David Montgomery’s Book On Noah’s Flood

We discover in David Montgomery’s book, an argument on secular scientific reasoning being compatible with religion, in his view there is no “false dichotomy” as long as a certain interpretation of the data prevails.

In science daily he reveals pretty much the same arguments against the flood that have been used by others who were skeptics…

“For nearly two centuries there has been overwhelming geological evidence that a global flood, as depicted in the story of Noah in the biblical book of Genesis, could not have happened. Not only is there not enough water in the Earth system to account for water levels above the highest mountaintop, but uniformly rising levels would not allow the water to have the erosive capabilities attributed to Noah’s Flood, Montgomery said.

Some rock formations millions of years old show no evidence of such large-scale water erosion. Montgomery is convinced any such flood must have been, at best, a regional event, perhaps a catastrophic deluge in Mesopotamia. There are, in fact, Mesopotamian stories with details very similar, but predating, the biblical story of Noah’s Flood.

“If your world is small enough, all floods are global,” he said.

Firstly, what evidence did David Montgomery interpretation of the data comes up with that demonstrate the millions of years age in the rocks? His answer is this, “I believe in millions of years, therefore when I look at the rocks, I see millions of years.”  This is not hard evidence based on observations that he is making his argument against the global flood but rather uses circular reasoning.

What about the large fragments of sedimentary rock which include strata that are broken from a parent rock? Since the global flood happened, couldn’t the existence of folded strata show that hardening had begun underwater and if so, is there sufficient evidence to conclude that 100% hardening can be achieved underwater or is some sort of drying out process required?

Good question! How many of you are familiar with man-made cement? Water is an important ingredient which triggers the reaction in the mixture of dry cement and sand so that the cementing process not only relies on water, but can take place underwater! Many natural cements are similar in that they can achieve sufficient hardening under water without needing to dry out.

Even when the waters of the flood was still rising, the drying process was well underway, as a result of two causes, one normal global tidal rises and falls.  And the second involves giant tsunamis generated by the many destructive earthquakes that were repeatedly occurring during the Flood due to catastrophic earth movements.

No human being living today or in the recent past has ever observed what happened during those earlier years in earth’s history, therefore no nobody knows for sure what all went on during that time which we will get into in more dept shortly.  We also discover in David Montgomery’s book, a claim about being “open” which is generally always used as an attempt to sway people of faith to a worldly viewpoint.  Back when I was in college, my professor taught this very idea of being “open” in order to try to mold my values into his. And those who rejected his values were considered, “narrow.”

But let’s posed this to him.  Has David Montgomery read papers by creationists who are geologists or even talked to them with an “open mind” as they want people of faith to do with their conclusions on the data? Did he ever consider thinking outside the box?

One doesn’t think so, in fact he just goes along with popular fallacies among secularists by lumping Tibetan locals in the same camp with Bible scholars as “people of faith.” If he had done his homework, this is what he would have discovered…

According to accounts of the global Flood, there were extensive ruptures of the earth’s crust, rapid plate movements, and a reworking of the continents from low relief to high mountains and deep ocean basins.  These clearly would have caused catastrophic deposition and erosion, rather than a placid sea rising over post-Flood mountains as described in Montgomery’s book.

And the memories of locals were true accounts of the global flood rather than local floods in their area as he suggests.  Also, the memories which were taken during the time of the tower of babel by other groups eventually got distorted over the years while retaining some truth that eventually found its way to Mesopotamia.

The thing is this, it’s not who doesn’t have faith in coming to these conclusions, it’s whose faith is better interpreting the data that suits reality better! If you believe in millions of years as Montgomery stated, you are going to discover a billion of missing years between the bedrock granite and the Tapeats Sandstone or 100 million missing years in the Muav and Temple Butte limestones.

What Montgomery failed to observe, were the fault lines passing through the whole canyon from bottom to top, then one sees twists and folds of strata (strata supposedly separated by millions of years) showing soft-sediment deformation as a unit, along with evidence of high-velocity current flows in the Tapeats sandstone, also the pancake-flat strata over thousands of square miles arguing against long ages, the billions of nautiloids buried in a single layer of Redwall limestone, the evidence of sheet erosion over the continent, the rapid downcutting of the canyon, and so on!

His book and world view seems to be a bit outdated as well because many secular geologists no longer believe the Colorado River carved the canyon, but instead use catastrophic flooding in their theories. What evidence does Montgomery really have when he couldn’t observe it first hand that says a global flood couldn’t have carve out the Grand Canyon?

David Montgromery should stop his bandwagon jumping with using the assumption that a secular world view uses no faith while people of the Bible do.  It’s a matter of which faith uses solid reasoning based on observations. Biblical geology does use solid reasoning from what is being observed along with a recorded account of it happening, but secular geology has no such account but rather goes by blind faith and bias which is created by their peers for them to believe.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “David Montgomery’s Book On Noah’s Flood

  1. The thing is this, it’s not who doesn’t have faith in coming to these conclusions, it’s whose faith is better interpreting the data that suits reality better!

    Michael is unable to tear himself away from a religious mode of thinking. It’s not a question of faith at all. It’s the data. The physical record speaks overwhelmingly against a recent global flood.

    Is there any data for a global flood? There are traces of several local inundations: Glacial lakes bursting, natural dams breaking. One that Michael fails to mention is that the Mediterranean Sea probably filled up in less than two years when the Gibraltar strait caved in, allowing the Atlantic Ocean to pour in. So geologists do know what sudden flooding events look like, and have recorded a number of them

    But there is no positive evidence whatever of a global flood. Creationists base their entire case upon a deluge of unsupported assumptions. For example—

    According to accounts of the global Flood, there were extensive ruptures of the earth’s crust, rapid plate movements, and a reworking of the continents from low relief to high mountains and deep ocean basins. These clearly would have caused catastrophic deposition and erosion, rather than a placid sea rising over post-Flood mountains as described in Montgomery’s book.
    . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Even when the waters of the flood was still rising, the drying process was well underway, as a result of two causes, one normal global tidal rises and falls. And the second involves giant tsunamis generated by the many destructive earthquakes that were repeatedly occurring during the Flood due to catastrophic earth movements.

    Where is the geological record for the worldwide “extensive ruptures of the earth’s crust”? They must be assumed. Where is the evidence for “rapid plate movements”? The evidence shows they were—and continue to be—gradual. Where is the evidence for a sudden “reworking of the continents”? The record indicates slow uplift. (After 50 million years, India is still colliding with Asia, and the Himalayas rise a couple feet every decade.) What evidence is there that a global “drying process was well underway”? Underway after what? No flood, no drying process. Some drying can take place underwater—cooling magma from underwater volcanoes, for example.[1] But it is rare, and localized. “Giant tsunamis.? “Many destructive earthquakes”? Major earthquakes leave fault lines and slippages in the geological record. There is no record of any series of closely spaced major earthquakes.

    All of this is based upon creationists’ unfounded assumptions. So what is their sole reason for insisting that the entire geological record is wrong, and their narrative is correct?

    And the memories of locals were true accounts of the global flood rather than local floods in their area as he suggests.

    Let’s see… The “locals” who wrote the biblical account directly observed a “global” flood? How? CNN International? Al Arabia? Desperate, Michael, really desperate.[2]

    Biblical geology does use solid reasoning from what is being observed along with a recorded account of it happening, but secular geology has no such account but rather goes by blind faith and bias which is created by their peers for them to believe.

    Michael, whose only technical qualification is that he once watched a cousin do something sciencey on TV, attempts to refute a PhD geologist—armed only with miraculous assumptions against two centuries of evidence.

    Does anyone still wonder why scientists laugh at creationists?
    .
    ===================

    [1] Michael’s example of concrete is ridiculous. Cement hardens by a chemical reaction with water. Therefore, although cement can harden underwater, it cannot form under water. So how did the cement get underwater in the first place? Oh, I see—the Flood pushed it underwater. But, is cement a naturally occurring rock? No. It is made from several specific kinds of rocks, by powdering, combining, and firing them at about 2500 degrees Fahrenheit. (Even the Romans knew that. They built 5-story buildings from concrete.)

    [2] One of his problems is that Michael—who supposedly praises critical thinking—applies no critical thought to what he himself says. In this and several other cases, understanding the risibility of his argument would require only a few seconds’ reflection on the logical implications of his words. OR: he does understand, and tries to hide them from his readers. What shall it be, Michael? Ignorance or deceit? Has to be one or the other.

  2. We discover in David Montgomery’s book, an argument on secular[1] scientific reasoning being compatible with religion, in his view there is no “false dichotomy”[2] as long as a certain interpretation of the data prevails.

    Michael misunderstands which data must be interpreted. The geological data has been clear for two centuries, and scientific geological theories are supported by findings from atomic physics, chemistry, paleontology, and cosmology.

    No, it is the biblical data that must be interpreted appropriately, according to theological and historical knowledge.

    Creationists commit the logical fallacy known to historians as whiggism. This consists of interpreting a text according to the context of the reader, as opposed to the milieu of the document’s writer. For example, reading Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream as though it were a textbook on the psychology of fairies.

    Theologians call young-earth creationists “naive literalists” for a reason. They see only the surface of the words, and interpret them as though the were written to be a modern historical or technical description. Whereas, at the times that Genesis was written, the very concept of scientific texts and history books did not exist.[3] Ancient peoples explained things with narratives.

    School children (maybe!) still study Homer’s Odyssey. But they–and their teachers—miss the point completely. The Odyssey is an instruction book for how civilized men should act—to instill honor, friendship, trust, and dedication to a noble goal in its readers. It warned them to beware of deception, cuckoldry, and fatal flaws (e.g., Achilles) by presenting lucid examples.[4] The Odyssey was the social encyclopedia of its day. Anyone who reads it as a historical account is not only wrong, but misses everything that it was written for. Genesis is the same. Anyone who reads it as history reads it without comprehending it, without a glimmer of its theological meaning.

    Genesis II is a good example of an explanatory narrative. It was not only Greek philosophers who asked questions such as, where did evil come from? Why do we die? Why do children turn away from their parents? Reading Genesis II as nothing more than a story of two nebbisches in a magic garden is like reading Shelley’s sonnet Ozymandias as a story about some Egyptian king. Instead, you might read the narrative of Eden as an explanation of the dawn of human consciousness: All humans know that they themselves will someday die.[5] Yet an animal, without self-consciousness, does not know that; he can see a dead mate—and even grieve—without realizing that he too will someday die. Genesis II thus explains the concept of mortality. We also learn of our two natures, one that abides by the rules, and one that is willing to break them for a desired goal. Genesis II tells its readers how language came to be.[6]

    .

    Creationists ignore not only the science of history, but also all of the Christian theology that has built up over two millenia. In fact, the whole concept of Fundamentalism in the early 20th century was to throw off all knowledge that their own limited backgrounds and education could not understand,[7] and to focus exclusively on what they thought were the actual words of the Bible—unicorns and all. Hyers, The Meaning of Creation (John Knox Press, 1981) has a good description of the actual theological points in Genesis, the things that the original readers got out of it.[8]

    In particular, the question of naive literalism was discussed by Augustine of Hippo, and has been a dead issue in Christian theology for more than a thousand years. The creationists have not yet caught on.

    ==================

    [1] There is no such thing as “secular” scientific reasoning. All scientific reasoning is the same.

    [2] Michael needs to look up the definition of “false dichotomy.” Here, as in many places, his understanding of logical concepts is wildly incorrect.

    [3] The concept of history, as an accurate narrative of past events, did not exist until the 2d century BC, several hundred years after the last parts of Genesis were written.

    [4] Sometimes the stories were based upon actual events, but heavily embellished. Troy was thought to be a total fabrication, until Heinrich Schliemann discovered its ruins in 1876. Same for King David.
    .
    [5] Excepting perhaps some teenagers.

    [6] In Mark Twain’s posthumous The Diaries of Adam and Eve, Eve is the one who names everything for a dunderhead Adam, echoing the joke that language was invented when the caveman’s wife said, “Og, we have to talk.”

    [7] Earlier clergy were well educated, even in science. But fundamentalist ministers were laymen with no theological raining or education of any kind. They mistrusted all knowledge they could not comprehend, and even saw this as a virtue.

    [8] The ancients were much more sophisticated than present-day creationists. They would think creationists abysmally ignorant, and wonder why they had not learned anything in 3,000 years.

  3. [Montgomery’s] book and world view seems to be a bit outdated as well because many secular geologists no longer believe the Colorado River carved the canyon, but instead use catastrophic flooding in their theories.

    Another of Michael’s outright lies. No actual geologist thinks that the Colorado River did not carve the Grand Canyon. Michael is hereby challenged to cite a reputable source that any non-creationist source thinks that a world-wide flood, or ts aftermath, formed the Grand Canyon. (Remember that, under Scopie’s Law, any citation to Answers in Genesis forfeits the argument.)

    Apparently Michael has grabbed onto a small grain of fact and tried to twist it so as to mislead his readers. It is true that multiple catastrophic floods partially carved the canyon. However, these were small, local floods of water entirely from the river over millions of years. They occurred when dams formed and then failed suddenly, releasing high-speed water into the channel below them. These dams arose from several causes, including sediment blockages and eruptions from a large volcanic field that straddles the canyon. Some of the dams were only a few feet high, but one towered to 1,500 feet, releasing 37 times the Mississippi’s present flow rate 100,000 years ago.

    A paper from the Grand Canyon National Park (July 20, 2002) describes these events, and specifically notes that a single flood could not have produced the observed features.

    One theory the catastrophic flood work does not support is the biblical flood story in Genesis. Some creationists have taken evidence of a “young Grand Canyon” as grounds for biblical literalism. One company, Another Viewpoint, offers trips through the canyon explaining its features as the result of Noah’s flood.

    “It isn’t directly relevant to something like the Noachian flood because in this case we know what the source of the flood is,” Webb said. “It is not like a rainfall flood that happened over an entire watershed. This is a river being blocked.”

    Shame, Michael. He knows that the only way he can get people to believe his drivel is to mislead them by perverting scientific findings The reason creationist sources are not credible that they lack any sense of honesty or integrity.

    David Montgomery is entirely accurate. Every geologist holds that the Colorado River itself carved the Grand Canyon. Trying to parlay undercutting by numerous local floods of river water from dam collapses into a worldwide flood is fraudulent. How long can creationists get away with this way of life? It depends upon you, gentle readers. The only thing that seems to stop them is when enough people start laughing at their bogus science.

  4. Even when the waters of the flood was [sic] still rising, the drying process was well underway, as a result of two causes, one [sic] normal global tidal rises and falls. And the second involves giant tsunamis generated by the many destructive earthquakes that were repeatedly occurring during the Flood due to catastrophic earth movements.

    Michael is pulling stuff out of his nether orifice again. Well, why not? Maybe some stupid chump will believe it.

    But, here again, a moment’s critical thought makes the rest of us wonder—
    > Tides rise and fall only hours apart. Can a wet slurry exposed at low tide harden into rock before water covers it again at high tide a few hours later? A miracle.
    > Tsunamis are generated only in the oceans, of course. A tsunami first sucks water out of the shallow seabed, then pushes it back to new heights within a matter of tens of minutes. (The tsunami I observed last year pulsated like this for more than a day—water in and out every half hour.) How much rock can form in less than an hour of exposure? Another miracle.
    > An underwater earthquake produces a tsunami, as described above. How would an earthquake on dry land possibly dry out the already exposed land? Michael is so dependent upon miracle after miracle that he seems not even to notice them anymore.

    Michael, making things up is dangerous when you address anyone who has an ounce of knowledge. Maybe SJ will return to help you out. But even a creationist geologist would probably not abide the stench of these fetid droppings.

  5. In science daily [Montgomery] reveals pretty much the same arguments against the flood that have been used by others who were skeptics

    And why not? They are still just as valid. There still is no source of water that could begin to cover all the land. The amount of rainfall required to for the flood would still produce features that are nowhere found in the geological record, and would suffocate anyone breathing the air. The aftermath of a global flood still could not produce the distribution of plants and animals seen today. A flood could not have produced sediment deposits seen today.

    Creationist arguments have also not changed. Their argument is always miracle after miracle after miracle after miracle to explain inconvenient facts.

    .

    The deeper question is, why do creationists enlist the aid of science at all to support their religious faith?

    Ironically, this is an admission that they consider science to be more authoritative than religion. If science contradicts their faith then they must make the science seem to conform—otherwise their faith is nugatory. They refuse the alternative—to declare that their faith is superior to science and overrules it. It’s easy to see why creationists will not embrace this view. Too many people would laugh and dismiss them as nutcases.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s