How do Rock Layers Show a Young Earth? - Dr. Andrew Snelling
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 10. 2017
- Taken from the film, "Is Genesis History?" Watch the full film here: isgenesishistory.com/
Dr. Snelling completed a BS in applied geology at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, graduating with first-class honors in 1975. His PhD in geology was awarded in 1982 by The University of Sydney for his research thesis titled “A Geochemical Study of the Koongarra Uranium Deposit, Northern Territory, Australia.”
Dr. Snelling worked for six years in the exploration and mining industries in Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory, variously as a field, mine, and research geologist. For over ten years, Dr. Snelling was a research consultant to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization for an international collaborative research project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy which involved university and government research scientists from the USA, UK, Australia, Japan, Korea, Sweden, Austria and Belgium.
He is currently Director of Research for Answers in Genesis.
To see the full film or find additional resources about the history recorded in Genesis, visit isgenesishistory.com/
Now that really is a case of only seeing what you want to see.
So how does he explain all the fossils being in the same order? Did the animals line up in groups to drown?
Those pesky dinosaurs just pushed to the front of the queue didn't they???
Fossils that formed before and after the Flood aside, the current thinking among most young-earth geologists is that the order of fossils reflects the order in which different ecological communities were swept away, transported, and eventually buried by the floodwaters. According to this model, Cambrian rocks (the lowest rocks in Paleozoic strata) contain marine organisms that once lived on the edges of the pre-Flood landmass. The Paleozoic layers atop these rocks contain organisms swept off seafloors of shallow oceans on the continental shelf. As the floodwaters rose, sands along the shorelines of the world was picked up and redeposited atop previously deposited Paleozoic deposits, forming the Permo-Triassic sandstones. The strata above these deposits contain animals that lived on land (including dinosaurs) and in epicontinental seas that were picked up and then buried in Mesozoic rock layers as the floodwaters continued to rise. The Cenozoic fossil record contains successive "snapshots" of life's recovery in the centuries following the Flood.
For more information, please see the following video: czcams.com/video/zw7lkGNY_pE/video.html.
@@IsGenesisHistory, And all this happened in 40 days? Gimme a break!
@@davidgardner863lol... your comment is evidence of your ignorance...
The flood lasted a year
@@easyminimal_6130 , My ignorance?? According to the myth it only took 40 days to cover the mountains, then it just sat for a year. Then God pulled the big plug and the water ran out. By the way, where is that big plug?
@@davidgardner863you're doubling down on your ignorance, man.
How about you go & actually read Genesis before vomiting this garbage all over the internet?
SNELL YIOU L8R
Love this!
actually it's caused by the mass migration of red-sedimented shrimp from the greats lates folllowing the 1942 winter olympics in which sochi althete MIKHAIL GORBACHEV rocked the world s
Actually, if you look closely at the layers, there are smaller layers making up the larger layers. It's just that those small sedimentations build up over millions of years.
where is this happening? I can locate you 99% of the earth eroding away. please show me where I can find perfectly flat layers forming today. and how does the soil go up hill to build these new layers on top of the land? show me where this is happening.
@tsimahei That's because the canyons at Mt. Saint Helens were made from VOLCANIC material. They were created quickly because they were formed from debris of a volcano (this also means they aren't tue canyons either). Also, the Grand Canyon is not made of fast-moving volcanic debris, it's made of sedimentary rock, which is formed by weathering and erosion. Also, you aren't understanding my first point. The smaller layers would not have washed away because they were covered by more sediments before they could. The layers are formed in bodies of water, meaing that the weight of the water would constantly be pressing down on the sediments too. Also, fossils aren't formed by bacteria or calcium, they're formed by minerals slowly replacing the decaying bone. Also, the Evolutionists did discover it, they had proof, while the YEC did not have any, and they never have had any proof. You're no better than flat earthers. Now go vaccinate your kids karen.
If it took millions of years: why do the individual layers of the grand canyon show zero weathering, zero rock formations, they are all perfectly flat. only the top layers show uneven weathering. don't be afraid to look, show an example of ONE of the lower layers showing erosion patterns like the top layer has. why do you put your faith in "naturalistic scientists" and not your own eyes?
@@geoant9802 you clearly have no knowledge of geologic formations, so Let's refresh; canyons are landforms caused by EROSION not deposition. They are not build-ups of land, they are land depressions, meaning they go DOWN not up. Go look at a topographic map of the grand canyon and the surrounding areas. You will see that the area around the canyon is about the same elevation around the entire thing. The layers build up BEFORE the erosion takes place. That's why you see straight layers on the bottom and not the top. Why do you put your faith in god rather than your own brain?
exactly, the canyon eroded the land exposing the sedimentary layers. You admit you can see with your eyes what erosion does to the exposed layers, it damages them, it makes them no longer perfectly flat. With all those layers in the canyon visible: Why do none of those layers show periods of time where they were subject to erosion.... if they slowly formed over millions of years? why today do we ONLY see the effects of erosion? In the past NO effects of erosion?
loam lover
The fundamental question is, where do YEC get their figures from?
Unless I’m very much mistaken, and please please tell me if I am, the 6000 years is reached by adding some numbers up in a series of books.
Is that it?
I mean there’s only 270 supernova remnants in our galaxy
@@bikesrcool_1958, Supernova remnants are the outward expanding gases from the explosion. After 10,000 years or so the gas is too dissipated to be observable.
the earth doesn't have to be 6,000 years old that's just the timeline for humans on earth or the events in the bible.
@@marcusmuse4787 , Since the Bible is not a history book, the timeline it gives is meaningless.
A widespread unit does not necessarily indicate rapid sedimentation. It does indicate a widespread area of similar deposition.
For sedimentary rocks deposited in water there needs to be space between sea level and the ocean bottom. This is called accommodation space. For the Grand Canyon rocks there are several possibilities; either the sea floor was in very deep water, and some 5000 feet of sediment was deposited at once, or else the area was subsiding and sediments built up over time to a thickness of some 5000 feet.
From the rocks it does not appear these are deep water sediments. This leaves the alternative of a subsiding sea floor as a likely candidate. It does not seem possible that the sea floor of pre-flood sediments could subside some 5000 feet in such as short time as postulated for Noah's flood. A more rational concept is gradual subsidence over a long period of time through the Paleozoic with the result some 5000 feet of sediment deposited which is what we now see in the Grand Canyon.
Don't forget there are other sedimentary basins around the world with even thicker sedimentary sections; Williston Basin, 16,000 feet, Michigan Basin, 16,000 feet. Anadarko Basin, 30,000 feet, Lower Congo Basin 17,000 feet. The list goes on and on.
Another serious question to ask, if these sediments were deposited during a short-term mega flood (Noah) what is the source(s) for all of these sediments? And no just for the Grand Canyon but for all of the sedimentary basins around the world.
Dude in red legit sounds like Jeff Goblume
Lol yes he does
Really
Good stuff!
Keep up the good work guys. This information is so badly needed in these last days. The flood of Noah's Day answers so many questions and shows The Word of God to be true. No wonder evolutionists hate this event w/a passion, it destroys the myth they have been trying to convince the world is true (evolution and millions of yrs). We are so near to Christ's return.
Genesis 7:20 : Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
If the flood waters were only about 25 feet, how could they create layers of sediment thousands of feet deep?
@@cxguti75 I guess the mountains were smaller back then!!!😂🤣😅
Carlos Gutierrez that’s 15 cubits above the highest mountain tops
if there was tectonic plate movement that would cause the mountains to rise. "the great fountains of the deep burst forth" causing the plates to move.@@FR_THPEPL
the highest point on earth is mt everest and the summit is made of limestone a flood sediment, so the highest point was once underwater.@@FR_THPEPL
The evidence say exactly the opposite. U need more time not less!
This guy may have a PhD in Geology but he has a religious agenda.
So? Is he forcing your kids to learn what he's teaching in school? Didn't think so. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid! This week it's fruit punch!
What's wrong with that? He has his own theories just like everyone else.
Like you don't have a non religious agenda... Silly
@@shaunsaega Perhaps. I wonder if Dr Snelling would admit to that. I believe in God. But some of the events in the Bible are inconsistent with reality.
@@nathanieltorres2264 . . . yes, including his earlier publications giving specific dates of uranium deposits in Australia as being more than 2 billion years old. That's more than 500,000 times older than the age of Earth that he claims in this video.
SNELLING IS A F UNNY NAME
Dr. Snelling publishes in scientific journals with billion year old dates but is paid by Answers in Genesis to play this role. He has repeatedly refused to defend a young earth model in front of his peers.
This is Dr. Snelling's reply: This has been answered many times for the last 30 years! Those who repeat this false accusation are either ignoring the refutation of these claims or are lying. The papers in question were submitted to secular journals and publications where editors required the uniformitarian terminology to be used and censored anything to do with Flood geology and a young earth. So when I wrote in those papers I always referenced such claims of millions of years to the secular geologists making those claims, never once saying that’s what I believed. At the same time I was writing in creationists magazines and journals so those who wanted to check knew exactly what I believed. There was nothing hidden and no duplicity. Some papers were coauthored and my authors knew of my creationist beliefs but still wanted me as their coauthor, so they never saw any dishonesty. It’s the critics who are being dishonest by not telling people the full story, just telling people what suits their perverted agenda.
There are trees older than you are claiming the age of the Earth is. All young earth arguments fail completely.
The oldest trees alive today are between 4 and 5 thousand years old.
The Blewit then how did they survive the flood?
noahthelibertarianatheist they didn't?
The Blewit they are still growing
noahthelibertarianatheist ok I'll make this simple. The flood was about 4500 years ago. That is why there are no trees older than that.
A major problem with this video is the Coconino Sandstone extends nowhere near as far as the map in this video indicates. The Lower Leonardian-age rocks comprising the Coconino are only found in SE Utah, SW Colorado and parts of New Mexico and Arizona and then in eastern Colorado and Nebraska. It would have been better if Dr. Snelling had actually read the literature before posting such an obviously erroneous video.
He is referring to the correlation made by John Whitmore of the Coconino to equivalents that use other names. See the chart in a presentation he gave on this in 2017. See slide 4: digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1283&context=science_and_mathematics_presentations
Some of the correlative units are evaporites; gypsum/anhydrite and various salts. It is difficult to understand how thick layers of evaporites could form in a major world wide flood of presumably fresh water of possibly brackish water.
@@IsGenesisHistory
In order for this PhD guy to have any authority on his opinionated theory he must first do the work, submit his paper for peer review, and get it accepted!!!
Until then, he has no authority to talk past the peer reviewed accepted science!!! In the instance that he does start speaking beyond the knowledge of accepted science his PhD is no longer valid!!!
He is the laughing stock of the national Geographic Society!!! 😂🤣😂😅😄
@@FR_THPEPL just like Galileo was at one point a laughing stock? My point is just because a theory defies conventional understanding doesnt mean its false. I'm not saying the theories are true because I lack scientific background in geology so am unqualified to argue one way or the other. But simply because a theory doesnt fit the theories held by the majority holds no basis for dismissal.
@@jameybobamey7343 it does if the theory is making extraordinary claims, that go against known or excepted explanations of reality! I am not saying that all current theories are 100% correct, but they do seem to match reality. If someone has a new wild idea, that is completely different than what is currently excepted, then the burden of proof is on them, and the proof must work everywhere all the time, and be able to make predictions. Just stating a theory, doesn't mean that it should even be taken seriously, unless they have satisfied their burden of proof!!!!
Tectonics. Plate 'folding'. Jeez. Read up on the SCIENCE!!.
"The great fountains of the deep burst forth" that certainly sounds like plate tectonics would be affected. the mountains rose, and the valleys sank down psalms 104
Note that Young Earth Creationists have not bothered to actually date the Earth to 6,000 years old. What dating method was used? What peer-reviewed journal can the results be found in? It's as though Creationists think they can demonstrate a 6,000 year old Earth by disproving a 4.5 billion year old Earth. That is an argument from ignorance logical fallacy.
That's not accurate. They can only date the Flood back around 4000 years. Before that they only have the story of Genesis to go by.
@South Florida Horticulture what is more than I have?
6,000 years could just be the biblical timeline of events and we only started writing around 6,000 years ago I wonder why when we had that capability for thousands of years before ?? there's nothing in the first chapters of genesis that would exclude an old earth when God created the earth it was formless and void and then it existed without life on it now how long ago was this? billions of years 4.5 billion? it seems to suggest it was created in phases. I believe in an old earth so if people have arguments against young earth that doesn't harm me at all, and also theistic evolution is a thing. so, even evolution is not an obstacle, and the truth is that humans do have dominion just like the bible tells us. We're not the same as other animals or primates we are definitely made special. It's all interpretation. On day 6 God created the animals first and human's 2nd and later Adam named the animals, so we are supposed to be stewards of the earth to take care of the planet and the animals as well, but human greed has caused animals to be hunted to extinction and pollution of the earth. So, just like the bible tells us the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil.