In chapter three Peter reminds me of how Moses and Paul closed their writings with incredible emotion and heart-felt love for their people (read Deuteronomy chapters 28-33 and the book of 2 Timothy), now Peter knowing this would be his last letter, offers a similar heart-felt warning to future Christians. He began with the fact that scoffers would come in the last days and we discovered in the last chapter (not much effort is required to come to this conclusion) that scoffers are already here. Peter also provided us with the key to their motivation (to protect and promote their own lifestyles and lusts) and he says they will begin by asking about Jesus’ second coming. After all it’s been nearly 2,000 years, so where is He?
3:4b For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”
Peter then gives us an insight regarding their tactics to justify their scoffing, and while they are at it they will attempt to discredit God and His Word. They will say that everything has remained the same since the beginning of creation. The ESV and other translations render this verse as “all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” The Greek for ‘all things’ is simply the Greek word that means ‘all’ and ‘are continuing’ simply means ‘remaining’. So does that mean everything remains the same? Well, obviously Peter couldn’t be talking about things like housing, cities, agriculture, politics, etc. (even though some of the basics do remain the same). So what would a scoffer gain by saying “everything remains the same?”
3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
Peter gives us a hint in verse five saying these people will deliberately (more on that word shortly) overlook the fact of the world-wide flood during Noah’s day. Peter is warning us that some people will claim that the way we should study the past is by using information that we have obtained through observation and measurement today since everything has remained constant throughout time. But we know that history is loaded with events, catastrophes, uprisings, etc., many of which were indeed world changing. The Bible speaks of two huge events that changed the world (some people call them non-linearities), the fall of man (which includes the beginning of death, curse on all creation, the arrival of thorns and thistles, pain during childbearing, etc., see Genesis 3:17-19) and the example used here by Peter, the global flood.
God, during creation established how all things physical exist and interact together. Man has discovered several of these mechanisms and identifies them as “rules” or “laws” and has even given them names such as the “Second Law of Thermodynamics,” also known as “Entropy.” This law undoubtedly came into effect during the fall of man, shortly after creation, as it essentially states, everything is slowing down, moving from a state of order to disorder (there are a number of variations depending on the science that entropy is applied to). Bringing this closer to home, try cleaning a room or a garage and see if it stays organized (okay probably not the best example of natural processes but you get the picture). If entropy is an acceptable principle or “law,” then there should not be anyone able to convincingly use what Peter is saying about things remaining constant, however several sciences do.
Science often uses mathematics to determine and explain certain phenomena. Many of these mathematical equations use known constants (such as the speed of light, rate of radioactive decay, permittivity of free space, proton mass, etc.) and work with great accuracy when explaining our present day interactions. I know of several studies that have been ongoing for many years that demonstrate that the speed of light has indeed been slowing down. But if entropy exists (all evidence seems to support that it does) how can we apply today’s constants to understand the past? If radiological dating of rocks, etc., requires knowing the rate of radioactive decay (the rate of a parent isotope decaying into a daughter isotope), how can we calibrate (use the correct scale to test) to account for the differences due to entropy? Short answer, we can’t. Radioactive decay rates would also be affected by the laws of entropy. To measure accurately, we would need to know what the decays rates were in the past and we have no way to know or measure that.
This is only one of several concerns regarding radiological dating. Here is an excerpt from Dr. Andrew A. Snelling’s book, “Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation and The Flood”[1] pointing out some of the assumptions of radioactive dating. I highly recommend this two-volume book for anyone who is interested in a technical analysis of geology from a Bible-believing scientist.
The measurement of time by radioactive decay of a parent isotope is often compared to the measurement of time as sand grains fall in an hourglass. The sand in the upper chamber of an hourglass represents a radioactive parent isotope, while the sand in the lower chamber is analogous to the respective daughter isotope. The sand grains fall from the upper chamber at a constant rate, said to be analogous to radioactive decay. If all the sand grains started in the upper chamber and then the number of sand grains were measured in the two chambers after some time elapsed, provided the rate at which the sand grains fall has been measured, simple mathematics can be used to calculate how long the hourglass has been in operation, and thus, the time when the process started. When applied to the radioactive decay “clock,” this starting time is when the rock formed and is, therefore, its calculated age.
From this description of the analogy of the hourglass to radioactive decay of isotopes in rocks and minerals, it should be evident that the calculation of the “age” of a rock or mineral, based on the measurements of the quantities of the parent and daughter isotopes, and of the decay rate for the particular parent-daughter isotope pair, requires three assumptions:
1. The number of atoms of the daughter isotope originally in the rock or mineral when it crystallized can be known. In other words, it is assumed that we can know the initial conditions when the rock or mineral formed. In the potassium-argon method it is usually assumed that there was originally no daughter argon; therefore, all the argon measured in the rock or mineral was derived by radioactive decay from in situ parent potassium.
2. The number of atoms of the parent and daughter isotopes have not been altered since the rock or mineral crystallized, except by radioactive decay. In other words, it is assumed that the rock or mineral remained closed to loss of gain of parent and/or daughter isotopes since crystallization.
3. The rate of decay of the parent isotope is known accurately, and has not changed during the existence of the rock or mineral since it crystallized.
These assumptions require careful evaluation for each rock or mineral being dated, and obviously impose certain restraints in the interpretation of the resultant calculated “ages.” Indeed, these assumptions simply cannot be proven, because when most rocks and minerals crystallized, no human observers were present to determine the original number of atoms of the daughter isotopes. Nor were human observers present throughout the histories of most rocks and minerals to determine whether the rocks and minerals have remained closed to loss or gain of parent and/or daughter isotopes, and if the rates of radioactive decay of the parent isotopes have not changed. Thus, it logically follows that these assumptions are, strictly speaking, not provable. It is often claimed that it is obvious where assumption two has failed, because anomalous results are obtained, that is, results not in agreement with the expected “ages.” Otherwise, the calculated “ages” are often what are expected, and so the methods are confidently accepted as valid. Of course, this is uniformitarianism in the extreme, because it is assumed that decay rates measured in the present (over the past century) have been constant for millions and billions of years, an extrapolation of up to seven orders of magnitude!
Geology is one of those sciences that have ignored entropy. A pioneer in modern geology was the British lawyer and geologist named Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875), he wrote a three-volume book titled “Principles of Geology,”[2] (1830-1833) which promoted the idea of “uniformitarianism” and made popular the phrase, “the present is the key to the past.” His ideas supported the idea that even though the earth may have experienced some abrupt changes, it was mostly formed through gradual change. He later made it clear that he was motivated to “free the science from Moses” (written in a letter by Lyell to a colleague)[3].
The concept of using the present (rates of deposition, rates of erosion, etc.) to explain the past requires the belief that everything has remained the same from day one. This has one big problem it simply is not true! There have been many events (volcanic, seismic, nuclear, etc.) that have indeed changed the world as we know it. This concept is Biblical and it is called “catastrophism,” Peter uses one of the biggest geological events as an example.
They will deliberately overlook (people like Lyell will deliberately ignore the evidence) the facts that God first created the world out of water (See Genesis 1:6-10) and through water by the Word of God. We also see that creation is another element that is under attack by the world today. There is great debate between Creation and Evolution (although evolution never explains how life or even matter got started in the first place). It is interesting to note that Darwin read Lyell’s book during his voyage to the Galapagos Islands[4] so the concept of long periods of gradual change was fresh on Darwin’s mind when he wrote, “The Origin of Species.”[5]
God created the world using water and later chose to judge the world using water. During Noah’s time “the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5). God chose to destroy the wickedness with a global flood. So here is at least one event that changed things. What should we expect to see from a global flood? Simply put billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down all over the earth.[6] So what does the evidence show? Exactly that! Geologists like Lyell have deliberately overlooked the facts of the flood. In order to free geology from Moses (he is the one who wrote about creation and the flood) they imposed their ideas on the evidence rather than accept what the evidence was showing to be true.
Recently there have been some changes in how geology is viewed. Events such as the eruption of Mount Saint Helens have given geologists the opportunities to view phenomena that was once believed to take several thousand to several million years to occur actually only requiring a few weeks or months such as sedimentary deposition, the formation of canyons like the Grand Canyon, the fossil record, etc. Sadly, children are still taught that evolution is true (often based on the lie that the fossil record supports this, which it does not) and that the age of the world is billions of years old. Peter warned us about these lies almost 2,000 years ago, long before anyone understood science! As Christians, we need to understand that lies like these are slowly eroding the Word of God, Genesis is not a fairy tale! Learn how to defend the Word!
An excellent, easy-to-read resource is the book, “Footprints in the Ash,” by John Morris and Steven A. Austin. Here are two excerpts from that book:[7]
Introduction (Pages 9-10)
On May 18, 1980, the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helens shocked the world with its display of unbridled explosive power. The eruption that day fundamentally challenged our way of thinking about geologic events, especially events of the past.
In contrast to most volcanic eruptions, Mount St. Helens was well studied. It had been threatening to erupt for decades and, for six weeks prior to the main eruption, it was obviously building up for a major episode. Geologists from many countries gathered at Mount St. Helens to witness the eruption and the processes it spawned. Direct observation, aerial photos, satellite images, seismographs, laser-survey devices, and even radar readouts allowed geologists to piece together, in extraordinary detail, what happened that day at the volcano.
Of great interest was the realization that the results of the Mount St. Helens eruption that were observed were similar to results of past processes that were not observed. No geologist can go back in time to observe the past, but we can observe present processes. By comparing the results of the present processes with those of past processes, we can come to some conclusion about the nature of those unknown events of the past.
Ever since the late 1700s, geologists have been accustomed to thinking about the past in terms of uniformity of processes and process rates. Their basic assumption is that things in the past occurred much the same as they occur in the present. All geologists are taught to think that “the present is the key to the past”— that only those things which are possible today have gone on in the past and that present processes, operating in essentially their present rates, scales and intensities, have accounted for all that we observe.
However, during the decade before the 1980 eruption, geologists began to express their dissatisfaction with strict uniformitarian thinking. They had noticed in the geologic record that events of the past produced rock units, fossil beds, and erosional remnants far different from the kinds of things produced today. Geologists also began to entertain the notion that episodic catastrophes had done more to shape the earth than did long periods of uniformity.
Leading the way in this revolution in geologic thinking were biblical catastrophists, those who believed that the past was at times very different from the present. Those scientists believed that there had been an episode of supernatural creation during the six days of the creation week mentioned in Genesis 1.
Present processes are not creative processes and thus creation events were accomplished by different, non-uniform processes. Likewise, not long after creation, the world had been restructured by a global cataclysm in the days of Noah. Floods today achieve much geologic work but this dynamic, world-wide hydraulic and tectonic event accomplished unimaginable amounts of geologic work in a short period of time. This work included continental tectonics, area-wide volcanism, extremely large hurricanes, and similar events. It involved large-scale erosion, deposition, and fossilization. In short, that flood would have left its mark all over the globe. No place on Earth escaped those great waters.
Determining the nature of the past catastrophic processes that occurred in Noah’s flood has always been difficult. Such a global cataclysm is so far outside of our experience that it is hard even to imagine what it would have been like. What would be the end products of devastation on such a massive scale? Thankfully we will never again have to experience such a cataclysm. However, every now and then an event occurs in the present that expands our imagination and helps us to understand what the great flood of Noah’s day may have been like. The eruption of Mount St. Helens did just that.
We Need to Think in a Different Dimension (Pages 122-123)
We have learned from Mount St. Helens that our experience with the earth limits our reasoning ability. On the surface, “uniformity” appears an elegant way to reason about earth processes…Ideas about catastrophes are shackled by the fact that we live in a “uniformitarian” world that is dominated by uniform processes. When a catastrophe does occur, like the eruption of Mount St. Helens, a veil is lifted from our mind’s eye, and we can comprehend, to a greater degree, the much more intense processes that could have shaped the earth. At the volcano we get a glimpse of the way Noah’s flood must have been.
Two basic ways exist for interpreting geologic deposits. The traditional view, represented by the slogan “the present is the key to the past,” assumes that processes have operated throughout the past in much the same fashion as they do today. This view, called the “principle of uniformity,” relies heavily on slow and gradual processes interspersed with sporadic minor catastrophes, such as happen today.
The second view, currently gaining favor among geologists, holds that there have been episodes in earth history dramatically different from anything observed today. Much emphasis is placed on major storms, floods, volcanic eruptions, asteroid bombardment, and similar catastrophes, far greater in scope than anything witnessed by modern observers.
The Bible speaks of a great water cataclysm in the days of Noah, which accomplished extreme geologic work. Modern processes such as rainfall, erosion, deposition of sediments, fossilization, volcanism, and others, would have been operating at rates, scales, and intensities far beyond anything observed today. Noah’s flood totally restructured the surface of the earth and laid down, among other things, many layers of sediment full of remains of dead plants and animals. The sediments soon hardened into rock, and the organic material fossilized. We see those deposits now as sedimentary rocks and fossils. Elsewhere we see great amounts of volcanic and metamorphic rock, far greater than could possibly form under today’s conditions. These same rocks and fossils, when interpreted under the assumption of uniformity, are thought to provide evidence for evolution and the old earth. That interpretation wrongly includes the denial of both the Flood and creation.
In the Bible, God promised Noah and all of mankind that He would never send another globally destructive flood. God has been true to His promise and no other event like the Flood has occurred since then. It is difficult therefore, for geologists who believe the Flood was geologically significant, to reconstruct the events that laid down various geologic deposits, for we have no natural events to study today which are comparable in scale or circumstance.
The eruption of Mount St. Helens, however, does provide an analog for Noah’s flood and helps us understand its nature. While the 1980 eruption was much smaller than many historic volcanic eruptions and trivial compared to many that occurred in the past, it was quite catastrophic on a local scale. Many of the components of the eruption were similar to those that must have operated during the flood.
Furthermore, the activity at Mount St. Helens was well studied and documented, and, as such, it provides insight into the flood and helps us interpret Flood deposits. The use of Mount St. Helens’ catastrophic eruption and the events surrounding it as an analog for Noah’s flood becomes reasonable as we recognize that many of the events associated with the eruption were, in fact, water related. The rapid mudflows, the erosion, the wave on Spirit Lake, the log mat — all were processes likewise common during Noah’s flood. Even the volcanic cloud that was ejected was 90 percent steam.
Mount St. Helens shows us how our old thinking pattern is deficient and challenges us to think in a different dimension.
⇐Previous Chapter (Introduction/Index) Next Chapter⇒
[1] Snelling, Dr. Andrew A. (2009). Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation and The Flood (pp. 800-801). Institute for Creation Research.
[2] Snelling, Dr. Andrew A. (2009). Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation and The Flood (pp. 478-480). Institute for Creation Research.
[3] Mortenson, T. (2004), The Great Turning Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology—Before Darwin, (pp. 226–227) Master Books, Inc.
[4] Keynes, Richard, ed. (2000), Charles Darwin's Zoology Notes & Specimen Lists from HMS Beagle, Cambridge University Press
[5] Darwin, Charles (1859). The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection of the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Original published by John Murray, London.
[6] This phrase comes from many publications written by and/or presented by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis. Their website can be found at http://www.answersingenesis.org.
[7] Morris, John and Austin, Steven A (2003). Footprints in the Ash. Master Books and Institute for Creation Research <icr.org>