More Evidence for Flood Baffles Geologists

Uniformitarianism is a particular framework which goes by the assumption “that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.”

This framework has been used to reject a one-time occurrence of a global flood, known in the Bible as “Noah’s flood.” So things like noticing rocks which had been moved 3,000 miles across whole continents becomes baffling to secular geologists. Nothing of course remotely happens like that today! This would be a falsification of  uniformitarianism and what is interesting a team of geologists investigating the phenomena admit to it…

“The causes of such a pattern might be unique to time and place, and may include a combination of (1) lack of continental vegetation, (2) clustering of continents near the equator, (3) increased continental weathering rates, (4) widespread uplift and erosion associated with regionally extensive and relatively synchronous orogenesis [mountain-building] recording supercontinental amalgamation, and (5) production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems.”

What is even more interesting to note, none of the mentioned mechanisms contradicts a worldwide flood; in fact, they would each appear to be the result of one which of course would confirm what the Bible says. Another interesting factor, the geologists avoided trying to explain with reference to natural law and observable, repeatable processes.  They did however avoid considering a flood. Rather they built up complexity (like in many other evolutionary theories) of five different explanations or a certain combination of them to their theory which makes it considerably weak.

When a scientific method is able to explain one cause for multiple effects it’s pretty strong. For example, your lawn is flooded, explanation one says, “a neighbor’s pool leaked and then a truck rode by with water and it leaked also” or “your neighbor’s pool just leaked or “it rained a lot causing the sewers to back up, flooding your property.”

A worldwide flood would produce all five effects mentioned by the geologists…

1) Lack of continental vegetation, because it had been stripped away by the water.

2) Widespread uplift and erosion associated with regionally extensive and synchronous mountain building occurred.

3) Weather rates increased dramatically.

4) Clustering of continents near the equator, then the continents split apart as the fountains of the great deep opened.

5) Production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems, because new mountains produces runoff as the waters receded, transporting soft sediments over vast distances.  A worldwide flood would also explain the “high degree of sediment mixing and homogenization” of sediments they observed. On the other hand, because secular geology has denied a one-time event for so many years claiming it couldn’t happen, it’s not surprising to see their explanation move into a chaos complexity level while avoiding an explanation for increased weathering rates, widespread erosion, homogenization, synchronous mountain building and large-scale river systems. Their story remains in a special-pleading scenario which leaves much to be desired as a scientific explanation.

6 thoughts on “More Evidence for Flood Baffles Geologists

  1. Stage magicians succeed by misdirecting the viewers’ attention to a location away from where the trick is actually occurring.

    Creationists have learned much from this technique. While they prattle on about how this or that geologic detail surprises geologists, or cannot yet be explained satisfactorily, the utter impossibility of their basic premise goes unnoticed.

    The first fundamental impossibility is that a world-wide flood that covers all land would require not only more water than is found in the entire Earth, but about 80 times as much water as there is in the entire planet. In the few times that creationists have been pressed as to this paradox, they mumble about a primordial “canopy:” of water on the pre-flood Earth, which has since vanished into … uh … well … somewhere that no one can find it anymore. It just disappeared, you see. By some process that is totally unknown and has never been observed., but apparently involves prodigious waving of arms. That is, there is not enough water in the world for a Noachian flood, and there never has been.

    The second fundamental impossibility is this. In order to explain many of the obvious problems with a worldwide flood, creationists must assume that it engendered violent and catastrophic events—orogenesis, animals carried thousands of miles across open ocean, multiple magnetic field reversals, erosion at rates a million times greater than ever observed. Yet, a worldwide rain, as proposed in the Bible, would fall essentially straight down, would not move great chunks of earth around, would not erode mountains more quickly than they erode today in heavy rains, would not cause extraordinary ocean currents, would not strip vegetation from swaths of landmass, would not toss tectonic plates about the planet. It would merely fill up the oceans and the land like a bathtub. That is, the mechanism that creationists require to produce the observed effects cannot produce such effects.

    What is even more interesting to note, none of mentioned mechanisms contradicts a worldwide flood; in fact, they would each appear to be the result of one which of course would confirm what the Bible says

    Creationist love the “consistent with” argument. But, as pointed out above, the entire scenario of a worldwide flood is inconsistent with the most basic facts known about the Earth. This is like saying that, the defendant and the murderer both wear a size-10 shoe is consistent with the defendant’s guilt, even though the defendant can prove he was in Australia at the time of the murder. How much traction does Michael think he can gain with such diversions?

    When a scientific method is able to explain one cause for multiple effects it’s pretty strong.

    A worldwide flood would produce all five effects mentioned by the geologists…

    Actually, a worldwide flood would not produce any of the 5 numbered effects. These are pure arm-waving to support a foregone conclusion, with no evidence whatsoever.

    Which again brings up the question, What are Michael’s qualifications for discussing any field of science?

    And, while we’re at it, Where are the numbers to support Michael’s bare-faced assertion to Eelco about readership? Where is the review of Signature in the Cell, promised 13 months ago and counting?

  2. Michael, you don’t seem to understand what the paper implies about the transfer of materials.

    I notice the paper is talking about the Himalayas. That actually explains it all. The paper says,

    Detrital zircon samples from Cambrian and Lower to Middle Ordovician strata were taken across and along the strike of the Himalaya from Pakistan to Bhutan (∼2000 km).

    It is easy to explain this. During the cambrian and Ordovician, the Himalayas did not exist yet. And when the continental plate of India began pushing into tbe continent of Asia, it pushed the land up, and materials that got pushed up ended up rolling down opposite sides of the newley formed Himalayan mountains. Thus, that can explain how the same materials got transported…..WITHOUT A FLOOD. And there is no way a flood would have done it anyway because the heavy materials would have remained in place for the most part, and would not have been transported.

    Also, the appeals to continental drift you make will not work. If the earth spit apart like how you want to say, and if mountains were formed as fast as you would want us to believe, that would have caused huge, massive earthquakes causing tsunamis and tidal waves so high that even Noah’s Ark would have sunk. Noah’s 450 foot long barge could be sea worthy in a local flood, but it would have sunk in a world wide deluge. Not to mention, the world wide flood is something I consider unbiblical…


  3. Kris, thanks for the link to a biblical argument for a local flood.

    The truly laughable aspect of biblical literalism is that the ancient peoples who wrote and heard the Bible understood these stories in a sense that is quite different from our modern milieu. In fact, this is what historians call the flaw of “whiggism”—attempting to cast an ancient writing into a modern context.

    It is ironic that there were no significant numbers of biblical literalists until the rise of modern science. Scientific writings of course are meant to be taken literally, whereas previous forms of writing were not. Even history was understood as justifying the writers’ claims to greatness and justified dominance.[1] The other cause of literalism was the Protestant Reformation, which encouraged everyone to read and interpret the Bible for himself, rather than relying upon a central authority.

    Then came fundamentalism, in the latter half of the 19thC. Rather than staring their own denominations de novo, they were factions of existing denominations that split off and then joined each other. Whereas leaders of the existing denominations were highly educated—even in the sciences, frequently—the leaders of the fundamentalist factions, who became the creationists, were usually uneducated, even in the Bible. Very few had any formal training in any subject. Given the context of that time, what was the easiest way to interpret the Bible? Why, literally! The words mean exactly what they say. No interpretation necessary. No historical context allowed. No book-larnin’ to confuse a simple faith.

    So creationism was born in ignorance, and remains there to this day.

    The problem they face, of course, is what will happen to their faith when reality becomes overwhelming? Even today, a number of their children become. atheists when they find out that their parents and pastors have been lying to them.


    [1] Still today. Read a Canadian history text about the War of 1812. We think we won it. No sir. The British won it, because they prevented the US from annexing Canada.

  4. I’d also like to thank you for using white-on-black characters in your new blog. People do not realize that while black-on white is fine for reading by reflected light in a book, white-on-black is much easier on the eyes where the light is transmitted from the page, as in a computer display. Microfilm printers understood this a long time ago—that’s why they use negative film.

    One suggestion, tho—Please put dates on your posts. It is almost always important to know when something was written—especially when one may come upon it years later.

  5. — Olorin,

    Oh the date is on there. It’s on the very bottom where you see the tags. Well, I don’t blame you for not noticing. It’s out of sight for the most part. :P

  6. Some More Evidence for Worldwide Flood Baffles Geologists

    It certainly does baffle geologists. None of them can figure out why any of it would be evidence for a global flood.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s