Chalking Up Another One For Flood Geology

Today, many such remains are accumulating slowly on the ocean floor, and this has led people to insist that all chalk rocks formed incredibly slowly in the same way.

There are many such chalk formations around the world, which have in evolutionary thinking been combined into the so-called ‘chalk age’ called the Cretaceous (from the Latin word creta for chalk), allegedly lasting millions of years.

Many critics of straight-forward biblical creationism have vigorously proclaimed the chalk as a major, unanswerable objection. These creatures accumulate too slowly, they say—and they claim that the huge numbers of these organisms in the world’s chalk deposits could not have lived on earth at the one time, that there couldn’t have been enough carbon dioxide, and so on.

Now Creation Science Foundation geologist Dr Andrew Snelling has shown in a relatively easy to understand semi-technical paper in the current issue of our new-look Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, *that such objections are not a major problem to Flood geology at all.

Drawing together his own thinking and the work of others, Dr Snelling’s work meets these objections head-on. The calculations show, for instance, that the number of creatures necessary for the thick chalk beds could, under the conditions which creationists have long thought plausible for the closing stages of the Flood, have come about in a matter of days.

Also in this Technical Journal, there are special overview articles on antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the fossil DNA controversy, brief in-depth ‘perspectives’ on a claimed ‘walking whale’, on the ‘bird-like’ characteristics of dinosaurs, and much more.

Stay informed—and help creationist research by subscribing. (What about trying to interest your local public library or educational institution as well?)

* (In addition to the normal research papers, the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal now has new regular sections on topics of general and educational interest for creationism, allowing more depth and detail than we can in Creation magazine but not obscured by unnecessary technical language or too much heavy detail—see back page for subscription information.)