PLANETARY SCIENCE SUPPORTS A YOUNG COSMOS

Creationist scientist Dr Russell Humphreys shows a young-age creation perspective has real explanatory power for understanding magnetic fields of planets, moons, and other objects in space. The Ganymede moon of Jupiter has been shown to have its own magnetic field which should not be the case if the Cosmos is billions of years old. Humphreys became famous because he successfully predicted the magnetic field of Uranus before Voyager 2 flew by the Uranus system in 1986. The strength of the magnetic field was a complete surprise to evolutionists, though not to creationists, as creationist physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys, using Biblical assumptions, had accurately predicted the strength two years previously!

This is a complex article but at least make sure you read the Conclusion.

Ganymede is the largest moon (Jupiter) in the solar system (figure 1). With a radius of 2,634 km, Ganymede is slightly larger than the planet Mercury. A unique feature of Ganymede is that it possesses its own intrinsic magnetic field. To planetary scientists, it has been a challenge to explain how an object of Ganymede’s size could still possess its own magnetic field after over 4 Ga. After billions of years, an object of Ganymede’s size would be expected to have cooled down so that there would not be adequate heat to drive a magnetic dynamo. A dynamo requires a molten iron core that can have a convection motion of the fluid, which carries an electric current. But for Ganymede, the iron core is only approximately 700–800 km in radius. Ganymede may not have a solid iron core but has a liquid iron core surrounded by a silicate mantle, and then layers of water ice over the mantle.

Ganymede is influenced by the strong magnetic field of Jupiter, but there is a good consensus among scientists that it possesses its own intrinsic field. The Galileo spacecraft conducted magnetometer measurements which have been analyzed in relation to Jupiter’s field. Ganymede’s main dipole field was measured as 719 nanotesla (nT) and is tilted 176° in relation to its own spin axis. This makes it roughly antiparallel to Jupiter’s magnetic field.

The magnetic field model of Dr. D. Russel Humphreys has been more successful than old-age magnetic dynamo theories. Humphreys applied his model to the magnetic fields of Earth, Uranus, Neptune, Mercury, our Sun, and bodies in our solar system. Mercury is slightly smaller than Ganymede but possesses a larger iron core with both solid and liquid layers. Humphreys’ model proposed that when God created the planets he initially made them out of water in the manner described for Earth in Genesis 1 and 2 Peter 3, “out of water”.

This model has significant advantages over the old-age dynamo model. The dynamo model requires a molten conducting core such as liquid iron. It also requires convection motion of the fluid and is very dependent on the size of the core and the rate of rotation of the planet. But in Humphreys’ model, the core need not actually be melted, it just needs to be a conductor. The initial magnetic field from creation decays to the present. This has been described as ‘free decay’ because the field decreases in intensity over thousands of years. Humphreys’ model assumes a young age for the Earth and solar system and leads to realistic values for the magnetic dipole moment for Earth, Mercury, and the other planets. This makes Humphreys’ model more broadly applicable than dynamo theories. Thus, it can be applied to Ganymede as well, as Humphreys has done.

In Humphreys’ model for the creation of magnetic fields, the exact composition of the iron core after creation is not known, but this does not create a problem in applying the model. The core’s composition is estimated by interior structure models that attempt to match the overall density of the moon to gravity measurements taken by spacecraft (the Galileo mission). Today, Ganymede is believed to have an ice shell of roughly 200 km, then a silicate mantle of about 1,700 km, and this leaves the core as roughly 700–800 km in radius. However, these are only rough approximations. If the core is smaller, it needs to have a composition closer to pure iron in order to generate the measured magnetic field. But if the core is larger, then it could have a composition more in a light element such as sulfur (in FeS). In Sohl 2002, an analysis was done of the Galileo gravity data for the Galilean moons of Jupiter. They describe Ganymede’s magnetic field thus:

“Magnetometer measurements of the Galileo spacecraft have shown that Ganymede possesses an intrinsic magnetic field with equatorial and polar field strengths at the surface of 750 and 1,200 nT, respectively.”

They go on to give a range of values on the size of the Ganymede core: “The ice shell was suggested to be about 800 km thick. The core may have a radius between 400 and 1,300 km.” All these values are consistent with Humphreys’ model.

Conclusions

At creation, should we assume that the composition of the core was uniform throughout? This is a simplifying assumption but not really a requirement. If there was a composition gradient in the core initially where it was closer to pure iron at the core-mantle boundary but possessed more FeS at the bottom of the core, this would be unstable and so sinking iron ‘snow’ and rising FeS would be possible. Such a composition gradient could alter how rapidly the magnetic field decays for some period of time until the core reached a more stable uniform composition. So, to this author, it seems the ‘iron snow’ concept is possible, but it would not drive a dynamo in Ganymede, and it would not invalidate Humphreys’ magnetic model. Thus, a young-age creation perspective has real explanatory power for understanding magnetic fields of planets, moons, and other objects in space.

This article by Wayne Spencer The iron snow dynamo theory for Ganymede is taken from The Journal of Creation 2022 Volume 36, Issue 3 in the section Perspectives.

The Journal of Creation is the Technical Journal produced by Creation Ministries International (CMI). They also produce the excellent Creation Journal for nontechnical people. Go to http://www.creation.com to subscribe.

WHY RADIOMETRIC DATING GIVES AGES OF MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS

A young age for ‘ancient’ granites

When physicist Dr Russell Humphreys was still at Sandia National Laboratories (he now works full-time for the Institute for Creation Research), he and Dr John Baumgardner (still with Los Alamos National Laboratory) were both convinced that they knew the direction in which to look for a definitive answer to the puzzle of why radiometric dating consistently gives ages of millions and billions of years.

picture – Linear accelerator used in radiometric dating.

Others had tried to find an answer in geological processes—e.g. the pattern was caused by the way the magma was emplaced or how it crystallized. This is indeed the answer in some cases.2,3 But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that in other cases there were many independent lines of evidence that suggested that huge amounts of radioactive decay had indeed taken place. (These include the variety of elements used in ‘standard’ radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos and fission track dating.) It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes alone could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be an answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.

From the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place. So it was clear that the assumption of a constant, slow decay process was wrong. There must have been speeded-up decay, perhaps in a huge burst associated with Creation Week and/or a separate burst at the time of the Flood.

There is now powerful confirmatory evidence that at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay has indeed been the case, building on the work of Dr Robert Gentry on helium retention in zircons. The landmark RATE paper,4 though technical, can be summarized as follows:

  • When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas, which readily escapes from rock.
  • Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead.
  • By measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.)
  • However, there is a significant proportion of helium from that ‘1.5 billion years of decay’ still inside the zircons. This is, at first glance, surprising for long-agers, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should surely be hardly any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating.
  • Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the RATE papers reports on. The samples were sent (without any hint that it was a creationist project) to a world-class expert on helium diffusion from minerals to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated to give a date of 5,680 (± 2,000) years.
  • The paper looks at the various avenues a long-ager might take by which to wriggle out of these powerful implications, but there seems to be little hope for them unless they can show that the techniques used to obtain the results were seriously flawed.

The Bible clearly tells us that God created a mature universe: Adam was a man, not a baby, the trees and plants mature and on day six Adam could see all of the stars in heaven. God tells us that He stretched out the heavens at creation on day four. The Cosmos could only have been created by a being outside of His creation with miraculous powers.

Big Bang from nothing does not explain the complex ordered universe that is so evident, it is certainly not good science.

Taken from an article by Dr. Carl Weiland “Radiometric dating breakthroughs” http://www.creation.com

4. Humphreys, D. et al., Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay, icr.org, 16 October 2003. Return to text.

FLOOD GEOLOGY MODEL

I recently posted on July 15th Noah’s Flood Fact or Fiction? If you have not viewed it, can I suggest you do, as it complements and reinforces this post. It is wonderful to see the amount of evidence being produced by Ph.D. scientists to support the young earth’s history presented in the Bible. In this video, we follow geologist Dr. Steve Austin and Del Tackett to Arizona where we can see the Grand Staircase, a thick stack of rock layers that are visible as sets of parallel cliffs above the Grand Canyon.

Steve then explains how the history of the world is best viewed through a Flood geology model as a five-step process: Sedimentation, Tectonics, Erosion, Volcanoes, and Exponential decline.

He then talks briefly about his experience as a creationist geologist. Dr. Austin is a field research geologist who has done research on six of the seven continents of the world. His research has taken him by helicopter into the crater on Mount St. Helens, by bush plane onto glaciers in Alaska, by raft through the Grand Canyon, on horseback into the high Sierra, by elevator into the world’s deepest coal mines, by SCUBA onto the Great Barrier Reef, by rail into Korean backcountry, by foot onto barren plateaus of southern Argentina, and by a four-wheel drive into remote desert areas of Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Dr. Austin received his PhD from Pennsylvania State University in sedimentary geology.

YOUNG EARTH AND DISTANT STARLIGHT (PART 3)

3. Everyone believes in miracles!

Those who demand a naturalistic explanation (no miracles allowed!) for distant starlight from Christians don’t seem to realize that the standard ‘big bang’ secular view of origins entails miracles—but without a miracle worker! The problem is that the distribution of the background radiation in the universe is fairly uniform, but there has not been enough time for radiation (at the speed of light) to disperse over such a large universe. This is called the ‘horizon problem’. It is really the big bang’s very own ‘light time-travel’ problem. To ‘explain’ this, cosmologists invoked a period of super-fast expansion of the universe—much faster than the speed of light—for a brief time just after the ‘bang’. This was dubbed ‘inflation’. What started it, how it could proceed, and what stopped it are all mysteries. These are in effect naturalistic miracles, with no sufficient cause or explanation.2 They are used to prop up a theory that would not work without them.

So, it is not that miracles are not allowed in explaining origins. Ironically, they are only disallowed when it comes to biblical creation, which the Bible says is miraculous!

Bible-believing Christians are ‘streets ahead’ of secularists here because we have an all-powerful God who is able to do things beyond our ken.

Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure. The Lord lifts up the humble; he casts the wicked to the ground. (Psalm 147:5–6)

God calls us to humbly submit to Him and His Word.

.

YOUNG EARTH AND DISTANT STARLIGHT (PART 2)

Part 1 explains that the cause of the universe is supernatural and cannot be explained by natural events. The word of God brought the universe into existence from something that is not visible, something, unlike ordinary visible/tangible matter and energy. This is consistent with the scientific conclusion that the matter and energy that comprise the universe cannot be eternal. Thus, the cause of the universe must be supernatural.

2. There are potential explanations anyway.

Christian astrophysicists have proposed various explanations as to how God might have created things in such a way that even Adam and Eve would have been able to see distant starlight. This section is a bit technical, but we have tried to make it as easy as possible to understand. The ideas are mind-stretching because they seem to conflict with our everyday experience of the world.

Time dilation models

Einstein is famous for discovering that time is not constant but is affected by movement (speed) and gravitational forces. This is known as Special Relativity and General Relativity, respectively. When an object moves very fast, time for that object slows down, or even stops at the speed of light. Also, when an object is in the presence of a massive object, which provides a strong gravitational attraction, time slows down. These effects are measurable and thus have been verified by experiment. They are so real that GPS satellites, which depend on precision clocks for global positioning calculations, must have their on-board clocks adjusted for the lesser gravity (being up in the sky) and for the speed of movement of the satellite.

Now we can try to imagine God creating the universe, “stretching out the heavens” (Psalm 104:2) on Day 4 of Creation Week. This would entail massive gravitational forces and enormous differences in speeds, both of which would change the time ‘out there’ compared to planet Earth. Thus, in one Earth day (Day 4) an enormous amount of time could transpire ‘out there’ allowing ample time for the light to travel to Earth. Various models have been proposed based on these ideas

New Model

Well, this is not so new; it goes back to Einstein’s era. Einstein’s findings of time changing with motion means that the speed of light (c) cannot be measured in one direction. It can only be measured for the round trip (two-way speed). This gives the average speed, but we cannot know if the speed is the same in both directions.

Einstein assumed that the speed of light in all directions was the same (called the synchrony convention) but he realized that it was an assumption without proof.

7535-Genesis1
God calls us to humbly submit to Him and His Word.

Physicists have been wracking their brains ever since Einstein to try to figure out how to measure the speed of light in one direction. For example, we might want to fire a laser beam at the moon and measure how long it takes to get there. However, we need to place a clock on the moon that is telling the same time as a clock on Earth. That is a problem because as we fly the clock to the moon, the time changes on the clock! Putting it another way, the only way the observer on the moon can know when the light beam is sent from Earth is to be sent a message, which then travels at the speed of light. It all becomes totally circular!

There has been quite some discussion about this in recent times, including from secularists—that the speed of light might not be the same in all directions.

So, what if the speed of light towards us was infinite and the speed away from us was c/2? That would give an average speed of c, which we measure. There is no way that we can know that this is not so. And that would mean that light from distant stars would reach Earth the instant that they were created. No problem!

Go to http://www.creation.com for the entire article.

YOUNG EARTH AND DISTANT STARLIGHT (PART 1)

Creation Week entailed a series of miracles.

Throughout the account in Genesis 1, the Bible says that God spoke things into existence—eight times, “And God said … ”. And after He spoke, it is often concluded with, “and it was so”. The New Testament tells us,

“By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” (Hebrews 11:3)

The word of God brought the universe into existence from something that is not visible, something, unlike ordinary visible/tangible matter and energy. This is consistent with the scientific conclusion that the matter and energy that comprise the universe cannot be eternal. Thus, the cause of the universe must be supernatural.

And so the Bible describes the Word of God as powerful:

“So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11)

The New Testament tells us that this agency of God, the Word by which He created everything, was none other than the Lord Jesus Christ:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. (John 1:1–3)

Genesis 2 tells us that God made the first man and woman. He took dust and made the man, Adam (Genesis 2:7), and took his rib and fashioned the woman, Eve, the mother of all.

I have never had anyone demand that I explain to them how God made a man from dust. And yet there is this demand that we explain how God could have created the stars such that we can see the light from distant stars.

Distant star cluster

The Genesis account makes it clear that the creation of the heavenly bodies was just as miraculous as the creation of the first people:

And God said, “Let there be lights … And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.” (Genesis 1:14–16).

Was this any less a miracle than the creation of the man from dust? And yet there is a demand for a naturalistic explanation for how God did this! This seems to me to be quite inconsistent and unreasonable to demand such a thing as a condition of believing the Bible’s account, especially the timeframe.

It’s also interesting that the timeframe of six days with the seventh day of rest—the basis of our 7-day week (Exodus 20:11)—underlines the miraculous nature of God’s actions. And that is part of the problem for those who don’t or won’t believe the timeframe, such as theistic evolutionists and long-age creationists. When they refuse to believe the timeframe, they then tend to think of ‘creation’ in a naturalistic way, over billions of years. And then secular ideas of how things came to be take precedence over the Bible’s clear account. Thus the miraculous nature of Creation Week takes a back seat and so we have this demand for a naturalistic explanation for how we can see distant starlight.

The bottom line: Creation Week involved a series of miracles, one after the other. Thus, these are things for which we can provide no natural explanation. We do not know how God could speak the stars into existence, and thus we cannot know how He created things in such a way that we can see the light from celestial objects millions and billions of light-years distant.

In other words, the question tacitly denies the supernatural nature of the Creation Week events. In doing so it robs God of His omnipotence and limits Him to work only in ways that we can understand. This results in a very diminished view of God. In effect, those who do this are constructing a god compatible with their own limited understanding, which is a form of idolatry.

Go to http://www.creation.com for the entire article.

DINOSAURS REFUTE MILLIONS OF YEARS

What’s the big deal with “dinosaur soft tissue”?

It is not just dinosaur soft tissue, either, but the presence of detectable proteins such as collagen, hemoglobin, osteocalcin, actin, and tubulin that they must account for. These are complex molecules that continually tend to break down to simpler ones. If the world is billions of years old these cannot be there.

Not only that but in many cases, there are fine details of the bone matrix, with microscopically intact-looking bone cells (osteocytes) showing incredible detail. Palaeontologist, Dr. Mary Schweitzer has even recovered fragments of the even more fragile and complex molecule, DNA. This has been extracted from the bone cells with markers indicating its source such that it is extremely likely to be dinosaur DNA.

Others have reported the fast-decaying carbon-14 from dino bones—not a single atom should be left after 1 million years.

Go to http://www.creation.com for more evidence of a young earth from Ph.D. scientists.

DISTANT STARLIGHT AND A YOUNG EARTH

Astronomer Danny Faulkner describes his solution to the light travel-time problem, then discusses many of the issues with Big Bang cosmology. Dr Danny Faulkner received his PhD in astronomy from Indiana University. He is distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of South Carolina-Lancaster, where he taught astronomy and physics for over 26 years. Since January, 2013, he has been the staff astronomer at Answers in Genesis in northern Kentucky. For more information on Dr. Faulkner, please go to https://bit.ly/3kGkcFV

This 20 minute video segment is from “Beyond Is Genesis History? Vol 3 : Bible & Stars,” where they explore the universe, the Tower of Babel, the Hebrew text, and the history of interpretation of Genesis, and much more! Check it out on their website: https://bit.ly/BIGH-3

Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out?” Isaiah 42:5

BIBLICAL VIEW OF THE ROCKS

THE GEOLOGY TRANSFORMATION TOOL – A new way of looking at your world by Tas Walker

Like the recent article Compelling Evidence for a Young Earth this article by Tas Walker is taken from the latest Creation Magazine http://www.creation.com.

Perhaps you have seen a report in the media about a rock outcrop ‘800 million years old’ and wondered how that fits with the history of the Bible. One confronts the same puzzle when reading about a fossil dinosaur that lived in ‘Jurassic’ times. Or we may visit a tourist site with a sign that speaks about a volcano forming ‘25 million years ago’.

If you would like to see your world from a biblical perspective, the simple diagram in figure 1 is what you are looking for. It allows you to work out a first, ballpark understanding of how each situation you encounter relates to the true history of the universe, that is, to the history presented in the Bible.

A Chart of Geological transformation tool
Diagram 1: Geologic Column adapted to show Noah’s Flood sequence

The right side of the diagram has three vertical arrows, which show how these rocks relate to biblical history. The first arrow (green) indicates which rocks formed in the first 150 days of Noah’s Flood as the floodwaters were rising. The second arrow (blue) indicates which rocks formed in the last 220 days of Noah’s Flood as the waters were falling and the continents were rising. The third arrow (yellow) indicates which rocks have formed in the 4,500 years since the Flood ended.

You will notice at the top of the diagram that the biblical arrows overlap, and that at the bottom the green arrow is shown dotted. This is to indicate that there is uncertainty in these areas. The main reason for the uncertainty is that there is not a one-to-one relationship between the rocks on the geological column and biblical history. That is because uniformitarian geologists place the rocks into the geological column using criteria that assume Noah’s Flood never happened. However, the rocks must be understood using criteria based on biblical history, which includes the Creation and Flood events.

When we do examine the geology using biblical criteria, we discover that the geological column provides a general Flood order. However, there are many exceptions and the relationship is highly non-linear. As illustrated in figure 1, most rocks (the Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Mesozoic) formed as the floodwaters were rising on the earth. These are generally of very large scale, both in thickness and geographical extent. The second part of the Flood, when the waters were receding as the continents uplifted, mainly involved huge erosion on the continents. The receding floodwaters deposited the eroded material at the continental margins. Local deposits did occur on the continents but very late in that period, after most of the water had gone.

Easy to use

The figure is easy to use. All that is required is to locate on figure 1 the ‘date’ in millions of years for your example. Then you simply check where it sits on the arrows of biblical history. Let’s look at the examples mentioned above.

For the rock outcrop 800 million years old we see on figure 1 that it fits between the numbers 541 and 2500. To the left, on the column this corresponds to the ‘Proterozoic’ as well as the ‘Precambrian’. To the right, on the biblical interpretation, this corresponds to the period when the waters of Noah’s Flood were rising, and quite early in this period. Given that the waters of Noah’s Flood were rising for 150 days, 800 million years would correspond to the first month or two of the Flood, which occurred some 4,500 years ago.

For the fossil dinosaur that lived in the ‘Jurassic’, we see that this fits between 145 and 201 million years ago. It is part of the groupings called the ‘Mesozoic’ and the ‘Phanerozoic’. On the biblical interpretation to the right we can see that this also corresponds to the time when the waters of Noah’s Flood were rising, but later than the rock described in the previous example. Its position on the arrow indicates that this would have been as the waters were approaching their peak, perhaps a month before that, which would be about four months after the Flood began, 4,500 years ago.

For the volcano ‘25 million years’ ago, we see that it corresponds to the ‘Oligocene’, which is part of the ‘Paleogene’, the ‘Tertiary’, the ‘Cenozoic’, and the ‘Phanerozoic’. On the biblical interpretation to the right we can see that this corresponds to the 220-day (approx. 7-month) period when the waters of Noah’s Flood were falling. This was as the continents were being uplifted, causing the floodwaters to flow off the land into the expanding oceans. This would have been a few months into that period after the waters peaked, which would put this some 8 months or more after Noah’s Flood began, 4,500 years ago.

COMPELLING EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG EARTH

CURVY ROCK LAYERS UNDERMINE MILLIONS OF YEARS”, article by Gavin Cox in the latest issue of Creation Magazine. Go to http://www.creation.com to sign up for this must have creation resource.

The Bible indicates that the Flood, which lasted just over a year, was a global tectonic event, with much vertical and horizontal earth movement. This provided the forces required to mould sediments and fold rocks. Genesis 7:11 tells us how the Flood started, when “all the fountains of the great deep burst forth.” Genesis 8:1–3 tells us how the Flood ended: “And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided. The fountains of the deep … were closed … and the waters receded from the earth continually.” These verses are also describing vast global geological activity. Furthermore, Psalm 104:6–9 clearly describes Noah’s Flood: “The waters stood above the mountains. At your rebuke they fled … The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them … so that they might not again cover the earth.” Evidently, huge earth-moving forces were involved that transported vast amounts of freshly deposited, wet sediments. The Flood provides all the factors necessary to fold strata quickly.

In the Grand Canyon, the rock appears as though it has deformed like wet clay. It becomes thinner where the fold has been in tension (not showing tensional fractures), and thicker where it has been in compression (but not showing signs of being crushed). This is powerful evidence that the sediment was still wet and plastic, like clay, and not solid rock, when it was bent.

Long-agers can accept that an individual rock layer could have been wet and plastic when folded. But not when there are multiple layers clearly bent together, with the top and bottom layers supposedly separated by millions of years. This is because they know it would be unreasonable to think that rock layers would stay soft for millions of years. So, at least the bottom layer of any such folded sequence would have had to be solid when bent.

Image of folded rocks

In the Grand Canyon, where the folded strata are part of a larger formation called the Kaibab Upwarp (figure 3), the deepest layer (the Tapeats Sandstone) is supposed to be 550 million years old. The topmost of the folded layers (the Kaibab Limestone) was allegedly deposited 300 million years later. (The bottom layer is supposedly millions of years older than any of the intervening layers.) So, since they were all folded together in plastic fashion, the straightforward understanding of the evidence is that they were all still wet and pliable when folded.

Long-agers must therefore find some way around this. To preserve long ages, rocks must be seen as able to bend without breaking—in the unobservable past, over huge time periods.

Conclusion

The supposed millions of years to bend rock strata into folds is an illusion. Folded strata do not constitute evidence for vast amounts of time in the rocks. Furthermore, no one has waited for eons to watch if it really takes that long to form folds in strata. ‘Deep time’ is a philosophical idea (derived from uniformitarianism), not a scientific observation.