The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Flood Geology (Creationism vs. Science)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search

This article, lists among Mr. Wong’s longer articles. Much of it has been answered already by creationwiki, thus most won’t be replied to in full but will instead be given a link to various pages through out this website.

The article asks four questions about Flood geology. According to Mr. Wong, Flood geology cannot pass the test and answer these questions, regardless of the fact that much has already been answered.

Does flood geology have a mechanism?

The first question the article asks is “Does flood geology have a mechanism?” According to the article, the models for a global flood are hopelessly flawed and should not be considered viable. However, it is the article's critique that is really in error.

The ionospheric "vapour canopy" theory is completely absurd; how would it get up there, and what would keep it up there? Did vapour canopy proponents sleep through grade-school science class when they talked about the mechanism behind clouds and rain? Why didn't this enormous blanket of water vapour block out the Sun? We're talking about globe-spanning clouds, hundreds of kilometres thick! Why didn't the added mass increase the atmospheric pressure and alter the chemistry of the air?

This model has been abandoned by creationists for decades. To claim that many creationists still believe it — as is said many times in the article — is a straw man. In fact, many creationists reject it.

The "hydroplate" theory is equally absurd (it describes water buried at 10 mile depths); rock is much denser than water, so how could it possibly have formed a "skin" on top of a huge globe-spanning layer of water? Why didn't the water seep to the surface before the Flood? Since the temperatures at many miles depth are easily hot enough to boil water, it would have emerged as steam, and as more than one critic has noted, Noah would have been poached. And what happened to the crust when it no longer had the water underneath it? Did it collapse? Why do we find no geological evidence of such a catastrophic rearrangement?

Much, if not all, of this is a straw man. Many of the latter statements, like “Why do we find no geological evidence of such a catastrophic rearrangement?”, assume uniformitarian geology and do not apply.

For a rebuttal of everything else, please read Hydroplate theory (Talk.Origins)

The next model that the article attacks is the comet theory, which was never really considered by creationists.

Please read Flood from comet (Talk.Origins)

The violent plate shift theory is not quite as blatantly stupid as the comet theory, but it's close. It attempts to escape the problem of water sources with the idea that the Earth's surface simply became much flatter during the flood, so that the land masses could be flooded without an infusion of new water.

This shows the article's ignorance of the subject. The theory isn’t called “violent plate shift theory” but catastrophic plate tectonics, but it is still possible for there to be springs of the great deep in this model. Thus there is another source of water.

The release of energy during this catalysmic tectonic shift boiled off part of the oceans which eventually fell back to Earth as rain (over a forty day period, of course), and afterwards, in another series of cataclysms, the ocean basins fell, the continents rose, and the mountains were violently shoved up towards the sky. But even the authors of this theory have no explanation of what could possibly cause such spontaneous and violent rearrangement of these huge land masses, so they resort to miracles, which are essentially an admission that their theory has zero scientific validity.

Here we have caught this article LYING. It is completely false that the authors of the model have found no mechanism for it. The author of this article is completely ignorant of runaway subduction.

Is flood geology consistent with fundamental laws of physics?

The article claims that Flood geology ignores the laws of thermodynamics because it can’t account for the vast amount of water needed for it.

Now, consider the "hydroplate" theory. It's better, right? Well, not really. It proposes that buried water shot up as steam into the upper atmosphere, and then fell back to Earth as rain. However, this merely exacerbates the problems of the vapour canopy! Now, not only does the water have to fall from the upper atmosphere and hit the Earth like a hundred billion megaton bomb, but it must be shot out of fissures in the Earth's crust beforehand.

This is based on a misunderstanding of hydroplate theory. Much of the water would have cooled back to the liquid state before making it out of the mantle, due to the vaporization that would occur during the eruption due to decompression and the fact that, under this model, the heat we see now was caused by tidal pumping that occurred during and after the Flood.

Even if we assume Mr. Wong is right, what equations has he shown to validate this? Wind currents and other factors would slow down water and he is assuming that the rain fall is homogeneous.

And finally, consider the "flat continents" theory. The deformation of any material requires energy; that's why it takes effort to bend a piece of metal, and that's why it will be slightly warmer after you've bent it. The heating effect of deformation is not often obvious in everyday situations, but if you've ever seen a steel rolling mill, you'll be convinced. Metal strips can become red hot after passing through just a few rolling mills, and that's because the work performed on the metal has to go somewhere. The same is true of rock, yet the YECs claim that millions upon trillions of tons of rock moved effortlessly up and down by 5 miles or more!

There are several Flood models, which we have already discussed, that are able to do this realistically.

Don't they realize that hundreds of billions of megatons of work would be required, so the land masses would become red hot and the oceans would boil off? Apparently not. You can't just arbitrarily speed up a process like continental drift to many hundreds of millions of times its normal rate, because that will also accelerate the rate of energy release by the same factor, with lethal consequences.

Read the heading “Runaway Subduction” in this article

Can its effects be reproduced experimentally on a small scale?

Yet again, absolutely not. Any experiment involving the dumping of enormous quantities of water onto loose debris will show that the effect is highly entropic, and will tend to disrupt sorting patterns rather than creating them. If a creationist could produce an experiment to show that a chaotic deposition of water could actually create fine-grained, thinly layered strata of carefully sorted sedimentary rock, we would most certainly have heard about it by now.

Yet again, the ignorance of this article is amazing. Mr. Wong is completely ignorant of hydrological sorting, a well accepted fact among geologists. It has been observed far too much to dismiss.

Please read Hydrological sorting

Does it have predictive abilities?

This section in divided in two parts. First, it rants about what would happen if a global flood happened, then it goes on with so called “problems” with flood geology.

If the global flood happen

All of the fresh water fish would have become extinct, as the lakes mingled with the salt water of the oceans. This has obviously not happened, since the world's lake are full of specialized organisms which cannot survive in the salt water of the oceans.

Not true. Please read Aquatic organisms could have survived the Flood (Talk.Origins)

Most of the sedimentary rock on the Earth should be in the oceans, since the loose material would have been largely pushed off-shore as the flood waters receded. However, most of the sedimentary rock on Earth is on high ground!. In fact, even the mountains are largely composed of sedimentary rock!

Showing that it was once under water.

The level of erosion should be constant all over the world, since all of the world's erosion was supposedly caused by a single global event. However, some mountains are much more eroded than others (eg. the Appalachians as opposed to the Rockies).

This assumes that the water currents were homogeneous in force and the article forgets that post-flood events are a major factor. Regions with special geological features, like those that would cause whirlpools and so on, would have larger erosion rates then other areas.

Animal species which are dependent upon non-European localized ecosystems would have become extinct, since they would never survive the migration back home after debarking from the Ark. For example, the South American trapdoor tarantulas would have had to somehow journey all the way from Europe to the Amazon jungle, over an ocean and through environments which are much too cold to support it. The polar bear would have had to journey back to its arctic home, through thousands of kilometres of temperate zone. The giant panda would have had to journey from Europe to the bamboo forests of China, despite its poor mobility and extremely specific dietary requirements. What did it eat until it reached the distant bamboo forests? Species like this should have become extinct, but they didn't.

This is quite possibly the worst of them all. He claims that local ecological systems , like those of the South American trapdoor tarantulas, the giant pandas, and the polar bear, would have been destroyed during the Flood and the post-flood events. Once again, Mr. Wong displays an ignorance of Flood geology and baraminlogy. Creationists believe that those ecosystems evolved AFTER the Flood.

Please read Animals' exacting needs could have evolved after the flood (Talk.Origins)

The distribution of recent fossils should follow a radial pattern from the point where Noah unloaded his Ark, irrespective of species. Consider the fact that all of the Earth's creatures had to migrate outward from a single point. This would leave obvious fossil patterns, which we have failed to observe. Instead, the fossil patterns seem to be consistent with a pattern of long-term migrations and evolutionary adaptations.

First, many scavengers would have eaten many would-be-fossils and then we must consider how hard it must be for something to fossilize in the post-flood world.

Then there is the fact that it IS consistent with man from the middle-east/Africa and migrating into Europe and Asia, and then into the Americas. We must also consider that human history seems to support the idea.

Please read There are flood myths from all over the world (Talk.Origins)

Fossils of flightless animals should be depth-sorted based on their size and hydrodynamic characteristics rather than their position in the evolutionary progression. However, this is not the case. Species of virtually identical hydrodynamic characteristics are separated by eons, while even the largest dinosaurs are found at the same level as the smallest dinosaurs (which are all, in turn, found far below much smaller and more recent primates). No pattern of depth-sorting based on size and hydrodynamic characteristics is identifiable in the fossil record.

First, this is a straw man. Hydrological sorting wasn’t the only factor.

Please read Fossils sorted by a combination of these factors (Talk.Origins)

Also, this assumes that the fossil record really reflects this. It doesn’t. In truth the geological column is often found out of order and the article ASSUMES that the fossil record reflects it perfectly. Some times the Precambrian could be nothing more then a thin layer on the surface.

Please read Entire geological column doesn't exist (Talk.Origins),Geological column is sometimes out of order (Talk.Origins), Geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution (Talk.Origins), and Geologic column was deposited by the Flood (Talk.Origins).

All the plants in the world would have died, because plants require UV radiation and cannot survive deep submersion for prolonged periods (that's why all underwater plants are close to the surface). However, the ancient Bristlecone Pine trees of California show an unbroken line passing right through the Flood and dating back more than 10,000 years. In fact, one particular specimen (nicknamed "Methuselah") is still living, even though it dates back nearly 4800 years, or 500 years before the Flood. How did the YECs deal with this? You'll love this ... when they heard about it, they started writing "research papers" denying the validity of tree-ring dating.

First, please read Plants could have survived the Flood (Talk.Origins)

Second, also read Dendrochronology.

Fossils of species with superior mobility should always be found at the shallowest levels in the sedimentary rock rather than being grouped with their evolutionary contemporaries, since they would presumably have reached high ground and taken the longest time to die. Flying animals in particular would be at the very top. However, this is not the case. For example, flying dinosaur species are buried at the same depth as other dinosaur species, well below much more recent species with inferior mobility. No pattern of depth-sorting based on mobility is identifiable in the fossil record.

First, this assumes the geological column exists world wide. In many places, the "dinosaur layer" may be on the surface.

Please read geological column.

Second, this assumes that this was the only sorting method. There are many more then this.

The fossil record should be composed almost entirely of land creatures, since flood geology claims that all sedimentary rock was formed during the Flood and ocean-dwellers wouldn't die in a Flood (remember that any ocean disruption violent enough to kill the sea life would have easily capsized Noah's boat). However, much of the fossil record is sea life.

This assumes that it was a normal flood, and not the catastrophic plate moving, mountain forming, and DIRT MOVING flood proposed by creationists. Much dirt would have been displaced to fossilize sea creatures. In fact this is an evidence for rapid burial.

Fossilization requires sudden burial

Also, at no time have Flood geologists claimed that no water dwelling creatures would die. Many would, but SOME did survive.

Furthermore, this ignores basic water safety. If a tsunami is coming for you and you are on a boat in the middle of the ocean, what do you do? Since tsunamis are not lethal until they hit shallow waters, you just sit there and do nothing.

Metallic man-made Bronze Age artifacts would be found at the very bottom of the fossil record, since such objects fall quicker than any organism, and will obviously not run to high ground or struggle to tread water. However, this is not the case; the vast majority of the fossil record lies beneath the earliest human metallic artifacts.

Please read Man and dinosaurs coexisted (Talk.Origins)

So called problems

How did Noah build the Ark? A simple examination of shipbuilding techniques and manpower requirements reveals that a wooden boat of that size will not be seaworthy because of excessive leakage, and that one man couldn't possibly build it. The act of procuring the necessary wood alone would have easily overwhelmed him.

First, Noah had a LONG time to build the ark and he wasn’t alone. His relatives helped him and we must consider animals labor, paid human labor, and divine guidance.

Please read Noah's ark and Chinese treasure ships show Noah's Ark was feasible (Talk.Origins)

Exactly how did the mountains form? Why would a flood make mountains? Did they form by magic? That's not science.

Neither is making strawmen to deceive the public. The Flood was accompanied by plate movement and other features that could easily cause this.

Please read High mountains were raised during the Flood (Talk.Origins)

Why do the sedimentary rocks in the mountains contain fossils of ocean-dwelling creatures?

Because they were once quite smaller, then grew during and after the Flood, and underwater.

How did the ice caps form? They would have been broken up and melted during the flood, and there hasn't been enough time for them to form since then. Moreover, Greenland ice cores show a progression of yearly patterns since well before the Flood, even though the entire mass should have been broken up.

All this shows is ignorance.

Please read The Flood caused an ice age (Talk.Origins),Ice core, and Ice age.

Why aren't the fossils of modern land-locked animals routinely found deep in the sea bed, even though a catastrophic flood should have easily pushed huge amounts of coastal life into the ocean?

Methinks Dinosaur track and land organism fossils commonly found in sediments more then account for this, plus Ecological zonation would tend to sort creature according to their habitat.

Lastly, many old-earth geologists completely dismiss fossils that contradict them.

Why aren't environmentally specialized fossils found away from their native environments? A flood would easily disperse fossils over very wide areas irrespective of their original environmental suitability, yet we see no evidence of this dispersion.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. We often find creatures in such formations. What many old-earthers call the geological column is a great example of creatures of different environments being found together.

A great example of fossils from completely different environments can be found in Peru. In 2004 scientists discovered 346 whales within a 1.5-km2 area, buried in an 80-m thick layer of sedimentary rock called diatomite, which forms like chalk. This layer is part of the Pisco Formation, which varies in thickness from 200-1,000 m.(Brand, L.R., Esperante, R., Chadwick, A.V., Porras, O.P. and Alomia, M., Fossil whale preservation implies high diatom accumulation rate in the Miocene-Pliocene Pisco Formation of Peru, Geology, 2004.)

The interesting part came when they learned that it also contained land animals such as ground sloths and penguins. Yes, you read right, sloths.

Also the Morrison Formation has MILLIONS of plant eating dinosaurs, but hardly ANY plants.[1] We can see stuff like this all over the world. Some areas have millions of meat eaters, but hardly any prey.

Why do we often find sedimentary rocks which demonstrate severe erosion long after their formation? The Red Deer River valley, for example, is composed of a single region of sedimentary rock through which a fissure was eroded by a river. Exposed, eroded sedimentary rock makes up the walls of the valley. Are we to imagine that the same Flood which deposited and then rapidly compacted this rock then preferentially arranged itself so as to cut a groove through the middle as it receded?

The real question is why CAN’T a global Flood do it. There are many scenarios that could do it. Maybe it was laid down early in the Flood, maybe it was an eroded crack, maybe receding water, a busted natural dam that gave way, or a post Flood event.

Why are different components of the same organism (ie. the pollen and trunk of a plant) invariably sorted at the same layer? Did the flood somehow sort the pollen and trunk and leaves of plants so that they would always end up in consistent layers?

Because they were carried by the same water/mud and the basic idea of this argument is flawed. We don’t always find them that way

Why are exposed-surface features such as footprints found in deep rock, often layered on top of one another? How does a footprint form, remain intact, and fossilize in the midst of the chaotic sedimentation process described by flood geology?

This is based on ignorance of the evidence and not keeping up with current data/models.

Please read Dinosaur track for a creationist interpretation and models.

Also, there is overwhelming evidence that many foot prints actually require fast formation. Many dinosaurs do have their prints preserved, but in lower layers,[2] thus making rapid formation the most logical reason for their existence.

Also, the Coconino sandstone, which carry fossil prints, shows signs of rapid formation.

Please read Coconino sandstone was deposited underwater (Talk.Origins)

Why are fossils layered with complete forest ecosystems to match, so that soil layers and plants and animals from one epoch are always grouped together? Did the flood somehow sort this too? That's one clever flood!

This simply isn’t so. It assumes that the geologic column is absolutely right, but it isn’t. We often find polystrata fossils, fossils out of place, layers out of place, fossils out of their ecological zone and so on.

Also, ecological zonation would tend to put creatures from the same area at the same place.

How did all of this sedimentary rock form without releasing the requisite amount of heat, which would have boiled the oceans? Sedimentary rock forms because the resulting rock has a lower energy state than the loose matter from which it was formed, and the energy decrease in the rock must be balanced by an equal energy release into its environment. You can't accelerate the process of rock sedimentation without also accelerating the consequent rate of energy release.

This makes the assumption that it all precipitated out of the solution, but this wouldn’t happen. I was laid down as normal particulate sediment rather than being devolved in the water, thus these extreme temperatures were not made.

How do they explain where all of the animals would have lived, or have they ever noticed that the sheer animal population indicated by fossil deposits is enough to fill the Earth to the point of being dangerously overcrowded? Not a problem if those animals lived over many hundreds of millions of years, but if they were all crammed into a 6,000 year history ...

This assumes the estimates given at the karoo formation, which are in great error.[3]

Please read Large collections of fossils indicate catastrophism (Talk.Origins)

On the same note, how can they explain the sheer volume of organic material in the Earth's coal deposits and sedimentary rock layers? It's been pointed out many times that even a globe-spanning forest wouldn't provide anywhere near enough organic material to account for all of that mass ... unless, of course, it was deposited over a very long period of time rather than just one year.

Some researchers believe that oil may be a non-biological product and not an organic degradation. Some suggest that streams of methane gas rapidly rise from concentrations in the earth. These form into oil at the mantle-crust interface, roughly 6,000 m below the earth’s surface. since coal and oil supposedly came from the same source, according to evolutionary geology, maybe the origin of coal is wrong too?[4][5]

Second, the pre-Flood world could, most likely, support much more life then many think.

Third, the number these critics use assumes uniformitarian theories of coal formation, but numbers based on Flood geology show that the amount of biomass need in actuality be much less.

How did Noah or any of the other animals survive in the barren, devastated global ecosystem that would have been left after the flood? Since all of the plants would have died from prolonged deep submersion, the effect would be similar to any other global holocaust scenario; there would be no food except for the other animals coming off the Ark. Even if we assume that fertile topsoil magically appeared amidst the devastation and new plants began growing immediately, they wouldn't grow quickly enough to keep all of Noah's animals from starving to death.

First, many seeds would have been planted by Flood waters. Second, there would have been an overwhelming supply of fish (dead and alive) and sea plants. Third, many animals are known to change their eating habits during a time of stress and lack of food. Fourth, we must consider the fact that Noah’s ark might have had extra food.

How did the forests and jungles regrow so quickly? Why are some of the most ancient trees and densest jungles in the world found in the Americas, so far from Noah's Ark? Did he travel to North and South America via magic carpet and reseed the jungles?

Seeds can last for a long time in water and the Flood would have replanted much of the forests. Even Darwin concluded this in his personal experiments. It is also known that salt water can slow down the germination process of some plants, thus causing them to have longer life spans. [6]

Please read Plants could have survived the Flood (Talk.Origins)

How did all of the human-specific diseases survive? Did the residents of the Ark simultaneously carry every disease in existence? That must have been one sick ship, particularly when you consider the fact that every other species on the bo at must have also been carrying all of the diseases that are specialized for it.

This is ignorance of creationist views. Many human-specific diseases evolved AFTER the Flood.

Animals' exacting needs could have evolved after the flood (Talk.Origins)

Also, there are VERY many other factors to consider. For example, human corpses, dried states, insect vectors, and symptomless hosts. [7]

How did species with short lifespans (eg. mayflies) survive the long trip?

First, if the author knew anything about modern creationism, he would know that insects were not on the ark, but survived on floating tree masses. (Note: this doesn’t mean that some insects didn't sneak onto the ark)

Second, it is quite likely that insects during the period had MUCH longer life spans and the short life spans that they have now are due to devolution. The life spans of humans during the period and the presence of large dinosaurs support this conclusion.

Please read Insects survived on floating vegetation mats (Talk.Origins)

How did Noah feed all of those species, particularly those who must eat other species to survive?

If the author read John Woodmorappe’s classic book Noah’s ark: a feasibility study, he would know that he estimated the amount of food needed and took this into account. His calculation found that only 15% of the boat's mass needed to be food. We must also consider that many meat eating animals WILL eat plants if need be. Furthermore, we must consider fish.[8]]

How did Noah provide environments suitable for all those species, since some of them can't survive in heat and some of them can't survive in cold? Did he have heated bays and refridgerated bays in his boat? Was there a Fridgidaire logo on the side of the Ark?

The creatures were not specialized until AFTER the Flood. How many times must creationists repeat this?

How did unique species find themselves on isolated islands?

Once again, the author forgets that most species devolved after the Flood. They became unique to the region after the Flood.

There are many mechanisms that can account for this. For example, lower sea levels during the ice age after the Flood and human transport.[9] Iguanas have been known to “surf” on vegetation.(Nature, p. 556, 8 October 1998.)

Why isn't there any inbreeding-related damage in the Earth's species? Such damage should be severe if every species was repopulated from just two specimens, but then again, your average Southern Baptist YEC probably thinks inbreeding is a good thing.

Maybe there is mass damage to the genetic structure of many species. This would only be one of the many mechanisms to account for diversity, but by putting it by itself, this is a strawman.

(Note: The latter comments made by the author are completely offensive and should be changed by the author if he wishes to be credible and unbiased.)

Why didn't the ancient Egyptians make any record of a catastrophic flood even though they were known to have an advanced civilization at the time (between 2000BC and 2500BC)? Are the YECs going to dispute the historical and archaeological estimates of the Pyramids' age as well? Maybe the Egyptians were part of the vast "evolutionist" conspiracy :)

The whole thing assumes that the standard Egyptian chronology is correct, but we have good reason to think it‘s wrong. Furthermore, according to the minipedia “World Mythology: Legendary Figures and Mystical Creatures”, on page 46, they did, but it is quite different from other Flood myths. It wasn’t global, but covered a huge field in order to punish Sekhmet (who was sent to punish man).

How did Noah and his family repopulate the Earth so quickly? Some of the Egyptian pyramids were built in the centuries immediately following the imaginary global Flood; were they built by a few dozen people?

Yet again, the author assumes that standard Egyptian chronology is correct.

Also, this is actually evidence for a young existence of the human race. Please read Human population growth indicates a young earth (Talk.Origins)

Why are all the flood myths across the world so different? They love to point out that flood myths are common to many religions, but they don't like to point out how much different they are from their own flood story. That's quite odd if all those stories originate, as they claim, from a single consistent event rather than common cultural phobias such as the dissimilar armageddon stories which are also found in many religions.

Please read There are flood myths from all over the world (Talk.Origins)

Why doesn't their own Bible mention any of these other crazy errata which they attribute to the flood, such as the global catastrophism that supposedly created all of the valleys and mountains in defiance of the laws of physics, or the enormous steam geysers shooting into the sky to provide the rain water, or the devastated lifeless planet afterwards?

If this were true, then it would show that creationism is without a doubt a real science that does not rely on religion, no hands down, but the Bible DOES talk about this.

Genesis 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth — men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air — for I am grieved that I have made them."

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month — on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

How did life on Earth survive if all of the meteor impact craters were formed within the last 6000 years, as required by YEC? This also begs the question of why none of the world's cultures recorded the devastation of all these meteor impacts. There are numerous huge impact craters which betray evidence of impacts powerful enough to devastate the planet (such as the infamous "dino-killer" asteroid), and in primeval periods, some that were so powerful that they would have vapourized the oceans. The huge craters are right there for all to see, and yet we're still alive, aren't we?

Many so-called craters are not really known to be craters, but are in truth pure speculation. Some craters could be nothing more than the result of volcanism or erosional sinkholes.

Also, the “dino-killer” asteroid didn’t vaporize the ocean according to evolutionary models, but it’s nuclear fall out killed them. Under a creationist model, most, if not all, of them have their origin from rocks flown up in the air near the beginning of the Flood, so it is quite unlikely that it would cause nuclear fall out and the force behind them wouldn’t be near the amount claimed.

Please read Dinosaur extinction

Why should the story of Genesis and the Flood be taken literally when flat-Earth and Earth-centred solar system models (also derived from the Bible) have both been discarded in favour of scientific observations and theories?

Because it is backed up by science and the Bible doesn’t support the idea of a flat-earth and etc.

Please read It is not true that the church used to teach a flat earth (Talk.Origins) and this article