A geological map noting the types of rock that make up the Ames impact structure. The locations of oil and gas wells are noted with arrows.
Credit: Catlos et al.
The study, led by Elizabeth Catlos of the University of Texas at Austin and published in Meteoritics & Planetary Science, challenges the long-standing assignment of the Ames impact to the Ordovician Period. The previous age estimate relied on conodont fossils — tiny tooth-like elements from extinct marine animals. These may have been inherited from older rocks disturbed and redeposited during the impact, rather than recording when the collision happened.
Uranium–lead dating of zircon crystals from the impacted rocks now points towards a much younger, Late Devonian event. The youngest dated zircons yielded an age of 369.7 ± 5.9 million years. That range overlaps the approximately 372-million-year-old Frasnian–Famennian extinction crisis, raising the possibility that Ames belongs in discussions of impacts associated with that episode of ecological devastation.
There is an essential distinction here: an overlap in estimated ages does not establish cause and effect. The study does not demonstrate that the Ames impact caused the Frasnian–Famennian extinction, or even that it made a substantial contribution. Further work is needed to strengthen the connection between the zircon dates and the impact itself, let alone establish a causal connection with the extinction. That uncertainty is part of the scientific account, not something to hide for the sake of a more dramatic headline.
Nevertheless, the difficulty for creationism does not depend on proving that particular connection. Whether the collision happened in the Ordovician or the Devonian, neither interpretation can be accommodated within the few thousand years allowed by a literalist reading of Genesis. Revising an event’s age by roughly 100 million years does not bring it within reach of biblical chronology. Even the size of the correction dwarfs the entire history young-Earth creationists allow the universe.
Nor does a world exposed to devastating collisions suggest that human safety was its overriding design specification. Humans were absent when Ames formed, but that is precisely the point: Earth’s history was not a brief preparation of a finished home awaiting its intended occupants. It was an immense succession of changing environments in which life survived, diversified and sometimes suffered catastrophic losses. Habitability is not a guarantee of protection, and our existence today does not turn every feature of the planet’s past into evidence of benevolent planning.


































