According to the story, James Hutton, using his keen observation skills, discovered that the earth was unimaginably old—much older than the 5,800 years he learned during his early Presbyterian upbringing.
His seminal moment came, so the story goes, after returning from Hadrian’s Wall, which was built by the Romans in 122 ad. Hutton observed that, in more than 1,600 years, the wall was hardly touched by erosion. Yet the volcanos in the area had been much eroded. And when he visited Siccar Point on the coast east of Edinburgh, he found evidence of former continents that had been entirely worn away. Thus, by his careful observation and logical deduction he discovered geological time.
But the reality is quite different.
First, James Hutton’s logic was flawed. He ignored the history of this planet as recorded in the Bible and did not consider the geological effects of Noah’s Flood. If he had, he would have found that the biblical age of the earth is consistent with biblical history. The catastrophic movement of water during the Flood explains how the erosion that Hutton observed at Siccar Point actually occurred in a short time. Hutton should have realized that Hadrian’s Wall was built after Noah’s Flood. When he compared the erosion on Hadrian’s Wall with the erosion on volcanos in the area, and with the erosion at Siccar Point, it was an invalid comparison. He was comparing things that are not comparable.
Second, he allowed his preconceived ideas to colour his observations. Because he imagined slow-and-gradual geological processes in the past he missed the obvious evidence for geological catastrophe at Siccar Point. To be fair, he was not aware of turbidites—catastrophic sedimentary processes only discovered following the Grand Banks earthquake off the coast of Newfoundland in 1929. But there was much other evidence that he missed.
The legend surrounding James Hutton is a nice story but it’s not accurate. Visit Siccar Point today and you can see for yourself the abundant evidence for catastrophe, consistent with the biblical Flood. For more detail see Unmasking a long-age icon.
Norman Sinclair
Dear sir, I have read some utter rubbish in my time but never have i encounterd such rubbish as you talk. please read the work of Darwin and prof Richard dawkins. Forget about all the god claptrap get real. Norman Sinclair. Aberdeen Scotland.
Tas Walker
Hi Norman,
We are quite familiar with Darwin’s work. In fact, we did a documentary on him and his book called Darwin: The Voyage that Shook the World. I’d encourage you to watch it. I think you will be surprised at how positively it treats Darwin.
We are also very familiar with the writings of Richard Dawkins and have reviewed many of his books in the Journal of Creation, of which I am an editor, such as his Unweaving the Rainbow.
We also did a refutation of his latest book The Greatest Show on Earth.
Thank you for your comment. I can understand your incredulous reaction but I hope that you will continue to look at the articles around these sites.
Bruce Budd
Dear Mr Sinclair,
You advise Bible-believing Christians (is there another sort?) to ‘get real’. What, I wonder, is your definition of reality? Logically, if you take God out of the equation, you’re left with chaotic, random processes which would never allow you to recognise reality. If your thinking process are simply a series of random synapses you could never recognise truth even if such a thing could exist. Our Lord, Jesus Christ, said ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life’. Find Jesus, find the Truth, and discover what truly is real! You’ll never regret it.
Winston
Dear Tas,
Thanks for explaining another geological feature and JH’s misleading conclusions… the world is certainly covered in evidence showing what happened pretty swiftly to the created world at Noah’s floodtime.
I thank God every day for the historic framework He gave us to explain what we observe. It works.
Winston Broad
Gold Coast, Australia
M. Hewitt
Hi Tas,
I would like to sincerely commend you for the way you politely replied to the misinformed Mr Sinclair.
God bless
Murray.
Jeff Dixon
The laughable Flood of Noah. A flood for which there is no evidence for, by the way. A flood that not only did not happen, it COULD not happen the way it is told. If the entire world is covered in water, that means it is covered in seawater. (Really, try it for yourself. mix a bowl of salt water and fresh water and see what you get. Here’s a hint – you get salt water.) If the entire earth is covered in salt water, it will poison the ground. That is why armies used to salt the earth of lands they invaded, so that it was ruined to try and grow more crops. There is no fresh water for anyone to drink and all the fresh water supplies have been destroyed by the ENTIRE EARTH BEING COVERED IN SALT WATER. So, we have no water and cannot grow new crops. If you start eating the animals from the ark, you keep them from reproducing. Of course, that does not stop Noah from sacrificing some of them immediately. Not that it matters. Keep in mind that two animals are not enough to provide the genetic diversity needed to sustain an animal population.
The story is absurd at any level.
Tas Walker
Hello Jeff,
There is abundant evidence for the Flood for those who have an open mind and are prepared to look. There is no problem with fresh/salt water. Rainfall since the Flood would leach the salts to the water table. Go to creation.com and search for “saltwater flood”. Salt water would not cover the whole earth because there was abundant rainfall during the Flood creating huge areas of fresh water on the surface. At the mouth of the Amazon River far into the ocean the water is fresh. Genesis tells us that there were seven of each clean animal. Also, there is no problem with genetic diversity. The effect of the Flood would be a genetic bottleneck. It is clear that the human population has experienced a genetic bottleneck, consistent with the biblical seneario. Rob Carder did a DVD on that called “Mitochondrial Eve and the 3 ‘Daughters of Noah'”. I’d encourage you to look at the extract of that DVD on the creation.com store, read some the articles on this site, and search creation.com with your questions.
Vern Peterman
Good article. I believe you meant to date Hadrian’s wall to 122 AD, rather than BC: “Hadrian’s Wall, which was built by the Romans in 122 BC.”
Big Ugly
The fool secure in his “knowledge”.
As geologist and biblical scholar, I can attest to the fact that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and that the Bible confirms it.
Those like the author of this article are living proof that this earth was, as still is Lucifer’s playground. Why don’t you people actually READ the Bible.
“In the beginning, God created Heaven and the Earth. Then it BECAME void” God does not create chaos, God creates perfection – then it became chaos, a very long time after the creation. Ever hear of the war in heaven when Lucifer took 1/3 of the angels and warred again God? God cast Lucifer back down to the Earth with ‘his’ angels. Read Job, God ask Lucifer what he had been doing and Lucifer replies “walking to and fro upon the earth” as was ‘his’ right since he was in charge of the planet. Lucifer created the dinosaurs and the creatures found in the Burgess Shale – this was his playground until He who became Christ ‘remade’ the Earth and created man in His own image – after the God kind, just like he created other creatures after their own kind. He gave ‘man’ free-will in order that ‘man’ could choose which ruler he would obey – Lucifer, or God.
Read the Book!
Marvin Clark
This discussion generates a tremendous amount of fire and very little heat. Rather than religion vs science, let’s seek truth. Almost all religious sects, world-wide have a story about the event of a flood of “biblical” proportion. This common story, with main sectors of agreement being accepted and promulgated by groups of people who were not even aware of the existence of the others must have had some basis in the human impact of a flooding event that was world-wide. On the other hand, trying to ferret out specific times, dates, specific events is inconsistent with evidence is nonproductive. Trying to lay blame on a particular population is also nonproductive. Unless most of the peoples and religious tradition in the world agreed to lie about the nature and result of a devistating event, I’m going to assume that the event ocurred. There are several scientific ways to explain the event. It could have been caused by a meteor, a catestrophic shift in polarity, techtonic plates pulling apart or a population with a poor understanding of God: the list goes on. Let’s try to creatively interpret what our ancestors have been trying to tell us and back it up with scientific inquirey about the nature of the earth – I’m guessing – “about” 12,000 years ago?
Tas Walker
Thanks Vern, I’ve fixed it.
Tas Walker
Hi Big Ugly, The Gap Theory, which you are describing, reads a lot into just one or two verses. It incorrectly puts the fossil record, which was formed formed during the Flood, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This means there is no evidence left for the global Flood. Here is a short article about the problems with The Gap Theory.
Tas Walker
Hi Marvin, A scientific inquiry would start with, “OK, lets assume, for the sake of investigation, that the account in Genesis is accurate.” That is the way science works all the time. Also, the timing of the Flood is meticulously documented in the Bible. It took 371 days and occurred about 4,500 years ago. Genesis is a good place to start.
Bruce Budd
Hi Big Ugly, I’m fascinated by your claim that you can attest to the world being 4.5 billion years old. I know that geologists are clever people but I doubt you could base a PhD on the claim that you had seen the beginning of the Earth. When people give evidence in court, they usually attest to what they have seen. I only know of one witness to the creation of the Earth and I’m sure it’s not you. On what other grounds can you attest? You may claim that scientific methodology can establish the age of the Earth but, of course, it can’t. That is, unless you are prepared to accept as proof something based on untestable, unprovable assumptions. I feel certain that you would not board an aircraft if you knew that its viability depended on some unproven assumptions, so why do you accept such vast ages for the Earth when they cannot be proven and when there is a considerable weight of evidence against it?
Johan Smit
Jeff, what sort of evidence would be left by a global flood?