Biblical and Scientific Shortcomings of Flood Geology, Part 4
"The BioLogos Forum" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by
Gregg Davidson.
Dr. Gregg Davidson is a Professor in the Department of Geology and Geological Engineering at the University of Mississippi and conducts original research in geochemistry and hydrogeology, often employing radiometric dating methods to determine the age of groundwater and sediments. In 2009 he published a book about his keen interest in integrating a lifetime of studying geology with his firm conviction about the infallibility of God’s Word, When Faith & Science Collide – A Biblical Approach to Evaluating Evolution and the Age of the Earth.
Today's entry was co-authored by Ken Wolgemuth.
Dr. Ken Wolgemuth is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Tulsa and a Petroleum Consultant teaching short courses on petroleum geology and “Geology for the Non-Geologist.” Over the last 10 years, he has developed a keen interest in sharing the geology of God’s Creation with Christians in churches and seminaries.
This is the fourth and final post in a four part series taken from Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth's scholarly essay "Christian Geologists on Noah’s Flood: Biblical and Scientific Shortcomings of Flood Geology".
In Part 3 , we considered three examples which suggest that the earth’s geological features cannot be explained by a global Flood. In our final post in this series, we examine a fourth line of evidence—tree rings and lake sediment layers (varves)—and make concluding remarks.
Tree Rings and Varves
Most people know what a tree ring is. Summer growth produces a wide lighter-colored ring, followed by a narrow, darker-colored ring in winter. The two rings together represent one year.
Varves are sediment layers formed in lakes in certain environments. In northern latitudes where lakes freeze over, fine-grained material will settle out in winter, followed by coarser-grained material in spring as ice thaws and increased stream flow carries larger particles into the lake. Each winter-spring cycle produces a fine-coarse couplet called a varve (Fig. 1).
In other places, varves may form from diatom blooms. At all times of the year, fine particulate matter settles out to the bottom, but during the spring, single-celled organisms with a solid shell rapidly reproduce near the surface of the lake. As they die, the shells rain out onto the lake floor and form a light-colored coating. Each winter-spring cycle produces a dark-light colored sediment couplet, or varve. In both examples, each varve represents one year.
Varves form in many lakes around the world. In one lake in Japan, Lake Suigetsu, a sediment core was collected in 1991 nearly 250 feet in length.1 The core contained an uninterrupted sequence of varves, with a total count in excess of 100,000. To the researchers, it was logical to think that 100,000 varves likely represented 100,000 years, but perhaps they were making unwarranted assumptions. What if in the distant past, multiple varves were deposited per year? More specifically, what if a massive flood with thousands of surges back and forth across the land laid down thousands of varves in a single year? Fortunately, we do not have to depend on assumptions, but can actually make measurements to determine if this happened. To do so, we will revisit tree rings for a moment.
We will employ tree rings and carbon-14, but not in the way readers may be accustomed to seeing. We will not use carbon-14 to determine an age at all. We will simply measure how much carbon-14 is currently found in each tree ring. Carbon-14 decays with time, so if each tree ring represents one year of growth, we should see a steady decline in the carbon-14 content of each successive ring. Figure 5 shows tree-ring carbon-14 data from living trees extending back 4000 rings.2 The nearly straight line formed by the data means that it might be possible for a year here or there to have a missing or double ring, but overall, each ring represents one year at least back 4000 years. A straight line (as opposed to curving upward or downward) is also confirmation that radioactive decay rates have remained constant over this time period.

If additional confidence in this data is desired, it may be helpful to note that the amount of carbon-14 found in a timber from a tunnel in Jerusalem thought to have been built by Hezekiah is approximately the same as the amount found in tree ring number 2700, which places its ring-counting age where expected from Biblical records if each ring equals one year. Even better, consider the Dead Sea Scrolls – the book of Isaiah in particular. Isaiah 53 describes Christ in such detail that Bible critics have long argued that it must have been written after the time of Christ. The amount of carbon-14 in the Isaiah scrolls is equal to or less than the amount in tree ring number 2100, meaning carbon-14 confirms its before-Christ historicity.3
Carbon-14 has also been measured in varves. The carbon-14 record for varves in Steel Lake, Minnesota is shown as circles in Figure 2. Note that they fall on top of the tree ring data, which means 4000 varves, at least in this lake, must also equal 4000 years.
Now we are ready to consider that at some time prior to 4000 years ago, a giant flood resulted in myriad varves laid down in a single year. There are a few possible results. The most logical would be that all these varves would have the same carbon-14 content because they were all laid down in the same year. This would yield the projected data shown in Figure 3a.

Alternately, perhaps the Flood caused the normal production of carbon-14 to be drastically altered. Figure 3 (b, c and d) show what the data would look like for different possible scenarios such as much higher than normal, lower than normal, or wildly fluctuating carbon-14 production at the time of the Flood, or an initially fast carbon-14 decay rate that slowed over time.

Figure 4 shows varve data from Steel Lake and Lake Suigetsu extended to the limit of carbon-14 detection. Serious consideration of this data should be sobering for the committed Young-Earther.
The high degree of linearity (straightness) of this data has two possible interpretations.
Option 1: 50,000 varves represent roughly 50,000 years, and the fact that the Suigetsu varves continue to about 100,000 means the earth’s history also must extend to at least 100,000 years.
Option 2: God started with a fast rate of carbon 14 decay and dozens of diatom blooms and die-offs each year, but then intentionally and precisely slowed down each independent and unrelated process in such a way as to make it falsely look as if the data confirms the accuracy of carbon-14 and varve counting as legitimate methods of determining age.
Option 2 should be unacceptable to all Christians, for it means God manipulated his creation so that a study of it would convincingly tell a story that was not in fact true.
Conclusions
We argue with great conviction that Option 2 above does not reflect the God of King David who proclaimed that the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19), nor of the Apostle Paul who stated that God’s eternal character and divine nature are manifest in what he has created (Romans 1:20). If the creation speaks of a specific history, it is our belief that God’s creation speaks truthfully and the history is real.
Where does this leave us? Many in the world marvel at the handiwork of God while denying the Creator. In response, the Church demands that to acknowledge the Creator, we must deny His workmanship. Can there be a more ineffectual witness? If after seeing the results of God’s creation in Figure 4 we insist that the obvious meaning is not in fact true, we will drive people away from faith in Christ on a misplaced assumption that belief in Christ represents the abandonment of reason. Christ Himself is a sufficient stumbling block – we need not create any other!
For our part in serving our Lord Jesus and furthering understanding of his creation, we are offering a half- or one-day creation workshop to seminaries and related institutions. This workshop provides an overview of current geologic understanding, and a Bible-honoring approach to evaluating Scripture and science anytime the two appear to conflict. To schedule a workshop, please contact Gregg Davidson at davidson@olemiss.edu or Ken Wolgemuth at wolgemuth2@aol.com.
Notes
1. H. Kitagawa and J. van der Plicht, Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration beyond 11,900 CAL BP from Lake Suigetsu laminated sediments. Radiocarbon, 2000, 42:370-381.
2. P.J. Reimer and 28 others, IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon, 2004, 46:1029-1058.; J. Tian, T.A. Brown, and F.S. Hu, Comparison of varve and 14C chronologies from Steel Lake, Minnesota, USA. The Holocene, 2005, 15:510-517.
3. A. Frumkin, A. Shimron and J. Rosenbaum, Radiometric dating of the Siloam Tunnel, Jerusalem, Nature, 2003, 425:169-171. ; G. Bonani, M. Broshi, I. Carmi, S. Ivy, J. Strugnell and W. Wölfli, Radiocarbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Atiqot, 1991, 20:27-32.; A.J.T. Jull, D.J. Donahue, M. Broshi and E. Tov, Radiocarbon dating of scrolls and linen fragments from the Judean Desert, Radiocarbon, 1995, 37:11-19.
Figure 1 is courtesy of Tufts University. For more information, please visit http://geology.tufts.edu/varves/.
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.


September 2nd 2010
@katz - #27771
Well, your point would seem to be incontrovertible, but has formed a good part of the discussion on this thread. I must have forgotten to add the “irony” tags on my first two paragraphs.
The logic is, I think, that if you can’t, or are unwilling, to harmonise, you are forced to dichotomise. If the Bible is “true” and science disagrees, then science is false - and if you can’t fault the science, it must be the physical world that’s deceiving you.
Conversely (it must be said) others will say if science is “true” and the Bible disagrees, then the Bible is false. At worst, God himself is deceiving you there.
For myself, the human agency of the Bible is an explanatory tool, rather than a reason to doubt its essential truth. This is important because whilst creation shows God’s work, only revelation brings us into living relationship with him.
So Christians need to be looking to what the Spirit of God actually says in the Bible through its prophetic authors. That reexamination is occasioned by the problems thrown up by science, but should bring us to a closer understanding of God, not dilute the truth as the dichotomisers fear. It’s a hard job that has only really just begun.
Reply to this commentSeptember 2nd 2010
Katz wrote: “Why would God’s creation that He called “good” be fallible? He made it—if He made it look precisely as though one thing happened when it didn’t, that’s deception just as much as if the Bible were lying.”
The response to this is that when Adam and Eve fell, they took creation with them. It now reflects their evil in itself. That is the literal argument.
Reply to this commentSeptember 2nd 2010
There is currently a significant and growing question as to whether these varves are annual or not.
http://truthmatters.info/2008/04/11/lake-suigetsu-no-help-for-old-earthers/
The linearity of the graph may then be explained by other confounding variables—e.g. increase of pressure as one goes deeper.
Reply to this commentSeptember 2nd 2010
If the above link on truthmatters.info is correct that the so-called “varves” of Lake Suigetsu are actually first of all—not clear laminated layers, and if multiple layers are actually deposited in one year, then that call to question the C14 dating methods used above. Clearly there are other variables affecting how much C14 ends up in a sedimentary layer. If increase of pressure or some other mechanism tends to cause less C14 in the lower strata, then ALL C14 dating methods of sedimentary layers is called to question. One cannot assume that the C14 deposition is consistent with the C14 content of carbon dioxide in the air at any given time.
Here is a hypothesis of causal relation between pressure and C14 levles—CO2 movement and incorporation into and out of the minerals, carbonates, etc. is affected by pressure.
For tree-rings which go back 4000-5000 years, the tree ring is not subject to pressure or any other factors and so one could assume that the C14 content relatively corresponds to the relative content in the atmosphere.
Reply to this commentSeptember 2nd 2010
@Jimpithecus - #27796
“The response to this is that when Adam and Eve fell, they took creation with them. It now reflects their evil in itself. That is the literal argument.”
The slightly bizarre thing is that, since Scripture doesn’t literally say creation is fallen, it is actually an inference from Scripture, based on metaphorical passages like Isaiah 65.
Meanwhile God’s criticism of Job for not appreciating his glory in the present created order has to be taken non-literally.
Reply to this commentSeptember 2nd 2010
Christopher Svanefalk (27702) “since we are discussing the topic of the Flood here, could you specifically mention evidence that the natural world was enormously different before the Flood, and that the Flood itself involved supernatural (or natural) processes that would make science unfruitful in looking into its aftermath?”
Gen 2:5-6 “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.”
Some YEC interpret this to mean there was no rain at all (and no rainbows) before the Flood. An idea I find intriguing - no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no flash floods, etc.
Also, the age of the patriarchs (hundreds of years) clearly indicates something was different (I haven’t seen an OE explanation for this, other than “metaphor!” but a metaphor of what?). As well as the differences between fossil plants animals and those of today.
Reply to this commentSeptember 2nd 2010
Jon Garvey (27807) “The slightly bizarre thing is that, since Scripture doesn’t literally say creation is fallen”
How do you interpret Gen 3:17 (“cursed is the ground for thy sake”) then? What is the curse?
“Meanwhile God’s criticism of Job for not appreciating his glory in the present created order has to be taken non-literally.”
I see passages like this in Job and the Psalms not as declarations of God’s goodness in nature, but of His sovereignty - that He brings about long term good in the midst of present evils.
Reply to this commentSeptember 3rd 2010
Joel: What you are doing is called a “hand wave.” It isn’t science in even the most nebulous sense of the word because it is not testable; it also ignores part of the evidence: we determined that one varve equaled one year by comparison to tree rings. Or are you suggesting that tree rings don’t form one per year?
But let’s look at the theology. I have yet to hear anyone explain why God would make three completely independent factors (varves, tree rings, C14 levels) correlate perfectly. Isn’t that deceptive of Him?
Reply to this commentSeptember 3rd 2010
Joel,
A few typical YEC rants regarding varves hardly count as “significant and growing question as to whether these varves are annual or not.”
Be sure and check out where the author of your link defends his article in the most feeble manner imaginable: http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1314
As to your hypothesis of C-14 “moving in and out of the minerals, carbonates, etc.” under pressure, I’m thinking you don’t understand how those sediments are dated. To carbon-date a sediment, plant or animal debris must be found in the sediment, and it is the debris that is dated. The C-14 in a piece of leaf, for example, is vital to the carbon structure of the leaf itself—it can’t just “leak out” without destroying the structure itself. C-14 can “leak in”, but that would lead to dating a sediment as younger than it actually is.
Rule of thumb: when referencing a YEC science “fact” or argument, be sure to at least triple-check everything against non-YEC sources.
Reply to this commentSeptember 3rd 2010
katz (27922) “I have yet to hear anyone explain why God would make three completely independent factors (varves, tree rings, C14 levels) correlate perfectly. Isn’t that deceptive of Him?”
Not at all. The correlation is due to the orderliness of God. Things happen in an orderly fashion. It is incorrect on our part to assume we understand the mechanisms working.
It is not deceptive, because God never told us “the present is the key to the past”. In fact, every time I read 2 Peter 3:4, I am reminded of uniformitarianism.
Reply to this commentSeptember 4th 2010
Not at all. The correlation is due to the orderliness of God. Things happen in an orderly fashion. It is incorrect on our part to assume we understand the mechanisms working.
Speaking of hand-waving ...
Reply to this commentSeptember 5th 2010
John VanZwieten - #27925,
Your link gives a database error of some sort.
Peace
Reply to this commentSeptember 5th 2010
katz - #27922,
Let’s not forget GISP2 Icecore data and the correlating volcanic emission data.
The GISP2 data takes us back at least 100k years.
Peace
Reply to this commentSeptember 5th 2010
nedbrek - #27878,
You said - “How do you interpret Gen 3:17 (“cursed is the ground for thy sake”) then? What is the curse?”
Anyone who has farmed, has probably cursed at the ground a few time…LOL…but seriously, this could actually be the meaning…that men will curse at the ground because life is hard and they do not have the benefit of living in the Garden.
The ground that makes up the soil from which plant life…even the Garden of Eden…emerges, is composed (pardon the pun) of decomposing (dead) material.
The curse is spiritual death. Adam & Eve lost the uniqueness/holiness of being set aside in the Garden…they were banished from it and the Tree of Life.
Another thing to take note of…why was there a Garden of Eden, if the whole world were ‘Edenic/unfallen’ in nature?
Eden was a sanctuary in an otherwise normal world which operated under God’s designed set of laws…the same physical laws that are in effect today.
Peace
Reply to this commentSeptember 7th 2010
Scanman,
Good posts. The icecore data is what did it for me.
The link in 27925 seems to work for me. How about others?
Reply to this comment