the cornerstone book of young-earth proof of Noah’s Flood and the Grand Canyon (located at the Answers In Creation website) . The book is called Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. It is published by the Institute for Creation Research. This book was put together by 14 of the pre-eminent young-earth creation scientists in the world.
On page 32 of this book, they are making a case for the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon. They claim it was deposited not in a dry, desert environment, but in a water environment. Figure 3.10 shows a plot of grain sizes for the Coconino, two modern water environments, and a “Desert Sand Dune.” Through this plot, it is shown that the desert dune plots out to a straight line, whereas the Coconino, and the water environment sands, plot out as jagged, irregular lines. This is used as proof that the Coconino is not a desert sandstone.
The amazing thing is the source of the “Desert Sand Dune” grain size plots. The first paragraph in the right column, first sentence, gives the source as footnote number 44. If you turn to this footnote, the source of the desert sand grain size plot is “Stratigraphic Analysis of the Navajo Sandstone,” published in the Journal of Sedimentary Petrology! That’s right! These creation scientists are using the desert-created Navajo Sandstone to argue against the Coconino as being desert in origin.
However, the Navajo is overlaid with many fossil bearing rock layers, including the Morrison Formation, with thousands of dinosaurs killed during the Flood of Noah. This can’t be! We now have proof, from young-earth creation scientists themselves, that the Navajo Sandstone formed as a dry, desert sandstone, right in the middle of Noah’s Flood!!!! Without meaning to, they have proved the old age of the earth!
Conclusion
The Coconino and Navajo are only two desert-created sandstones. No doubt the desert formations in China and Mongolia would also disprove the young age of the earth. I will post others here, as I have time to research them. Unfortunately for the young-earth creationist, it only takes one example of desert sandstone to disprove the young age of the earth. As you can see, the earth is old, just like the geologists have told us, and just as God’s creation testifies.
1 Oard, Michael, The Extinction of the Dinosaurs. (.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/tj_v11n2.asp)
2 Austin, Steven (ed.), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, 1995