Evidence that the earth is Young

According to a new, Harvard-led study, geochemical calculations about the interior of the planet’s water storage capacity suggests Earth’s primordial ocean 3 to 4 billion years ago may have been one to two times larger than it is today, and possibly covered the planet’s entire surface.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/04/harvard-scientists-determine-early-earth-may-have-been-a-water-world/

Here’s an extended look at the three external pieces of evidence supporting the idea that Earth was once fully covered by water:

1. **Ancient Ocean Sediments and Zircons**: Zircon minerals found in Western Australia’s Jack Hills, which are over 4 billion years old, contain traces of water. These minerals are some of the earliest geological records and indicate that liquid water was present on Earth’s surface very early on. Such zircons formed in the presence of water and are a key indicator of ancient hydrological activity.

2. **Isotopic Studies of Early Earth’s Rocks**: Isotopic analysis of oxygen isotopes (particularly the ratio of oxygen-18 to oxygen-16) in ancient rocks suggests lower oxygen isotope ratios, which imply cooler temperatures and conditions conducive to widespread liquid water on the planet’s surface. These lower ratios are also found in areas where large bodies of water existed, reinforcing the idea of extensive, possibly global, oceans.

3. **Planetary Formation Models**: Current models of planetary formation suggest that the process by which Earth formed, including the accretion of planetesimals and icy bodies, would have delivered substantial amounts of water. Early Earth, especially in the first few hundred million years, could have had a much larger hydrosphere as a result of these processes. The retention of this water in the form of large, potentially global oceans is supported by these models.

These points support the hypothesis of an early "water world" stage in Earth's history, with substantial oceans covering most, if not all, of the planet's surface.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqIWhyEIxmc




The Folding of Layers and Post-Flood Geology: A Study of Geological Structures in the Grand Canyon

This article explores the geology of the Grand Canyon, focusing on the Butte Fault and the folds of the East Kaibab Monocline. Through the collection and analysis of rock samples, we investigate the characteristics of rock layers and their implications for understanding the geological processes that occurred after the Flood. The research seeks to integrate field observations with biblical theories about Earth's formation.

Introduction
The geological formations of the Grand Canyon offer a fascinating testimony to Earth's history. This study focuses on the Butte Fault and the East Kaibab Monocline, where rock layers exhibit significant folds that challenge conventional explanations of geological formation over millions of years. The investigation was carried out by a team of geologists who collected rock samples and analyzed them under microscopes to better understand the processes of deposition and deformation.

Sample Collection
Samples were collected at strategic locations within Carbon Canyon, which cuts through the folded layers. The team used orange adhesive tape to mark the sampling areas, ensuring that the points were consistent and representative.

Microscopic Analysis
After collection, the samples were cut into thin sections and analyzed under petrographic and scanning electron microscopes. The goal was to identify signs of metamorphism that could indicate slow deformation, in contrast to the hypothesis that the rocks were still soft during the folding.

Results
Sample Characteristics
Analyses showed that rock samples from the fold and those collected a few miles away exhibited identical characteristics, suggesting that the folding occurred while the rocks were still in a plastic state. This result contrasts with the idea that folding occurred after long periods of pressure and heat, which would generally be expected in metamorphic rocks.

Data Interpretation
The data indicate that sandstone layers, such as the Tapeats Sandstone, formed rapidly during catastrophic events like the Flood. The absence of signs of metamorphism in the samples supports the hypothesis that the folds occurred in a brief time span, shortly after the deposition of the layers.

Discussion
Implications for Flood Theory
The findings suggest that the formation of mountains and geological folds occurred in a post-Flood context, where conditions were prone to catastrophic events such as rapid erosion and tectonic movement. This offers a new perspective on the biblical narrative of Genesis, particularly regarding Earth's formation.

Comparison with Conventional Theories
The research challenges the conventional geological narrative that attributes millions of years to the formation of the layers. The evidence that the rocks were still soft during the folding challenges the idea that long periods of time are necessary for the formation of complex geological structures.

Conclusion
This study contributes to the understanding of the forces that shaped the Earth after the Flood, providing new evidence supporting a model of rapid geological formation. The research highlights the importance of examining rock layers from a new perspective, integrating science and the biblical narrative for a deeper understanding of Earth's history.

References
- [Data and observations collected during fieldwork in the Grand Canyon]
- [Studies on the formation of sedimentary rocks and their geological implications]


This is Lees Ferry. I’ve been here many times. It’s where we always load the boats when we start our Grand Canyon trips. This is my friend, Tom Vail. He started Canyon Ministries and took me on my very first trip down the canyon. No one knows the canyon better than Tom, and I was fortunate to have him as my guide on all the canyon trips I’ve taken.

Dr. Andrew Snelling is here, and sitting next to him is Dr. John Whitmore. Both are geologists. You may recall Andrew from our last film, *Is Genesis History?* Remember, Andrew took me to an extinct volcano in Arizona to discuss radioisotope dating and the age of the Earth. John was Andrew’s assistant on this trip. He’s been a geology professor at Cedarville University for over 30 years. He’s also spent a lot of time studying the Coconino Sandstone layer in the Grand Canyon.

The conventional paradigm says the Coconino Sandstone was formed over millions of years in a desert by the wind. But John’s research has clearly shown that it was formed rapidly underwater during the Flood. This is a key piece of evidence for the creation model. Little did I know that the same year we released *Is Genesis History?* in theaters, Andrew was embarking on a research project down in the canyon. He was looking for new evidence that many of the enormous layers of sediment we see all around the world were laid down during the Flood.

One of the things that has always fascinated creation scientists is the huge folds that can be seen in the canyon and all over the world. Andrew had a theory he wanted to test. If his theory was correct, it would provide important new evidence regarding Earth’s history and the geological timetable. These two scientists have spent much of their lives finding evidence that supports the history of Genesis, but none of that work had been filmed. This time was different. They took a cameraman with them into the canyon to capture what they were doing.

When I heard about it, I realized that this was a way to show something most people have never seen—creation scientists doing the actual work of science. How do scientists connect the history in Genesis with the world around us? How do they test their theories? And what did the Flood do to create the world we live in today? Our first documentary provided an overview of creation science; but in this documentary, we’re going to explore how creation science actually works. It is important for you to see for yourself how scientists do science.

I'm Del Tackett, and I’m excited to be your guide as we explore the rise of mountains after the Flood. Although I wasn’t part of their first trip to the canyon, I met them many times on their journey, and, just like with the first film, I learned an incredible amount. But this time, I found myself asking questions I had never thought to ask before.


[Andrew]: So, this is John's lab.

[John]: Yeah, I've been here at Cedarville for 30 years now and done a lot of work in this lab and a couple of other labs next door. Over here we have what's called a petrographic microscope. It's designed for looking at thin sections of rock.

[Del]: Are these the slides that Ray produces for you?

[John]: Yep. He takes a rock like this, slices a really thin layer off it, glues it onto a glass slide, and polishes it down so you can see through it. If you hold it up to the light, you'll see the light passing through it.

[Del]: That's amazing!

[John]: It allows us to study the sand grains under the microscope. It's quite an art to make these thin sections. I've got a slide on the microscope now, from the Coconino Sandstone, and it has what we call ooids—these are dolomite ooids.

[Del]: Ovoid shapes?

[John]: Yeah, they look like small balls. What happens is a sand grain rolls around, like a snowball rolling in snow, and as it does, it accumulates dolomite around it. You can see the sand grain in the middle, that white spot, and all the dolomite coating around it.

[Andrew]: That's incredible evidence.

[John]: It was amazing to see it in the lab. I remember opening my email and being amazed by this evidence, because you can't make these ooids in a desert—they had to be formed underwater.

[Del]: So, tell me about how these layers—particularly the Coconino—came to be seen differently by creation scientists like yourselves?

[Andrew]: The conventional view says the Coconino Sandstone formed over millions of years in a desert environment. But John's research shows it formed rapidly underwater, during the Flood. Scientists often resist alternative views, especially those challenging conventional geological paradigms. For example, when we presented evidence of ooids in the Coconino layer, some scientists refused to accept it because it didn't fit their desert formation theory.

[John]: It's true. One geologist wouldn't even acknowledge that the samples were ooids because they came from the Coconino layer.

[Del]: They just didn't want to see the evidence?

[John]: Exactly. That's what happens when people are captive to a paradigm. They don't want to consider evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

[Del]: So, when you decided to go into the canyon to get samples from these folds, what were you hoping to prove?

[Andrew]: As creation scientists, we think many of the layers were laid down during the Flood, and that the folding happened soon after, during the rise of the mountains at the end of the Flood. If that's the case, we shouldn't see signs of the rocks being heated and pressured to the point of metamorphosis, which the conventional paradigm suggests.

[John]: Exactly. If the folds happened long after the rocks had solidified, we would expect evidence of metamorphic changes. But if they happened while the layers were still soft, as we believe, there won't be signs of heat and pressure. That's why we're studying these rocks at such a detailed level—to see if there's evidence to support our view.

- [Del] And here’s the fault line. And the fold is right on that fault line. That’s the Butte Fault. You can see it runs north-south, and that marks the edge of the monocline.

- [Andrew] Yes, this is where we took the samples. We parked the boats and walked up to the fold. Carbon Canyon is a side canyon to the main Grand Canyon, and it cuts through the folded layers in the East Kaibab Monocline.

- [Del] It’s fascinating to see how those layers bend so smoothly without shattering. It’s not what you’d expect from hard rock.

- [Andrew] Exactly. As we walked up, we could trace the layering almost horizontal at first. But as we climbed further into the canyon, we could see the layers gradually turning up to nearly vertical.

- [John] That bend you see is a perfect spot to collect our samples. We’ve marked the areas we wanted to sample with orange duct tape. That helps us follow the same bed through the fold, ensuring that we take samples from consistent points.

- [Andrew] When collecting samples, we take meticulous notes, making sure to record the location, the thickness of the bed, and other important details. Working on a cliff face like this requires caution—it's intense but essential work.

- [Hilton] What’s it like for you, Andrew, being here with the rocks up close?

- [Andrew] This is what geology is all about. Getting close to the rocks, making detailed observations, and then taking them back to the lab to analyze under a microscope. It’s basic but very important work, especially when we’re trying to test these theories about the Flood.

- [Del] This really feels like a geologist’s Disneyland, doesn’t it?

- [Andrew] Absolutely. This is heaven on Earth for us. You don’t get a better place to study geological formations than the Grand Canyon.

- [John] The nice thing about geologic maps is that they let you visualize what’s going on beneath the surface. You can see how the layers extend and how they’ve been affected by faults and folds. For example, you see this line on the map, crossing the East Kaibab Monocline?

- [Del] Yes, I see the bend.

- [John] Right. That’s the fault and fold system we’re studying here in Carbon Canyon. The hard rock beneath broke, and that caused the softer rocks above to bend instead of shatter.

- [Del] It’s like pushing up a layer of soft material, like wet sand, and seeing it drape over the harder rock below.

- [Andrew] Exactly. And we think that this folding happened close to the time of the Flood. The layers were laid down during the early stages of the Flood, and the folding occurred towards the end when the mountains were rising, but the sediments were still damp and soft, allowing them to fold easily. Later, they dried and hardened, preserving the folds without significant fracturing.

- [John] And that’s why we’re sampling both folded and flat sections of the Tapeats Sandstone. If the layers were soft when they folded, we wouldn’t expect to see differences between the samples taken from the folds and those taken from the flat, undisturbed areas.

- [Del] You’re saying that if the layers are identical, it would suggest the folding happened quickly, while the rock was still soft?

- [Andrew] Yes. That would be strong evidence against the idea that millions of years passed between the deposition of the layers and their folding.

- [Del] So, after all the samples were collected, what’s next?

- [Andrew] The next step is to take these samples back to the lab and look at them under a microscope to see if there’s any evidence of heat or pressure that would indicate slow deformation over millions of years. If there’s no such evidence, it supports our model of rapid deposition and folding during the Flood.

- [John] And that’s a key part of this research. No one has looked at these folds in such detail before, taking samples and studying them under the microscope to determine the sequence of deposition, folding, and cementation.

- [Del] Looking at all this, it’s clear that understanding the forces that shaped the Earth after the Flood is just as important as understanding the Flood itself.

- [John] Absolutely. The Flood was a catastrophic event, but the period after the Flood, when the mountains were rising and valleys were forming, also played a major role in shaping the landscape we see today.

- [Andrew] And by studying these layers and folds, we can gain new insights into those processes, furthering our understanding of Earth’s history as recorded in Genesis.

- [Del] So, after you’ve done your fieldwork and collected all these samples, you mentioned taking them back to the lab. What happens once you start examining them?

- [Andrew] Once we’re back in the lab, we cut thin sections from the rock samples so we can look at them under a microscope. We’re specifically looking for signs of metamorphic changes—those changes would suggest that the rocks were exposed to high heat and pressure, which would support the idea that they were folded long after they had solidified. But if we don’t find any signs of metamorphism, it strengthens the argument that the rocks were still soft and pliable when they were folded.

- [John] The microscope work is critical because it allows us to see what’s happening at the grain level. If the rock had undergone significant heat and pressure, the minerals inside would show deformation, recrystallization, or other signs of change. But if the layers folded when they were still wet and soft, we won’t see any of that.

- [Del] And has anyone else studied these folds in this way before?

- [Andrew] Not like this. Many geologists have seen the folds, of course, but no one has taken samples from the folds and systematically studied them under a microscope. That’s what makes this project unique.

- [Del] It’s amazing to think about how much of what we see today was shaped by catastrophic events like the Flood. Even though those events happened thousands of years ago, the evidence is still here in the rocks, waiting to be discovered.

- [John] That’s right. And the work we’re doing helps to shed light on how those events played out and how they shaped the Earth. The folds we see in the canyon, the uplift of mountains like the Rockies and the Uintas, and the formation of deep valleys and canyons—all of these things were part of the process of reshaping the Earth after the Flood.

- [Andrew] And the best part is that these findings help us connect the geological evidence with the historical account given in Genesis. It’s a reminder that the Bible provides a reliable framework for understanding Earth’s history.

- [Del] As we’ve discussed the deformation of the rock layers, I’m also curious about how all these massive features—the canyons, mountains, and valleys—were eroded. Was that part of the post-Flood period as well?

- [John] Yes. After the Flood, when the land was rising and the waters were draining, there would have been a lot of erosion happening at a rapid pace. The newly elevated landscapes, filled with wet and unconsolidated sediment, would have been vulnerable to massive landslides, flash floods, and even glaciation in some areas. These processes helped carve out many of the dramatic landscapes we see today.

- [Del] So the erosion we’re seeing was happening at a much faster rate than what we observe now?

- [John] Exactly. The catastrophic forces at work during and after the Flood were far more powerful than the gradual processes we see today. That’s why so many of the canyons and valleys seem "underfit"—the small streams or rivers running through them now couldn’t have carved out such large features on their own.

- [Del] One last thing that fascinates me is how these layers of rock can extend across such vast areas. You mentioned earlier that the Tapeats Sandstone stretches from the Grand Canyon all the way to Greenland. How is that possible?

- [John] That’s one of the most amazing things about these rock layers. They’re part of what we call "megasequences," which are enormous, continent-spanning layers of sediment that were laid down rapidly by the Flood. The Flood’s waters eroded vast amounts of material from the continents and deposited them in these layers. The sheer scale of these deposits points to a global catastrophe, rather than a series of localized events.

- [Andrew] The fact that these layers are so extensive, and that we can trace them across entire continents, is powerful evidence of the Flood’s global impact. No local event could account for the formation of these massive, continuous layers of rock.

- [Del] And studying those layers in places like the Grand Canyon, and comparing them to other locations, helps you piece together the bigger picture?

- [John] Exactly. By comparing rock layers from different parts of the world, we can see how they fit together and begin to understand the processes that formed them. The more we study, the more evidence we find that supports the biblical account of Earth’s history.

[Del]: You’ve mentioned that post-Flood era that there was a tremendous amount of precipitation.

[John]: Yeah.

[Del]: And so an area like this that doesn’t really get a whole lot of rain, it was a drastically different climate at that time.

[John]: It was. Just to the north of here in Fossil Basin and Green River Basin, we’ve looked at the lush landscape that was there, the amount of vegetation that had to grow there, and the water that was there, and it’s much different from the climate that we have here today. I think from my perspective as a geologist, climate change is the rule, not the exception. It’s something that’s been going on ever since the Flood was over.

[Del]: John, I think most people would look around here and say, "This is a pretty bleak place." It’s obviously very arid, and yet you’re telling me that this is a very special place.

[John]: Yeah, we’re in the southwest corner of Wyoming. I spent several years up here in graduate school. And so we are standing on, I know it doesn’t look like a lake as you look out here, but we’re standing on the sediments that got laid down in a lake and now have turned into rock.

[Del]: Yeah, the lake we’re talking about filled up this whole basin, which is huge.

[John]: Yeah. And I can actually, from where I’m standing, I can see the edge of the basin over there. You can see these white sediments, and then those are truncated by the darker colored ridge right behind there. And the rocks in that darker colored ridge are actually sitting up like this. So that’s the basin edge.

[Del]: Is that then part of the evidence that you would say that this is post-Flood, because all of these are all very horizontal?

[John]: That’s right. The layers that we’re looking at here, this is the early part of the Cenozoic, and that would be right at the top of the geologic column. And so we think that Cenozoic rocks in many places around the world, not everywhere, but most of these Cenozoic rocks, we think, are post-Flood rocks. And so, underneath of us, underneath of this basin, those Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks are contorted. But these Cenozoic rocks on top, these are horizontal and flat lying. They’re not contorted at all. So that means that the tectonic activity had pretty much ceased when this lake basin was filled up.

[Del]: So we have this basin, it’s filled with water, and we obviously then have a lot of life. When we were in the museum, we saw, I don’t know how many different species of just fish and all of that, so this was a flourishing area.

[John]: Yeah. It’s amazing.

[Del]: With all kinds of life. Where did all of this life come from?

[John]: So, it’s interesting. We see things like the bats, the horses, things like the alligators, and we know the birds, all those things, they were air-breathing animals. Many of them lived a lot of their life on the land, and they would’ve had to be animals that were on the Ark. And something happens that’s different from the rocks that we see underneath. We don’t see many mammals in those rocks. And all of a sudden, we get to these layers, and believe it or not, Del, there are more mammal species known in the rocks of the Green River Formation than are currently living in Wyoming today.

[Del]: But that sudden arisal in the fossil record of mammals should tell us something.

[John]: Yeah. The very first bats that we find, the very oldest bats that we find are right here in this Green River Formation. And yet, they have fully formed wings. They look like modern bats. And where in the world do they come from? Where are the transitional forms from the animals that gave rise to bats if the evolutionary model is true? And so one of the strengths we have in the creation model is that we can explain the sudden appearance of things like bats, because we think that those would’ve been on the Ark. And they didn’t get fossilized during the Flood, as far as we know. When we first find the bat fossils, they’re in places like this where they have the potential to become part of the fossil record here.

[Del]: John, this represents a lot of your life here. You spent a lot of time working on your dissertation here.

[John]: I did, I spent some summers here collecting fish, studying the layers. This place is like home to me.

[Del]: Can you show me some of the stuff you were working with?

[John]: We’re in a commercial quarry here. It’s a place where they dig these fish out, and they sell them. And I think if we break some of these layers of rock open, we’ll find some fish.

[Del]: I’m hoping that happens.

[John]: So what we’re going to do is go in right along a seam right in here, you can see how this whole thing is lifting up here.

[Del]: That’s a big slab.

[John]: Yeah, it’s a big slab. And just kind of get your fingers underneath there.

(rock creaks)

(creaking continues)

(sand shuffling)

[John]: And so now what we’re going to do is we’re going to take some of these chisels. We’re going to split down through this going down on the end, see what we can find.

[Del]: Is this what your research assistants did? Hold the rock while you...?

[John]: That’s right. All day long.

(both chuckle)

(hammer clinking)

[John]: Look at that, Del.

[Del]: Oh yeah, look at that.

[John]: Got at least three fish here.

[Del]: Yeah.

[John]: So there’s one there. One right there. Another one there, another one there.

[Del]: Oh my goodness.

[John]: That was a good break right there.

[Del]: Yeah.

[John]: So these all look like Knightia, just a little herring-type fish. Boy, that one is a really nice one, right there.

[Del]: Yeah, it is.

[John]: Del, if you look at the edge right here, you can see multiple layers in here.

[Del]: Yeah, I do.

[John]: They’re not very thick, they’re almost as thick as playing cards. And the conventional idea is that each pair of a layer, a dark layer and light layer, lasted a year. But you look at fish like this guy down here, I do not see a single bone out of place. The fins are nice and splayed out right there. And based on my fish experiments, that thing sank down to the bottom of the lake and was buried in a calcium carbonate layer within a day after it laid down on the bottom. And I think that’s the only way that you can explain such good preservation. And not only do we see it there, but that fish, that fish, and that fish, they all have really exceptional preservation. And they have to be buried quickly.

[Del]: Yeah, there’s really just a lot of fine detail in that fossil there. So those small tiny layers that we’re looking at here, those are not annual layers.

[John]: I don’t see any way that they could be annual layers based on how well the...

[Del]: Almost daily.

[John]: Yeah, I would think almost daily layers here. Something was different about the water chemistry here in that it was precipitating a lot of this calcium carbonate out which was covering the fish. The other thing that’s really interesting about this particular outcrop is there’s several volcanic ash beds in here. And so, the volcanoes that are nearby, maybe some of the ones up in Yellowstone, they would erupt and the ash would settle down through the lake. And here’s this nice orange layer right here. That would be one volcanic ash bed. Here’s another orange layer, not as thick, that would be another one. Here’s another volcanic ash right here. And here’s another ash bed that’s maybe an inch and a half thick.

[Del]: Yeah, right.

[John]: These ash beds actually help us to tell time in the lake.

[Del]: How’s that?

[John]: If we can trace these ash beds and confidently know that they’re the same from place to place in the lake basin, for example, we can look at this thickness between those two ash beds right there and we know that that thickness of Green River Formation was laid down at the same time, whether we’re right here in this spot or over at the edge of the lake. And it happens that we know these aren’t yearly events because you can find this ash bed here, count the layers, find it at the edge of the lake and at the edge of the lake, the thickness is more.

[Del]: Is that more layers?

[John]: More layers at the edge of the lake. And it’s because you have more sediments and whatnot coming in from the edge of the lake. So we know these aren’t yearly laminations. We know that...

[Del]: That wouldn’t make sense.

[John]: The laminations are not equal from here to there. There’s about 30% more layers at the edge of the lake than there is in the middle. And I don’t know exactly how much time is represented between those ash beds, but one thing I do know is that the time is the same whether it be weeks, months, or years. Between those ash beds, I know it’s the same amount of time. So I was able to study the fish and the decay of the fish and the preservation of the fish during the same time in the lake’s history. So, I think the take home point is that the fossil fish and the other fossils here show that these sediments were laid down rapidly. Yes, it was after the Flood, but even after the Flood, we have processes that produce fast layers.

Certainly! Here is the continuation of the text formatted in BBCode (Version 13) without bold or asterisks:

```
[Del]: John, one of the things that has really impressed me is that you’re not content with just sitting in an office somewhere, but you want to be out here looking at the reality to understand the truth and the facts. I appreciate that about you, and that you understood you needed a PhD to help you do that. Is that important?

[John]: It is. At first I thought, maybe, why do I need a PhD? Why do I need to learn more? But the thing was that I didn’t understand is how it would advance my thinking, and how it would cause me to think deeper and consider other possibilities.

[Del]: So would you say that for a young person who is considering one of these scientific areas, that it would be important, number one, to get their doctorate? And it’s important for them to understand there’s a whole lot of things to be looking at?

[John]: I think, Del, there’s two things that are really important for a young scientist. Number one is to become well-trained. You need to interact not only with other creation scientists but you need to interact with conventional scientists, too. But the other thing, Del, is they need to be grounded well in Scripture. So they need to understand a biblical model, and they need to take things like this and put these kinds of things within the record. The biblical record doesn’t tell us everything we want to know. It gives us a framework, and we need the new generation to come up and begin to look deeper into some things. We don’t know all the answers here yet. I would really like to know how much time is in between that ash bed and that ash bed. And we need some new scientists out here that are trained to think well to work on problems like that.

[Del]: One of the things I noticed about these scientists was the importance of teamwork. A key member of their team is a scientist named Ray Strom. Ray is a Canadian who has developed a special set of skills working in the oil and gas industry for the last four decades. Although I wasn’t able to travel up to Calgary myself, we sent a team to interview him in his laboratory.

(engine rumbling)

[Ray]: My wife told me one time she felt sorry for me getting up early in the morning and having to come into work. And I said, "Hold on a minute. (chuckles) "I come to work and play." This is kind of the way the field of geology is. Every single sample that you look at is different. It has a different story to tell. It has different characteristics. There’s always something new. I come to work and play every day. (chuckles)

So we need to unbox the samples and get them prepared for cutting. Basically what we’re looking at are rock samples that have been collected in the Grand Canyon; and begin doing the technical rock analysis on those samples. This involves, first of all, thin section manufacture, and so this is taking rock materials down to the thickness that you can actually see through them. And this sample is very carefully labeled with an arrow pointing up, with "top" and an identifier, which in this case is, there it is, CCF-1, which is Carbon Canyon Fold number one. But initially we need to cut these rocks, dry them, and get them prepped for thin section analysis.

All right, this will be noisy.

(machine whirring)

(blade grinding)

Okay, right now I’m going to put an orientation mark on this rock to show what end is up. That will be crucial to determine how the bedding structure is affected by how the rock materials originally were laid down. That sample is now ready for drying in preparation for liquid epoxy impregnation in this sample.

Many professional geologists aren’t aware of how to do this process. There are only a handful of people perhaps in the entire world who know how to do this kind of thing, at least to do it well. Literally a handful of people.

Okay, the epoxy is used for stabilizing the sample. And if you fill up all the pore space with epoxy, you wind up first of all being able to identify where the porosity is. And secondly, you stabilize all the very fine material found in the pore spaces. So, this is a high pressure cell which we use to inject the liquid epoxy into the pore spaces in the sample.

In the morning we can retrieve it, the epoxy will be solidified, and then we can handle that piece of rock safely all through the rest of the next part of the process. It is important that we continue this work and that it succeed because I believe there’s a whole side of scientific investigation that has been largely ignored. And one of the aims that I have is to chase that particular pathway and look at data that may be not necessarily mainstream, but is very, very interesting and is significant. And so that’s my endeavor in working with Andrew, for example, is to see what the data says, and where there’s supporting evidence to make sure that that’s well documented.

(machine whirring)

(blade grinding)

Okay, what we’re doing now is taking the epoxy away from the bottom surface and we’re exposing the rock that’s been impregnated with blue dyed epoxy. And so, what that does is allow us to get a nice flat, optically planar surface. And in this case, it’s extremely important we’re not mistaking scratches for fractures. So, we don’t want to leave scratches in the rock surface. We want to make sure that all the scratches are out so that the fractures can be easily identified.

Okay, so we’re going to move on to the staining process and then it will be ready for mounting to glass. We don’t want to induce any kind of fracturing into the sample, and so mounting this to glass using the cyanoacrylate glue, Krazy Glue, ensures that we have a good stable surface with which to work.

Imagine trying to work with a single piece of hair and trying to grind it without affecting the character of the hair. We want to make sure that we don’t disturb the mineralogy of the sample as we go through the cutting and grinding processes.

(blade grinding)

This slide we will now take to our grinding laps where we’ll thin it down to about 30 micron thickness. And this is where the art comes into play. Do just a quick look in the microscope here, and it looks like we’re pretty well at 30 micron thickness all the way across the entire thin section. We have the grains seen as being very clear. The material showing up as blue is empty space. And the cross-polarized light is showing either as a gray or as a pale straw yellow, and that tells us that we’re right on the 30 micron thickness.

Back in the day when we were really busy, we would do anywhere between 80 to 100 of these types of samples a day. Personally, I’ve probably done in the order of about 20,000, I guess. Now we’ll take the slide and look at it under the good petrographic microscope, which is a special kind of microscope made for analyzing geological thin sections.

(hammer thunks)

And then we move on to more elaborate testing methodologies like scanning electron microscopy. We’ll take and gold coat the sample. Now, the amount of gold that we’re going to put on it is very, very small, almost no value whatsoever, but it’s necessary for conducting electrons along the surface of the sample in order to get the image that we want. It gives you almost a 3D visual image of the rock materials that you’re looking at, at a very high magnification which allows us to determine whether certain features are found in that particular rock.

The electron beam runs down the column and is scanned back and forth across the sample.

Okay, so we’ve got some very nice quartz cement showing up in here. There’s some more quartz cement right there. Got beautiful quartz overgrowths.

Basically, the creation model provides alternatives to the explanations that are in some cases somewhat deficient. So looking at the creation model, for example, provided almost a stark contrast. Even though we were looking at the same data, we were quite often in disagreement over what the interpretation was to the data that we were both looking at. And I’ve watched this over my entire career now as I’ve been involved in publishing of papers, presentations at professional conferences, and just seeing how that contrast plays out in terms of how people look at the world.

```
- [Andrew] No; that’s right. You can see where grains have been compressed close to one another, and you can still see the original outlines. Here’s some more cement over here that’s joined that grain to this grain.

- [Del] So let me ask this question then. Is the cement formed after it was bent? Not before?

- [Andrew] That’s right.

- [Del] Now, you also took samples a long way away from that fold, and you wanted to look at those and compare those to the samples in the fold. We haven’t seen one of those. Do you have a slide of that?

- [Andrew] Yeah, I’ve got one.

- [Del] Okay.

- [Andrew] I’ve got one right here. And it has exactly the same features. We’re going to have to adjust this again. Let’s get it back into focus. Because we can move it around. Okay. You can see there, again, you’ve got the same. You’ve got the blue spaces. Look at all the different size grains of the white ones of quartz. You’ve got feldspar. You’ve even got some rock fragments there. So, it doesn’t look any different.

- [Del] So let me put you on the spot here, Andrew. If I were to mix up a slide from the fold and a slide, how far away? Was it a--

- [Andrew] This one here, that was above Little Colorado River. So as the crow flies, five to six miles.

- [Del] Okay, so if I were to switch those up and put them under the microscope and say, "Andrew, is this from the fold or is this from five miles away?" Could you tell?

- [Andrew] I couldn’t tell because there’s no radical difference.

- [Del] That tells you something.

- [Andrew] They’re essentially the same. And that was the whole point of taking those samples to be a control. The fact that we find them the same, every sample of the sandstone has exactly the same features, is quite telling. It means they folded before they hardened.

- [Del] Well, let’s go back to the conventional paradigm that would say that the folding took place as a result of a metamorphosis in the rocks. What would this look like if that had occurred? Would it look different, and why?

- [Andrew] There would be a whole set of different features that are not present here.

- [John] Metamorphic rocks under the microscope look distinctly different from this. Here’s a slide that might even look closer. When you take a sandstone, which is the type of rock that we found in that fold, and you put a sandstone under metamorphic heat and pressure, it’s going to look something like this. This rock is called a quartzite. The dominant mineral here is going to be quartz. And one of the things you notice right away is that there’s not any blue in there. And that means that all the cement has grown in between the grains. You can still see some of the grains in there. I think, Andrew, if you put it under cross-polarized light, the grains show up even better.

- [Andrew] Here’s where we look at under cross-polars.

- [John] But you can see how these grains interlock with one another, just like pieces of the jigsaw puzzle.

- [Del] This is the puzzle you were talking about.

- [John] That’s right.

- [Del] And here’s the puzzle put together.

- [Andrew] I’ll turn the light up a little bit more. You see how you’ve got lots of these connecting points, these junction points that are often three grains at what we call a triple point.

- [John] So, Del, we think if the conventional paradigm were true, that the rock samples we took out of that fold would look more like this than the sample of sandstone that we looked at.

- [Del] Well, to an untrained eye, I can tell you this. It is a radically different picture than what we saw. So it makes one think the current paradigm is not correct. Is that what you’re assuming here?

- [Andrew] You can see why it was important to make the thin sections and to look at it, because you can’t see these effects in a hand specimen. You’ve got to really dive into these grains at this microscopic level. All geologists do this. It’s part of the detective work. You have your framework of thinking and you say to yourself, "Well, if I go and get samples, what do I expect to find?" And you set up some questions to answer and what you expect to find. And then you go out and you do the tests to check whether, and if you don’t find what you already predicted you’re going to find, you’re going to have to change how you--

- [John] Change your model.

- [Andrew] Change your model for how you understand these rocks.

- [Del] So what are you now waiting on from Ray?

- [Andrew] Well, Ray is also going to talk to us about the results he got from using a scanning electron microscope, which is going in an even higher power of magnification. This is just in two dimensions. He’s able to look in three dimensions. You’ll be able to see the quartz cement the way it’s grown between the quartz grains. And that’ll tell us whether there’s been any mechanical disruption, or whether the cement has occurred as the last stage in the whole process.

- [Del] Okay.

There we go. Hello, Ray. It’s so good to see you again. Unfortunately, we’ve got to do this by Zoom. I have, in my lab today, Del Tackett is with us.

- [Del] Hey, Ray.

- [Andrew] Andrew Snelling is with us.

- [Ray] Good to see you again, Ray. It’s hard to believe it’s nearly two years since I was up there last with you in the lab.

- [Andrew] I know. I was just looking at some of the images that we were doing while you were up here and looking at the dates on them. And it’s hard to believe.

- [Del] So Ray, we want to look at one of the thin sections from the tight fold in Carbon Canyon. Here’s the thin section. One of the things that struck me right away when looking at these thin sections was the amount of porosity in these rocks; even at this place where the bend was really tight, there’s still a lot of empty space in there. And Ray, could we look at an image from this very same rock sample, sample number 10, and let us know your observations about what you see with the scanning electron microscope?

- [Ray] So, here we have an example of a scanning electron microscopy image. If you can see my cursor here, that’s a sand grain right there. And associated with that sand grain are a number of overgrowths of quartz.

- [Del] Ray, when you say overgrowth, what do you mean by that?

- [Ray] Okay, this is actually the cement. The important thing to look at here is that the individual overgrowths that you see here have not been disturbed. Their contacts have not been disturbed by any kind of mechanical deformation.

- [Andrew] So, we’re actually seeing that the cement hasn’t been damaged because you’ve got these pristine ends of the crystals as they’ve grown on the original sand grains.

- [Ray] So that shows that the bending took place and then the rock became a solid.

- [Andrew] Exactly. And of course, this is at a much higher magnification, so any even subtle deformation would show up between these cemented particles.

- [Del] So Ray, that sample was, as you know, from the Carbon Canyon Fold in the hinge, and that was in the Tapeats. It’s probably going to be helpful now if we look at a regional sample. So that’s TSS-3, we might want to just look at that too, because that’s a long way away from these folds.

- [Ray] So, there’s an awful lot to see in this particular image. But the overgrowths are basically two types. We have beautiful quartz overgrowths; but you’ve also got precipitation of clays, which lends to, I guess, what you’d call the dirty appearance of this particular rock. The overgrowths that you see here are quite pristine, indicating that they’ve been growing into open pore space. I don’t see anything unusual here. These rocks haven’t been dislocated, haven’t been fractured, all those sorts of things.

- [Del] So, I asked this earlier of Andrew, if we were to put several of these pictures, if I were to mix them up, would you be able to tell me which belongs in the hinge and which does not?

- [Ray] No, I couldn’t. (chuckles)

- [Del] And it seems to me that that is, from my perspective, kind of the summary of this and what you wanted to see in the very beginning.

- [Andrew] Well, the sequence is sedimentation, folding, then hardening.

- [Del] That’s correct. Now you can help me here, because it seems to me, from a very amateur perspective at this point, that we’re looking at a very significant finding. Anything that begins to show that a theory is wrong is a major observation. I’m almost getting a little deja vu here. Back when we were looking at the soft dinosaur tissue, we were looking at something that, from the conventional paradigm’s perspective, should not be here, right? The soft dinosaur tissue should not be here because it is millions and millions of years old.

- [Andrew]

There’s no known mechanism to preserve it for millions of years.

- [Del] Correct. And now we’re looking at a microscopic level of the grains, and the cementation, and all of these things that we’ve been looking at, and we’re seeing from a conventional paradigm perspective what shouldn’t be there. That, to me, is fascinating, and I’m excited to be here to share that with you.

- [Andrew] And it blows the mind to think that we are looking here, we’ve looked here at the microscopic level, but it gives us a narrative to explain the building of mountains. So it’s quite dramatic because, as you say, just these observations under the microscope help us to put the pieces of the puzzle together in the chronology of when these mountains formed. It wasn’t hundreds of millions of years after the layers were deposited. It was only months after the layers were deposited. And that’s a radical departure from conventional explanations of the building of mountains.

- [Ray] I’m reminded of a trip that was organized for the heads of our international oil and gas company. Part of that was a helicopter trip over Jasper, Alberta. Well, there are massive, massive folds in the Rocky Mountains. And one of the individuals who happened to be an engineer, long time standing with this particular company, he later recounted to me, he said, "I saw all these folds in the rock. "I can’t even imagine how you could think "that those would’ve been formed in solid cemented rocks. "They had to have been soft "when those big folds were formed."

- [Del] Right.

- [Ray] So, it’s critical to state that we’re looking at scientific evidence. We’re not imagining this stuff. We’re actually looking at scientific evidence that supports a particular model, one of a young earth and short events that made the features that we observe.

Here’s the complete text with BBCode 13 format applied as requested. Apologies for the previous interruptions.

```bbcode
The exciting thing about this to me is that we will also be encouraging young people to move into these areas to be a creation scientist themselves. So I'm excited about this. Excited about the possibility of not only funding these but giving you an opportunity to film and let people see how that process works.

This is really a fascinating process. Just a small handful of folks and we would meet a scientist out in the field and then we would spend hours together. In that process of interviewing them and walking from one location to the other and looking at all of this amazing stuff, I think I learned more than anybody will ever learn just by looking at the film, because there was so much material. That's why we're doing Beyond Is Genesis History? and in volume one to look at the rocks and the fossils.

The data that we're looking at is the data that matches exactly what the history that God has given to us about why all of this occurred and how it occurred. It's not just enough I think to give people a survey. It's really important for people to understand more of the details, to have a deeper foundation of the fundamental truth of what that evidence is showing.

And this allows us to tell that whole story, the incredible precision and amount of detail that God has built into his creation, to see how things have occurred in earth history, and to explain the kinds of things that we're discovering in the world around us today. And so this is what excites me the most.

If you think about it, we’re really just beginning. There is so much more out there to discover, so much more that needs to be explained, researched, and documented. As we continue to go deeper into this research and share the findings with you, the possibilities seem endless.

So I encourage you, if you're intrigued, and you want to be part of what we're doing, think about how you can get involved. Whether it's through supporting the Genesis Fund, or simply staying informed on the latest discoveries in creation science, there are many ways to contribute. We're thankful for all of you who have been with us on this journey, and we look forward to what the future holds as we continue exploring the incredible history of the world as described in Genesis.

(♪)

[Del] A lot of us don’t realize the amount of time and effort that it takes for a scientist, once they have done all the field work and all the lab work, to bring everything together. They now need to write it up. They need to put it in a form in which the general scientific community can look at it and review it.

So, I had the opportunity to go back to Cedarville and sit down with Andrew and John to discuss their findings. We talked not only about what they had found, but also about the implications of their research.

[Andrew] It’s paper thin.

Are these all the slides that Ray sent?

Yes, he sent them to us in boxes like this, and you can see what they look like. They’re just -- But of course these were hand delivered. He came down at a meeting that John was attending and hand delivered them. You wouldn’t trust these to the postal service.

[John] You don’t send them through the mail.

I can understand that.

[Andrew] Then John came and delivered them to me.

[Del] So is this what you have then under the microscope?

Yep.

Yes.

[Del] How long have you been studying these?

Well, I’ve literally spent months going screen by screen by screen, moving the stage backwards and forwards, systematically going through each slide, taking photos, recording details.

Hundreds and hundreds of hours under the microscope.

And I’ve got thousands of photographs at different points. Every time I took notes, I took a photograph so I could go back to that.

So after these months and months of looking at these thin slides, what did you find?

Well, I put this on the screen deliberately because this is a sample that comes from right in the bend of that major fold in the Tapeats Sandstone. And so, it’s a good test case because if there ever was going to be a sample that was going to show the mechanical or the metamorphic effects from slow, gradual heat and pressure changes and moving around, it would be this sample. So, let me walk you through it. First of all, you can see those white grains. The really white ones. That’s the mineral quartz, which is window glass. We can see some of these spaces are still there. This is the blue highlighting these spaces. Well, in this instance, what happened, more quartz grew, and you can see how it’s joined these two grains together. And you can see that little sharp point there. Quartz cement has grown into that space. So what happens is when it’s deposited, there’s water in between those sand grains, but the water has chemicals dissolved in it. And so when the water dries out, those chemicals precipitate and fill in all the spaces between the sand grains and harden it, making it a cement.

So that cement is like glue. It holds the grains together. So, sand in a sandbox would be really loose, but if you put some glue in there, or what geologists call cement, that’s what holds the rock together and makes it hard.

What does it tell you when you see that?

Well, it’s in pristine condition. It hasn’t changed. This is in the hinge of that fold. You’d expect when the folding occurred, millions of years later supposedly, that cement should have been disrupted. It should have been crushed. And maybe it would have to regrow again, but you’d still see fracturing that was healed. But you don’t see that in any of this. You still see the original pores.

It tells us that the cement was added after the rocks were bent.

Oh, so we were talking earlier about breaking and crumbling of a very hard rock from a larger standpoint. Now what you’re talking about is, as you look at the small pieces, you also would find crumbling.

Yes.

But you don’t see that.

No; that’s right. You can see where grains have been compressed close to one another, and you can still see the original outlines. Here’s some more cement over here that’s joined that grain to this grain.

So let me ask this question then. Is the cement formed after it was bent? Not before?

That’s right.

[Del] Now, you also took samples a long way away from that fold, and you wanted to look at those and compare those to in the fold. We haven’t seen one of those. Do you have a slide of that?

Yeah, I’ve got one.

Okay.

I’ve got one right here. And it has exactly the same features. We’re going to have to adjust this again. Let’s get it back into focus. ’Cause we can move it around. Okay. You can see there, again, you’ve got the same. You’ve got the blue spaces. Look at all the different size grains of the white ones of quartz. You’ve got feldspar. You’ve even got some rock fragments there. So, it doesn’t look any different.

So let me put you on the spot here, Andrew. If I were to mix up a slide from the fold and a slide, how far away? Was it a --

This one here, that was above Little Colorado River. So as the crow flies, five to six miles.

Okay, so if I were to switch those up and put them under the microscope and say, “Andrew, is this from the fold or is this from five miles away?” Could you tell?

I couldn’t tell because there’s no radical difference.

[Del] That tells you something.

[Andrew] They’re essentially the same. And that was the whole point of taking those samples to be a control. The fact that we find them the same, every sample of the sandstone has exactly the same features, is quite telling. It means they folded before they hardened.

Well, let’s go back to the conventional paradigm that would say that the folding took place as a result of a metamorphosis in the rocks. What would this look like if that had occurred? Would it look different, and why?

There would be a whole set of different features that are not present here.

Metamorphic rocks under the microscope look distinctly different from this. Here’s a slide that might even look closer. When you take a sandstone, which is the type of rock that we found in that fold, and you put a sandstone under metamorphic heat and pressure, it’s going to look something like this. This rock is called a quartzite. The dominant mineral here is going to be quartz. And one of the things you notice right away is that there’s not any blue in there. And that means that all the cement has grown in between the grains. You can still see some of the grains in there. I think, Andrew, if you put it under cross-polarized light, the grains show up even better.

[Andrew] Here’s where we look at under cross-polars.

But you can see how these grains interlock with one another, just like pieces of the jigsaw puzzle.

This is the puzzle you were talking about.

That’s right.

And here’s the puzzle put together.

[Andrew] I’ll turn the light up a little bit more. You see how you’ve got lots of these connecting points, these junction points that are often three grains at what we call a triple point.

So, Del, we think if the conventional paradigm were true, that the rock samples we took out of that fold would look more like this than the sample of sandstone that we looked at.

Well, to an untrained eye, I can tell you this. It is a radically different picture than what we saw. So it makes one think the current

paradigm is not correct. Is that what you’re assuming here?

You can see why it was important to make the thin sections and to look at it, because you can’t see these effects in a hand specimen. You’ve got to really dive into these grains at this microscopic level. All geologists do this. It’s part of the detective work. You have your framework of thinking and you say to yourself, “Well, if I go and get samples, what do I expect to find?” And you set up some questions to answer and what you expect to find. And then you go out and you do the tests to check whether, and if you don’t find what you already predicted you’re going to find, you’re going to have to change how you --

Change your model.

Change your model for how you understand these rocks.

So what are you now waiting on from Ray?

Well, Ray is also going to talk to us about the results he got from using a scanning electron microscope, which is going in an even higher power of magnification. This is just in two dimensions. He’s able to look in three dimensions. You’ll be able to see the quartz cement the way it’s grown between the quartz grains. And that’ll tell us whether there’s been any mechanical disruption, or whether the cement has occurred as the last stage in the whole process.

[Del] Okay.

There we go. Hello, Ray. It’s so good to see you again. Unfortunately, we’ve got to do this by Zoom. I have, in my lab today, Del Tackett is with us.

Hey, Ray.

Andrew Snelling is with us.

Good to see you again, Ray. It’s hard to believe it’s nearly two years since I was up there last with you in the lab.

I know. I was just looking at some of the images that we were doing while you were up here and looking at the dates on them. And it’s hard to believe.

So Ray, we want to look at one of the thin sections from the tight fold in Carbon Canyon. Here’s the thin section. One of the things that struck me right away when looking at these thin sections was the amount of porosity in these rocks; even at this place where the bend was really tight, there’s still a lot of empty space in there. And Ray, could we look at an image from this very same rock sample, sample number 10, and let us know your observations about what you see with the scanning electron microscope?

So, here we have an example of a scanning electron microscopy image. If you can see my cursor here, that’s a sand grain right there. And associated with that sand grain are a number of overgrowths of quartz.

Ray, when you say overgrowth, what do you mean by that?

Okay, this is actually the cement. The important thing to look at here is that the individual overgrowths that you see here have not been disturbed. Their contacts have not been disturbed by any kind of mechanical deformation.

So, we’re actually seeing that the cement hasn’t been damaged because you’ve got these pristine ends of the crystals as they’ve grown on the original sand grains.

So that shows that the bending took place and then the rock became a solid.

Exactly. And of course, this is at a much higher magnification, so any even subtle deformation would show up between these cemented particles.

So Ray, that sample was, as you know, from the Carbon Canyon Fold in the hinge, and that was in the Tapeats. It’s probably going to be helpful now if we look at a regional sample. So that’s TSS-3, we might want to just look at that too, because that’s a long way away from these folds.

So, there’s an awful lot to see in this particular image. But the overgrowths are basically two types. We have beautiful quartz overgrowths; but you’ve also got precipitation of clays, which lends to, I guess, what you’d call the dirty appearance of this particular rock. The overgrowths that you see here are quite pristine, indicating that they’ve been growing into open pore space. I don’t see anything unusual here. These rocks haven’t been dislocated, haven’t been fractured, all those sorts of things.

So, I asked this earlier of Andrew, if we were to put several of these pictures, if I were to mix them up, would you be able to tell me which belongs in the hinge and which does not?

No, I couldn’t. (chuckles)

And it seems to me that that is, from my perspective, kind of the summary of this and what you wanted to see in the very beginning.

Well, the sequence is sedimentation, folding, then hardening.

That’s correct. Now you can help me here, because it seems to me, from a very amateur perspective at this point, that we’re looking at a very significant finding. Anything that begins to show that a theory is wrong is a major observation. I’m almost getting a little deja vu here. Back when we were looking at the soft dinosaur tissue, we were looking at something that, from the conventional paradigm’s perspective, should not be here, right? The soft dinosaur tissue should not be here because it is millions and millions of years old.

[Andrew] There’s no known mechanism to preserve it for millions of years.

Correct. And now we’re looking at a microscopic level of the grains, and the cementation, and all of these things that we’ve been looking at, and we’re seeing from a conventional paradigm perspective what shouldn’t be there. That, to me, is fascinating, and I’m excited to be here to share that with you.

And it blows the mind to think that we are looking here, we’ve looked here at the microscopic level, but it gives us a narrative to explain the building of mountains. So it’s quite dramatic because, as you say, just these observations under the microscope help us to put the pieces of the puzzle together in the chronology of when these mountains formed. It wasn’t hundreds of millions of years after the layers were deposited. It was only months after the layers were deposited. And that’s a radical departure from conventional explanations of the building of mountains.

I’m reminded of a trip that was organized for the heads of our international oil and gas company. Part of that was a helicopter trip over Jasper, Alberta. Well, there are massive, massive folds in the Rocky Mountains. And one of the individuals who happened to be an engineer, long time standing with this particular company, he later recounted to me, he said, “I saw all these folds in the rock. I can’t even imagine how you could think that those would’ve been formed in solid cemented rocks. They had to have been soft when those big folds were formed.” So, it’s critical to state that we’re looking at scientific evidence. We’re not imagining this stuff. We’re actually looking at scientific evidence that supports a particular model, one of a young earth and short events that made the features that we observe.

[Del] Ray makes an important point. There really is a lot of evidence that supports the creation model. But we’ve only been able to show you a brief summary of just one research project. Even in this documentary, there were many conversations we had to leave out, details we couldn’t include, scientific evidence that took too long to explain. But my hope is that you have a new appreciation for how creation science actually works. I also hope this film reminds you that Genesis is the best explanation for everything we see in the world around us.

I was fortunate enough to meet up with Andrew one more time at my home in Colorado, where I spend every day under the shadow of an enormous mountain.

So Andrew, looking back at all that we’ve talked about and all that we’ve looked at, you’re still in the process of this whole research, right? How many papers have you already published?

Two have already been published. A third is in the process of being published. And there’s four more to come. And so, those papers are long and detailed with all the microscope photographs and all the descriptions of the rocks, because it’s reporting all the observational data that anyone can go and look at and read.

I guess the question is, how is the world going to respond to that?

So if they were to admit that my evidence indicates there was a catastrophic global Flood with a short period of time of catastrophic processes, a humongous amount of energy, and earth movements to raise up these mountains, they’re going to have to forget their millions of years. So they’re going to have to reject their own interpretive framework. So, they’re either going to ignore the research, which is what they commonly do, or attack the scientist.

And yet you still go on, you still proceed in this work.

Absolutely, because it’s part of our worship. As we’ve been given dominion over the earth by God, we’ve been given brains to use, He expects us to use them; it’s an act of worship to Him. And of course, we’ve got a lot more work to do. I mean, what about the animals? What were they doing at this time? What about the people that were descended from Noah? There’s lots of questions that we’ve yet to answer to link from the time that Noah got off the Ark, with the rise of the mountains, into the civilizations that everyone is familiar with. So we’ve got a lot of work ahead of us to get a fully integrated package of explaining the world around us as it is today.

So that brings me back again to some things that we’ve talked about before. We talked about them earlier in the previous film. And that is the whole notion of creation scientists, and the processes that a creation scientist goes through. And that has all been exampled for us in this project.

Well, anyone can collect rock samples, anyone can do laboratory analysis, but

they’re just numbers. They’re just observations of minerals. You’ve got to be able to put that within an interpretive framework. And I start with the interpretive framework that Genesis is literal history, that God has given us that written account of history, and it describes the Genesis Flood. And so then I start to look at the data, the observational data within that framework. And so, that’s what creation scientists do. We ask questions, and then we do the research to see if we can answer those questions. But all within the interpretive framework of Genesis.

Andrew, there are still a lot of questions then that are left unanswered. Where do you see creation science going from this point forward?

Well, actually, I’m quite excited because we see another generation being raised up to which we can hand on the torch. And my research, and others who are doing research like this, is setting examples for the younger generation. We want to equip them and challenge them with the things that have yet to be answered, to take up the questions, and run with it, and do the necessary research. So I’m quite excited about what God can do with young people in the years ahead.