The Great Cave of Crystals

miners searching for fresh ore deposits in 2000 came across an unexpected and awesome sight. Massive, milky-white crystals towered around them, filling a horseshoe-shaped cave. Luminous beams of gypsum bigger than telephone poles, nearly 12 m long and 1 m wide, gleamed in the miners’ lights, jutting in all directions out of the brown limestone walls, floors, and ceiling.

Peñoles carefully restricted access to the Cave of Crystals, to protect not only the crystals but also their visitors. Conditions within the cave push human physiology to the limits. The temperature is about 50 °C, with a relative humidity of over 90%: sweating has no cooling effect in that environment.

Because conditions are so harsh, researchers could stay in the cave for only 10–15 min at a time, Montero-Cabrera says. The cave is sealed off from the rest of the mine by two sets of doors, protecting the crystals from the outside environment and keeping the temperature and humidity in the antechamber tolerable for humans. Before each foray, a medical check was required to ensure that visitors were healthy enough to withstand the cave’s climate, she says.


They look awesome and mysterious and cool. One hears about formations found in inhospitable caves. Like in mexico etc.
For a YEC the great point here is that formation must of been quick and then no more. No long ages and all that. Can’t tell here but I bet there is no spectrum of diversity of formations as would be expected if they took long ages and so variable starts and progress.
They always show geology is a process and not random events. Its a blueprint.
It shows how biology is most likely this way too.

If you read the article, you will see there is a spectrum. Good guess though! Turns out if the earth is young, it most certainly looks old.

I saw about this long ago on youtube. it was to me evidence of how spectrums failed to justify long ages.
It does not show a spectrum of diversity in the particular areas. One size fits all. it only shows different a same size type in different areas. so the famous sword area are all the same and these beautiful great beams are the same.
This means , very unlikely for long timelines, a single growing event from start to finish for all items.
AHA. one process/mechanism for growth timeline.
They would rather have a diversity in a spectrum to prove different starts and growth diversity.
Now they try to say they know the growth timeline. by watching present rates through some experiment. Yet this means there are different rates because of the different results in different rooms.
so growth could be fast and furious, or slower then they opine, based on details of climate etc.
They don’t demonstrate the age.
The sameness of items in rooms is the great clue to a single formation mechanism and timeline. the single timeline demanding a single mechanism event.
it was probably made within hours like icicles in Toronto here.

@DaleCutler and @mung want to help us out here with @Robert_Byers? Shoe him a thing or two about the age of the earth?

There is no shortage of evidence, but I don’t know that any one thing or several can be compelling.

This is kind of a favorite – it is not about radiometric dating, it is about the very existence of certain nuclides:

Extinct Radioactive Atoms

This should be compelling to a Christian (6ka ain’t so ancient):

“…to him who rides in the heavens, the ancient heavens”

And this:

The Bible makes statements about the antiquity of the heavens (2 Peter 3:5), skies (Psalm 68:33), earth (Proverbs 8:22-23), mountains (Habakkuk 3:6 and Micah 6:1-2), hills (Genesis 49:26 and Deuteronomy 33:15), rivers (Judges 5:21) and mankind (Job 20:4)…So, I would contend that the OEC position is biblical…I am just reading the Bible, not interpreting it… - Fazale Rana

I think that would be pointless. :slight_smile:

In my opinion, Young Earth Creationism arises from a particular way of reading scripture. It is that way of reading scripture that needs to be dealt with.

It’s not as if one can look at tree tings or ice cores and say, oh look, see, this shows the earth was created on a specific day 6000 years ago.

@Robert_Byers, are you aware that the bible doesn’t actually tell us how old the earth is?

1 Like

That’s what a YECist would say. :slight_smile:

Let’s put your theory to the test. Give it a shot.

1 Like

Thats just silly. Its as clear as can be. its purpose is to date mans existence from adams fall!
The only date in question would be between adams fall and creation week. since Eve would of got with child pretty quick then it would only be months.
I have a interst in geomorphology and flirtation with geology and I insist there is no evidence on the planet of results we see that can not be shown to be from fast and furious results where change has occurred.
In fact this is neat topic on the formations in mexico here.
They undercut small step processes with long time. They show a common result that could only mean one process affecting all very quickly. Then tweek with a different result in another room.
If thins were random in the world there would be a spectrum of diversity of intermediate or segregated results at any one time.
This is the problem with fossil evidence for evolution thus breeding punctuated equilibrium. a desperate reaction. Darwin said the fossils should show all steps in between. they don’t. a problem.
Likewise geology/geomorphology should show a spectrum of diversity. They never do.
Only these humans in these articles show a spectrum of error.

I’ve written about this cave and the many problems it poses for the YEC narrative. The Naica Cave of Crystals is a Giant Problem for a Young Earth
Excerpt: "The formation of these crystals is all about chemistry. At varying temperatures and in the presence of other minerals that may become incorporated into the crystals, calcium sulphate can take on many different forms such as selenite and gypsum. Precise measurements of the crystals from the deepest Naica cavern have demonstrated (Reference 1) that these crystals have grown in a nearly uniform environment of about 58 degrees Celsius during their entire formation. Laboratory experiments have allowed direct measurements of crystal growth rates at temperatures and concentrations of minerals in the water today. That growth rate has been measured at 42 mm per thousand years at 58 degrees Celsius.

Under these conditions crystals would have required tens and hundreds of thousands of years to form. Could they have formed more quickly in the past under different conditions? Theoretically, yes, however, close examination of the crystals reveals they were not formed more quickly in the past. Why? Because if conditions—such as temperatures and dissolved mineral concentrations—had been much different in the past, then the crystals themselves would have recorded those changes in their crystalline structure as they formed. Think of it like tree rings, if the climate is the same every year, then the rings of an individual tree will have little variation but if there is prolonged drought followed by years of plenty the tree rings will record that variable history for us to see."


So if I understand you correctly, you don’t know how long Adam was in the garden before God created Eve and the bible does not tell us how long. Nor does the bible tell us how long they were together in the garden before the fall. Right so far?

But you reason that Adam was a rather impatient and sexually driven man who could not have kept his hands off this woman and she would have soon gotten pregnant, even though the bible does not tell us anything of the sort and there’s no reason to think Adam had any sexual desires at all before the Fall.

Also, where does scripture tell us that the purpose of scripture is to date mans existence from adams fall? Do you believe that Adam did not age in the garden, that aging did not occur until after the fall?

So as far as I can tell your reasoning is based not on what scripture actually says, but on inferences that you draw. Would you agree or disagree?


While that’s true, it’s irrelevant to dating the world using biblical chronology. The bible tells us how old Adam was when Seth was born, and that’s all that’s needed.

1 Like

How old Adam was from his creation or how old Adam was from the date of the fall? Robert begins his chronology from the fall.

1 Like

I don’t think the irony was accidental. :slightly_smiling_face:

The former, which is what Genesis actually says. Who knows what Robert intends; I don’t think there’s an atom of meaning in it.

To me Robert often appears to engage in what is identifiable as reasoning. It takes more than a dismissive shrug though to untangle it and see it, but it’s there. It takes effort. I don’t much care for what I’ve seen of people being dismissive simply because they lack the desire to put the effort. Taht speal about them as much as it speaks about Robert.

My point here is that he’s engaging in inferential reasoning. If he can see that about his own reasoning perhaps he can be shown the same is the case for others in how they come to their conclusions about the age of the earth. The two parties are simply not talking about the same facts.

Robert reads a written text and derives his inferences from that text. Scientists look at the actual earth and the things organic and inorganic on the earth.

Does he? You appear to be saying that he doesn’t, as according to you he dates Adam’s age from the Fall, which isn’t what the text says.