Tomographic studies of the Earth’s interior structure over the last couple of decades is one of the most important sources of such data. These tomographic studies produce three dimensional images of internal structure similar to the medical CAT scans that produce images of the internal structure of our bodies and organs.

Another mass of data has become available in the form of detailed data measured in the drilling of oil well all over the earth. This oil well data penetrates rock layers with much more detail than previous generations of geologist scrambling over cliff faces and valley walls. Oil well data is also much better than modern seismic reflection surveys. Geologist Dr. Tim Clarey has been a leader assembling the world’s oil well data and analyzing what it tells us.

Of course, it is true that CPT cannot answer all of the questions that can be asked. Last month we saw that this is also true of Hydroplate theory. It will be very interesting to compare where each theory has strength or falls short.

It is very interesting to see that both theories start with a hypothesis about the detailed conditions of the Earth’s geology just before the Genesis Flood. CPT and HPT hypothesize two different ways huge amounts of potential energy could be stored up before the Flood. Then the potential energy could be catastrophically released and drive the Genesis Flood processes forward to destroy all land-dwelling and air breathing animals not on the Ark. Both would also greatly rework Earth’s geology before a new equilibrium was established at the end of the Flood process.

So, the bottom line is which theory is most compatible with the observed and documented data. However, we should also consider what potential each theory has for future development in explaining more observed data and new data not currently understood. Also, some have suggested that a composite theory might be possible. 

Mr. Nathan Farowe

Our presenter for CPT will be geophysicist Nathan Van Farowe. Nathan became a Christian at an early age is a son of a pastor who has always loved exploring God’s creation. He received his degree in Electrical Engineering from South Dakota School of Mines & Technology and has worked as a geophysicist in the oil industry for over 32 years. He has had the opportunity to use geophysical data to choose sites for oil wells that were drilled as many as 6 miles deep into the earth, several of which found significant amounts of oil. He has found that creationist models like CPT do a much better job than evolutionary theories in explaining what is seen from oil well and seismic data and has a passion to apply young earth creationist principles to more effectively search for oil and gas.

Theories about how the Genesis Flood physically happened are highly intriguing and often controversial. Their change over time also demonstrates the forward progress of creation science. The following provides some important context for our presentations.

One broad approach is used by those who want to attribute everything possible to natural processes that are observed in the present and minimize the supernatural activities of God throughout the creation and Flood narratives. This philosophy leans toward uniformitarianism. This philosophy suggests that the “present is the key to the past” and leads to “old Earth” evolutionary timeframes. Most of academia insists on a uniformitarian viewpoint. However, GHCA will present some of the many physical facts and reasons contrary to this uniformitarian approach.

The Flood narrative begins in Chapter 6 around 1500 years after the creation, fall and expulsion from Eden. God then tells Noah what God is going to do and why. Chapter 7 and 8 relate the rise and subsidence of the Flood. Ch 9 concerns the new Rainbow Covenant from God. Ch 10 is the section of genealogy known as the table of nations. Then Ch 11 starts the history of Abraham.

Building a physical model of what happened in the Flood is not easy. We commonly assume that the physics we observe now was in operation during the Flood. However, we do not intend to presume that God did not do anything by His supernatural power where scripture indicates He did. It is also important for a Flood theory to propose a set of initial conditions at the beginning of the Flood. Then the Flood theory processes would convert the initial conditions into the end of Flood conditions. The GHCA article The Biblical Flood discusses a number of issues that a Flood model must take into account.

The Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT) will be presented at the July GHCA meeting. CPT has the largest following today because it is most consistent with modern geological observations, particularly tomographic studies of the Earth’s interior structure.

The Canopy Theory (CT) was popular during the early part of the modern creation science movement, during the 1960s and 1970s. This theory has since been rejected by most because of valid scientific objections that were raised. However, I am sometimes surprised how many people were once impressed with CT but have not kept up with the progress of creation science. This theory will be briefly discussed in the first part of the August GHCA meeting. 

A roundtable discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of these three theories will be presented in the second half of the August meeting. The roundtable members will be invited to participate in person or online as a panelist. Those who are interested in being a roundtable panelist should contact me by reply to this email.