| Revision as of 16:48, 27 June 2007 editSilly rabbit (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,834 editsm Undid revision 140988655 by 216.125.49.252 (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:50, 27 June 2007 edit undo216.125.49.252 (talk) redirectNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #Redirect ] | |||
| {{creationism2}} | |||
| '''Flood geology''' (also '''creation geology''' or '''diluvial geology''') is a prominent subset of beliefs under the umbrella of ] that assumes the literal truth of a ] as described in the ] account of ]. For adherents, the global flood and its aftermath is believed to be the origin of most of the Earth's geological features, including ], ]ization, ], ]s, ]s, and frozen ]s. As such, flood geology is directly contradicted by ] disciplines such as ], ] and ]. | |||
| Most ] regard Genesis as providing a historically and scientifically accurate record for the ] of the ] and also believe that there exists evidence that can back up the ] of the flood. However, creationist presentations of what they believe is ] are routinely dismissed out-of-hand by the ] and as such flood geology is generally considered ]. | |||
| ==Flood geology compared to scientific geology == | |||
| Flood geology is advocated mostly by proponents of Young Earth creationism, who usually profess ] as their baseline for research. | |||
| Though flood geology is not a ], belief in a global flood was widespread in the early history of ] and ]. Evidence against this belief began to collect with scientific discoveries in the first half of the ] and the idea was abandoned as an impossibility by the middle of that century. The modern incarnation of flood geology appeared in the late ] within the ] in the ] as adherents hope to directly counter prevailing scientific notions.<ref>{{cite web | |||
| | last = Numbers | |||
| | first = R | |||
| | authorlink = Ronald L. Numbers | |||
| | coauthors = | |||
| | title = The Creationist Revival after 1961 | |||
| | work = | |||
| | publisher = | |||
| | date =2002 | |||
| | url = http://counterbalance.net/history/creatrev-frame.html | |||
| | format = | |||
| | doi = | |||
| | accessdate = 2007-03-29}}</ref> | |||
| Many scientific objections have been raised concerning the physical mechanics of flood geology. A flood of the size suggested by creationists has almost absurd physical implications. In particular, the amount of water required to cover the Earth's entire surface is enormous enough that no observed mechanism can plausibly explain where it came from or where it went. The mechanisms proposed by creationists to account for the ], ], and ] are also all firmly rejected by the scientific community. | |||
| Flood geology should not be confused with episodic ] as observed by geologists and earth scientists at many locations throughout the Earth's ~4.55 billion year natural history. Such confusion surrounded the observations of the geologist ] who discovered the ] in the ] of the United States. His observations and theories were rejected out of hand for many years by geologists and scientists on the basis that catastrophism was not science, but rather religion. Today, it is recognized by geologists that while periodic catastrophes may occur, there are ] principles at work in geologic history as well. | |||
| ==History of flood geology== | |||
| ===The great flood in the history of geology=== | |||
| The modern science of ] was founded in ] in the ]. Its practitioners sought to understand the history and shaping of the Earth through the physical evidence laid down in rocks and minerals. As many early geologists were clergymen, they naturally sought to link the geological history of the world with that set out in the ]. The ancient theory that ]s were the result of "plastic forces" within the Earth's crust had by this time been abandoned, with the recognition that they represented the remains of once-living creatures. This, though, raised a major problem: how did fossils of sea creatures end up on land, or on the tops of mountains? | |||
| As early as the ], ] thinkers had proposed that fossils represented organisms that were killed and buried during the brief duration of the Flood. This idea became commonly held, aided by the geological peculiarity that much of northern Europe is covered by layers of ] and ] as well as ] deposited hundreds of miles from their original sources. This was interpreted as being the result of massive flooding, though it is now known that they are the product of ] glaciations (an unknown phenomenon at that time). Prevailing notions of the time held that the global flood was associated with massive geographical upheavals, with old continents sinking and new ones rising, thus transforming ancient seabeds into mountain tops. | |||
| During the ], there were significant attempts made to provide natural causes for the ]s recounted in the Bible. ] explanations for a global flood can be found in such works as ''An Essay Toward a Natural History of the Earth'' (1695) by ] and ''New Theory of the Earth'' (1696) by Woodward’s student ].<ref>{{cite book|last=Porter|first=R|coauthors=Lindberg, DC & Numbers, RL|date=2003|title=The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 4, Eighteenth-Century Science|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=0-521-57243-6}}</ref> | |||
| By the early ], however, this view had fallen into disrepute. It was already thought that the Earth's lifespan was far longer than that suggested by literal readings of the Bible (an age of 75,000 years had been suggested as early as ], as against the 6,000 years proposed by Archbishop ]'s ]). ]'s promotion of ]'s ideas of ] advocated the principle that geological changes that occurred in the past may be understood by studying present-day phenomena. In common with ], Hutton assumed that the world-system had been in a steady state since the day of creation, but unlike Newton he included in this vision not only the motion of celestial bodies and processes like chemical change on earth, but also processes of geological change. Christopher Kaiser writes: | |||
| :''In other words, in comparison with Newton's, Hutton's was a higher order concept of the system of nature which included not only the present structure of the world, but the ''process'' (or ]) by which the present structure had come into existence and was maintained. As with Newton, and in contrast to materialists like ] and neomechanists like ], the ''origins'' of the system were beyond the scope of science for Hutton: in nature itself he found 'no vestige of a beginning - no prospect of an end'. But Hutton came about as close to being a neomechanist as one possibly could without changing the Newtonian framework of God and nature. Only the Newtonian stipulation that God had personally designed the present system of nature stood between natural theology and the retirement of God from science altogether... Like ] and ], Hutton believed that God had implanted active principles in nature at creation sufficient to account for all its natural functions.''<ref>{{cite book|last=Kaiser|first=CB|date=1997|title=Creational Theology and the History of Physical Science: The Creationist Tradition from Basil to Bohr|publisher=Brill Academic Publishers|isbn=90-04-10669-3|pages=290-291}}</ref> | |||
| The idea that ''all'' geological strata were produced by a single flood was rejected in ] by the Reverend ], the first professor of geology at ], who wrote: | |||
| :''Some have attempted to ascribe the formation of all the stratified rocks to the effects of the ] Deluge; an opinion which is irreconcilable with the enormous thickness and almost infinite subdivisions of these strata, and with the numerous and regular successions which they contain of the remains of animals and vegetables, differing more and more widely from existing species, as the strata in which we find them are placed at greater depths. The fact that a large proportion of these remains belong to extinct genera, and almost all of them to extinct species, that lived and multiplied and died on or near the spots where they are now found, shows that the strata in which they occur were deposited slowly and gradually, during long periods of time, and at widely distant intervals.''<ref>{{cite book|title=Geology and Mineralogy Considered With Reference to Natural Theology (History of Paleontology)|last=Buckland|first=W|publisher=Ayer Company Publishing|date=1980|isbn=978-0405127069}}</ref> | |||
| Although Buckland continued for a while to insist that ''some'' geological layers related to the Great Flood, he was forced to abandon this idea as the evidence increasingly indicated multiple inundations which occurred well before humans existed. He was convinced by the ] geologist ] that much of the evidence on which he relied was in fact the product of ancient ice ages, and became one of the foremost champions of Agassiz's theory of glaciations. Mainstream science gave up on the idea of flood geology, which required major deviations from known physical processes. | |||
| ===Emergence of flood geology=== | |||
| Flood geology was developed as a creationist endeavor in the ] by ], a ] and amateur geologist who wrote ''The New Geology'' in ] to provide an explicitly ] perspective on geology. His work was adapted and updated by ] and ] in their book '']'' in ]. Morris and Whitcomb argued that the Earth was geologically recent, that the ] had triggered the ], and that the Great Flood had laid down most of the geological strata in the space of a single year (the same model that Buckland had rejected 130 years earlier). Given this history, they argued, "the last refuge of the case for evolution immediately vanishes away, and the record of the rocks becomes a tremendous witness . . . to the holiness and justice and power of the living God of Creation!" | |||
| This became the foundation of a new generation of Young Earth creationist thinkers, who organized themselves around Morris' ]. Subsequent research by the ] has observed and analyzed, and interpreted geological formations, within a flood geology framework, including the ],<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_1/LaBrea3.htm|last=Weston|first=W|title=La Brea Tar Pits: Evidence of a Catastrophic Flood|journal=Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal|volume=40|issue=1|date=2003|pages=25-33|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> the ] in the Crimean peninsula<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/38/38_3/Crimean.htm|title=Flood Geology of the Crimean Peninsula Part I: Tavrick Formation|last=Lalomov|first=AV|date=2001|journal=Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal|volume=38|issue=3|pages=118-124|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> and ], ].<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4b.html|title=Stone Mountain Georgia: A Creation Geologist's Perspective|last=Froede|first=CR|date=1995|journal=Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal|volume=31|issue=4|pages=214|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> In each case, the creationists claimed that the flood geology interpretation had superior explanatory power than the uniformitarian explanation -- a claim totally rejected by geologists. The Creation Research Society argues that "uniformitarianism is wishful thinking".<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/notes/39/39_1/Note0206.htm|title=Surface and Subsurface Errors in Anti-Creationist Geology|date=2002|first=JK|last=Reed|coauthors=Woodmorappe, J|journal=Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal|volume=39|issue=1|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> | |||
| The impact on creationism and fundamentalist Christianity of these ideas was considerable. Armed with the backing of wealthy conservative organizations and individuals,{{Fact|date=June 2007}} Morris' brand of flood geology was widely promoted throughout the ] and overseas, with his books being translated into many other languages. Flood geology is still a major theme of modern creationism, though it (and creationism in general) is not part of ]. | |||
| == Creationist interpretations of the geologic column == | |||
| Generally, the ] and the ] are used as major pieces of evidence in the modern scientific explanation of the development and ] of life on Earth as well as a means to establish the ]. As such, a major task for many creationists is to reinterpret these pieces of scientific data in their general project of discrediting modern scientific explanations. There are three main explanations offered by different factions in the creationist community: | |||
| * The classical explanation is to deny the existence of the ]. This is the approach taken by Morris and Whitcomb in their 1961 book, '']'', and it is continued today by leading creationists such as ] and ].<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp|title=The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?|last=Woodmorappe|first=J|date=1999|journal=Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal|volume=13|issue=2|pages=77-82|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> Their main objections to the existence of the ] are (1) there are no places in the world where the entire column can be seen in one location, (2) the index fossils used to date sections of the column are increasingly found in different layers, and (3) there are numerous examples of inverted succession.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_2/ucolumn.htm|title=The Uniformitarian Stratigraphic Column—Shortcut or Pitfall for Creation Geology?|last=Reed|first=JK|coauthors=Froeede,Jr,CR|date=2003|journal=Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal|volume=40|issue=2|pages=90-98|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> | |||
| * Other creationists accept the existence of the ] and seek to interpret it in terms of a sequence of events that might have occurred during the Flood. This is the approach taken by ] creationists such as ], ] and ]. They would place the Flood/post-Flood boundary somewhere between the ]/] boundary and the ] in the ]. There is greater debate about the location of the pre-Flood/Flood boundary - some place it as high as the base of the ], others put it within the ], and some (eg. Max Hunter) argue that no pre-Flood rocks remain at all, but that the pre-Flood/Flood boundary is within the earth's ].{{Fact|date=March 2007}} | |||
| * More recently a minority of creationists (particularly in Britain) have been advocating a third possibility, known as recolonisation theory. On the basis of the Genesis text they argue that the "flood" was a 40-day event which blotted out terrestrial life and completely destroyed the land. They therefore identify this cataclysm with the ] or 'lunar cataclysm' that shook at least part of the solar system around the end of the ]. Rocks from this earliest segment of geological time are missing from Earth's rock record. The earliest part of the succeeding ] is identified with the remaining 330 days of the flood narrative. The subaqueous nature of early Archaean deposits is not inconsistent with this correlation. The fossil sequence which follows, beginning with ] and continuing with algae, the sudden colonisation of the seafloors known as the ] and the appearance of jawless and jawed fish, is interpreted as an ecological succession reflecting the first stages of recovery from the cataclysm. The order in which terrestrial fossils appear, from lichens to trees, is similarly interpreted. This approach shares some ground with geology and departs from most of the tenets of flood geology. For example, it accepts that large-scale evolution has taken place during geological history. On the other hand, it rejects ] as a driver, arguing that evolution consisted of diversification within created kinds that were programmed for diversification: the biological world, like the geological, had changeability built into it. It also accepts that the geological record built up over a substantial span of time, though it rejects the radioisotope-based timescale.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/images/1/|title=Two views of geological time|date=2007|last=Robinson|first=Steve|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> | |||
| == Geological observations and explanations == | |||
| {{Unreferencedsect|date=March 2007}} | |||
| ], a transported quartzite block in Cambrian sedimentary strata, identical to quartzite found in the Precambrian layer hundreds of feet below, which flood geology supporters argue came to rest there by means of large-scale liquefaction.]] | |||
| If the global flood actually occurred, then it would have had a radical effect on geology, and evidence of that flood would be observable today, making the idea falsifiable. Scientists hold that the evidence available is sufficient to conclusively falsify the notion of a recent global flood. | |||
| Eighty percent of the Earth's ] is covered by ]. Sedimentary rocks are formed as particles of ] ] out of air, ice, or water flows carrying the particles in ]. As sediment deposition builds up, ] squeezes the sediment into layered solids in a process known as ] ("rock formation") and the original ] are expelled. Amongst creationists there is ongoing debate about which sediments are flood sediments, which are pre-flood sediments, and which are post-flood sediments. | |||
| Some flood geology supporters have proposed that a global flood is the most reasonable explanation for the means by which sediment came to precipitate in such depth over so much of the Earth's surface. They further argue that the ] predicted by the flood can explain many geological formations they believe are left inadequately explained by geology grounded on the scientific method. | |||
| They do not assert that ''all'' geological phenomena are a result of the flood. Flood geology supporters acknowledge many geological formations were formed by other processes. However, they argue that there are a large number of geological formations which can only be explained with reference to massive cataclysmic action involving enormous amounts of water and sediment which rapidly precipitated from solution, liquefied, and dried. | |||
| This explanation has been met with much derision in the ], scientists point out that a large number of sedimentary formations are inconsistent with a short-timescale creation. Indeed, this problem was one of the principal reasons why early 19th century geologists such as William Buckland came to abandon the global flood as a sustainable hypothesis. | |||
| === Liquefaction === | |||
| ], a phenomenon commonly seen in ] and ]s, is claimed to have played a major role during the posited flood. It is argued that the resulting periods of liquefaction due to the catastrophe would cause the sediments to layer into strata. | |||
| Other processes cause the strata to bend smoothly in places to explain bends and folds, while earthquakes would still be the major cause of radical ] in others. | |||
| Flood geology proponents claim that massive liquefaction can explain phenomena such as transported blocks, sand plumes, ] and ] deposits, and ]s. | |||
| === Submarine canyon formation === | |||
| Proponents of Flood Geology argue that such ]s were formed as the floodwaters receded from the continents. Such extensions are found in the ], ], ], and ] rivers, they are generally understood to be ]s which have developed when ]s were significantly lower than today. | |||
| Creationists argue that uniformitarian explanations are inferior to flood explanations, because the submarine canyons are extremely long, deep, and the sides are steep and often vertical, and thus do not show evidence of the erosion predicted by long periods of time, and being much more consistent with a shorter time frame. This claim is unsupported by the ] description of ] processes which allow for a wide variety of formations to occur over the (relatively) long timeframes seen in scientific descriptions of such formations. | |||
| These are explained in the scientific model as being due to persistent water flow which creates over a period of thousands if not millions of years structural breaks in the ]. These fractures are even modeled in geological simulations which show the processes occurring as described by scientists. | |||
| === Fossilization === | |||
| Counter to the scientific understanding of fossilization, creationists claim that ]s are evidence of the flood, where the remains of many of the Earth's lifeforms were quickly buried by sediments in the short period of the flood. In support of their argument, flood geology supporters point to the fact that fossilization can only take place when the matter is buried quickly so that the matter does not decompose. They also point to a recent discovery of '']'' bones in which, after demineralization, ] having the appearance of tissue were found. The bones cannot be reasonably understood to have survived for millions of years without the soft tissue either decomposing or fossilizing. However, an expert in ancient biomolecules has proposed a novel unknown mechanism for this unusual find: "My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm|title=''T. rex'' fossil has 'soft tissues'|publisher=BBC News|date=2005|accessdate=2007-03-29}}; quote attributed to Dr. Matthew Collins, ], UK</ref> | |||
| Fossil dating by using ]s is rejected, because fossils are dated with reference to uniformitarian assumptions regarding the rate at which the sediments were laid down. They argue that there is no reason that these assumptions must be held, that the evidence could just as easily be interpreted as rapid sedimentation during a recent flood, and if the sediments were laid down quickly, fossil dating methods are meaningless. This ignores the fact that fossil dating (]) was a strictly relative dating method until the advent of ]. Until then, there were no assumptions about deposition rate involved. Relative dating –''i.e.'' this section is older/younger than that one – only requires the ]. ] and evolution rates proved to be congruent with the timespans obtained from radiometric dating.{{Fact|date=June 2007}} | |||
| === Fossil fuels === | |||
| Flood geology supporters argue that the existence of large ] deposits are the result of the flood's accumulation and subsequent subsurface compression of large amounts of dead plant matter. They argue that this explains how so much organic matter came to be buried and pooled beneath enormous amounts of sediment before the organic matter decomposed, and explains how the sediments came to quickly dry into sedimentary rock atop the fossil fuels. | |||
| The scientific theory of ] formation holds that they were formed when layers of accumulating sediment covered ancient organic debris. Most such debris is destroyed at the earth's surface by oxidation or by being digested by microorganisms, but organic material that survives to become buried under sediments, or deposited in other oxygen-poor environments, can be subjected, over millions of years, to increasing temperatures and pressures and undergo chemical transformations resulting in petroleum, natural gas, or coal. Deposits of these fossil fuels typically occur in sedimentary basins and along continental shelves. Sediments may accumulate to depths of several thousand feet and in these conditions organic material is subjected to pressures of tens of thousands of pounds per square inch and temperatures of several hundred degrees. The ], during which the land was covered with swamps filled with huge trees, ferns and other large leafy plants, is the time in which most fossil fuels were formed. It occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago. Some deposits of coal can be dated to the late ], 65 million years ago. | |||
| === Fossil layering === | |||
| The ordering of fossil layers is often used as evidence for the scientific explanation of geological features. Flood geology tries to explain that while ]s never share the same layers as ]s, this is not due to temporal separation of the organisms. Instead an unspecified and unmodeled "hydraulic sorting action" is claimed to be able to sort out fossils according to their shape, density, size, and the gases released from the body after death. This is claimed to account for the layering observed as reported by Walt Brown of the Center for Scientific Creation: | |||
| :"In an unpublished experiment at Loma Linda University, a dead bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian were placed in an open water tank. Their buoyancy in the days following death depended on their density while living, the build-up and leakage of gases from their decaying bodies, the absorption or loss of water by their bodies, and other factors. That experiment showed that the natural order of settling following death was amphibian, reptile, mammal, and finally bird. This order of relative buoyancy correlates closely with 'the evolutionary order,' but, of course, evolution did not cause it." | |||
| Others have proposed that more "advanced" animals were better able to escape the rising flood waters, so that they were not overtaken until later. This idea is criticized by scientists as untenable since there are "advanced" and "simple" animals found throughout the entire fossil record. | |||
| In general, there is a lack of any evidence for any of the above effects proposed by flood geologists and their claims of fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists.<ref name="Isaak">{{cite web|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html|title=Problems with a Global Flood|last=Isaak|first=M|date=1998|publisher=|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> | |||
| === Frozen mammoths === | |||
| <!-- Unsourced image removed: ], nicknamed Dima, found enclosed in a lens of ice six feet below the surface in Siberia in 1977, with grass and sand still in its mouth.]] --> | |||
| According to scientists, the giant ]s went extinct about 11,000 years ago, although remnant populations are believed to have persisted on an island off the coast of ] based on fossil remains dated to about 2000 BC.<ref>{{cite journal|last = Vartanyan|first = SL|title = Radiocarbon Dating Evidence for Mammoths on Wrangel Island, Arctic Ocean, until 2000 BC|journal = Radiocarbon|pages = 1-6|url = http://www.radiocarbon.org/Journal/v37n1/vartanyan.html|volume=37|issue=1|date=1995|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> Some proponents of Flood Geology have claimed that this extinction is evidence of catastrophism because certain mammoths have been found with grass in their mouths. Proponents of the ] flood model claim it can explain these mammoth remains. They argue mammoths were suddenly frozen solid when large quantities of water vapour in the atmosphere were deposited as ice at the poles. Scientists do not view the few instances of grass in the mouths of frozen mammoth carcasses as sufficient evidence for a global catastrophe. Moreover, the extraordinary temperatures needed to quick-freeze a mammoth are way below any temperature ever measured on earth and the idea of a canopy itself is considered so extreme as to cause the surface of the Earth to have the conditions of a pressure boiler before the flood. | |||
| However, there are so many problems with this that even the Young Earth Creationist ministry ] states that it is an argument that should not be used.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp|title=Arguments we think creationists should NOT use|date=2007|publisher=|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> Rather, they claim that mammoths and the surrounding circumstances are best explained by radical climate change in a supposed ice-age following the flood, although that answer is not to be found in Genesis. Other creationists counter that there is no evidence for an ] before 10,000 years ago. Science, however, recognises a large number of earlier Ice Ages, with the earliest so far identified occurring 2.3 billion years ago. | |||
| == Proposed mechanisms of the flood == | |||
| For the cause of the flood, Genesis states only that God deliberately caused the flood, indicating that the cause of the flood was supernatural in origin. Beyond that, the account states that the "fountains of the great deep" broke open and the "windows of heaven" were opened, which brought the flood. It rained for 40 days, but the waters continued to rise for 110 more days, indicating that there was another water-source, probably the subterranean "fountains of the great deep." The waters then slowly began to recede amidst a "great wind," until the ark came to rest on the mountains of ] (not necessarily Mount Ararat, but the mountains in that region). Beyond that account of the events, creationists have very little basis for determining exactly what caused the flood. | |||
| At least four separate explanations have been proposed for the mechanism that caused the flood: | |||
| *That the water may have come from an ice comet that melted when it hit the Earth's atmosphere. | |||
| * ], proposed by mechanical engineer ], Director of the Center for Scientific Creation, are the concept that the Earth was originally created with a great deal of subterranean water, and that the flood was brought on when the crust of the Earth was cracked, allowing this water to escape violently to the surface, and broke the surface into "hydroplates" which rapidly divided during and after the flood.<ref>{{cite book|author=Brown, W|date=2001|title=In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood|publisher=Center for Scientific Creation|page=105|isbn=1-878026-08-9}}</ref> | |||
| * The Runaway ] model or ], proposed by geophysicist ], and supported by the ] and ]. This holds that rapid plunge of the original continental plates into the ] could have heated silicates to a temperature at which ] motion would have happened extremely quickly. Proponents point to subducted slabs in the mantle which are still relatively cool, which they regard as evidence that they have not been there for millions of years of temperature equilibration.<ref>{{cite conference|last=Baumgardner|first=JR|date=2003|url=http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCcpt.html|title=CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: THE PHYSICS BEHIND THE GENESIS FLOOD|booktitle=Fifth International Conference on Creationism|acessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> | |||
| * In addition, a ] was proposed by Henry Morris in his book ''The Genesis Flood'' in the 1960s. It holds that a canopy of water vapor existed over the atmosphere prior to the flood, and that the floodwaters were brought on when this vapor canopy collapsed. This model has been rejected by many creationists, including the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#canopy|title=What arguments are doubtful, hence, inadvisable to use? Canopy theory|date=2007|publisher=|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> founded by Henry Morris himself, but is still accepted by some. | |||
| Others propose that the continental motion occurred about 100 years after the Flood, when the Bible records that during the lifetime of ], "the Earth was divided". But ] argues that this was the ''linguistic'' division at the Tower of Babel.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#peleg|title=“Earth’s division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents.”|date=2007|publisher=|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> | |||
| == Theological basis == | |||
| Flood geology starts from the viewpoint that the Biblical '']'' is an accurate and impartial description of actual historical events. | |||
| The idea that Genesis is literally accurate is not universally held within ], being associated principally with Protestant fundamentalist and evangelical sects in the United States. The ] and the ], for instance, both regard Genesis as being a non-literal description of the Earth's creation. Indeed, the literalness of Genesis had been rejected in Jewish thought as early as the ] by ] and the ] by ] in Christian thought. Although Origen was followed by the ] and such ] as ], the ], which preferred a more literal interpretation of Scripture, was always numerically superior.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm |title=The History of Genesis and the Creation Stories |author=Linder, Doug |year=2004 |work=Famous Trials: Tennessee vs. John Scopes, The "Monkey Trial" |publisher=University of Missouri—Kansas City School of Law}}</ref> | |||
| Opponents of flood geology within the church such as ] argue that it and ], as well as ] err in reducing all truth to scientific truth. Gilkey’s key claim is that these endeavors confuse religion’s language of ultimate origins with scientific theories about proximate origins and as a result give the impression that independent domains of knowledge are competing exhaustive explanations of reality.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gilkey|first=L|date=2001|title=Blue Twilight: Nature, Creationism, and American Religion|publisher=Augsburg Fortress Publishers|isbn=0-8006-3294-X}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Pleins|first=JD|date=2003|title=When the Great Abyss Opened: Classic and Contemporary Readings of Noah's Flood|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn= 0-19-515608-0}}</ref> Others regard flood geology as both unscientific and an impediment to ].<ref>{{cite book|last=Goff|first=P|last=Harvey|first=P|date=2004|title=Themes in Religion and American Culture|publisher=University of North Carolina Press|isbn=0-8078-5559-6}}</ref> | |||
| == Comparison with geology == | |||
| {{Unreferencedsect|date=March 2007}} | |||
| {{weasel}} | |||
| Modern ] relies on a number of established principles, one of the most important of which is Charles Lyell's principle of ]. In relation to geological forces it states that the shaping of the Earth has occurred by means of mostly slow-acting forces that can be seen in operation today. By applying this principle, geologists have determined that the Earth is some ]. They study the ] of the Earth to gain information on the history of the planet. Geologists divide ] into ], ], ], ], and ] characterized by well-defined breaks in the ] (see ]). | |||
| By contrast, creation geology relies on the Biblical account to define three key eras of history: | |||
| * The original creation of the Earth by God, in which God separated the land from the primordial waters as recorded in Genesis 1:9. Some creationists have asserted that this original dry land corresponds to a type of ]. | |||
| * A ] which lasted for a year and occurred between 4500-6000 years ago, and altered or destroyed many antediluvian geological formations and species. | |||
| * The years between the end of the flood and the present day, during which geological phenomena behaved in much the same way as they do today. | |||
| In general, the geological record of Earth is divided by flood geology supporters into four main stages: | |||
| * The lowest levels of sediments would be rocks and sediments formed during creation week, when God caused the dry land to appear. These sediments should be devoid of all fossils, as nothing existed to be fossilised. | |||
| * Next would be sediments formed in the time between Creation week and the Flood, a period of 1700 years according to Biblical chronology. These would comprise only a tiny part of the geological record. | |||
| * The bulk of the geological record would have been laid down during the year-long Flood, which began with violent eruptions of water. These should show evidence not of a calm flood leaving a layer of silt, but of large tectonic upheavals, massive erosion, deposition, and transport, and reworking of sediments more than once. It would also include the mass burial of many creatures. | |||
| * Above the flood sediments would be evidence of minor post-flood catastrophes, a relatively recent ice age, and normal geological processes as we see occurring today. | |||
| ] (or ]) continue to search for evidence in the natural world that they consider to be consistent with the above description, such as evidence of rapid formation. For example, there have been claims of raindrop marks and water ripples at layer boundaries, sometimes associated with the claimed fossilized footprints of men and dinosaurs walking together. Most of this evidence has been debunked by scientists<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html|last=Shadewald|first=Robert|date=1986|title=Scientific Creationism and Error|journal=Creation/Evolution|volume=6|issue=1|pages=1-9|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> and some have been shown to be fakes.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html|title=The "Burdick Print"|first=GJ|last=Kuban|date=1996|publisher=|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> Creationists highlight unexplained phenomena in order to point out what they see as inconsistencies in the scientific view, and they often profess a general incredulity about geological mechanisms of ], ], and ] formation. | |||
| Believers in Flood Geology also point out that ] can be found in many cultures, places and religions, not just in the Bible; this, they suggest, is evidence of an actual event in the historic past because local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html|title=Flood Legends from Around the World|publisher=|accessdate=2007-06-27}}</ref> Anthropologists generally reject this view and highlight the fact that much of the human population lives near water sources such as rivers and coasts, where unusually severe floods can be expected to occur occasionally and will be recorded in tribal mythology.{{cn}} Geologists ] and ] have suggested that a massive local flood in the ] area, or possibly even the huge rise in sea levels at the end of the last ], may be responsible for the preponderance of the flood myths in the Near East and across the world.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html|publisher=]|title=Balard and the Black Sea: the search for Noah's flood|year=1999|accessdate=2007-06-27}}</ref> | |||
| Most{{cn}} creationists believe that the Earth prior to the global flood was significantly different from the Earth today. The ] is explained as a record of the pre-flood Earth, with most of the fossils being formed during the forty-day catastrophe and the ensuing 110 days of global flooding. The principles used by geology to characterize the development of the layers in the lithosphere and the fossil record over time are rejected. | |||
| == Age of the Earth == | |||
| {{main|Age of the Earth}} | |||
| Most believers in ] – a position held by the majority of proponents of flood geology – accept the ]{{Fact|date=February 2007}} which in turn is based on the ] version of the ]. They believe that God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, in the space of six days. Much of creation geology is devoted to debunking the dating methods used in ], ], and ] that give ages in conflict with the young Earth theories. In particular, creationists dispute the reliability of ] and ] analysis, both of which are central to geological theories of the age of the Earth. They usually dispute these methods based on uncertainties concerning initial concentrations of individually considered species and the associated measurement uncertainties caused by ] of the parent and daughter isotopes. However, a full critique of the entire parameter-fitting analysis, which relies on dozens of radionuclei parent and daughter pairs, has not been done by creationists hoping to cast doubt on the technique. | |||
| Radiometric dating analysis indicates that the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. Young Earth creationists reject these ages on the grounds of what they regard as being tenuous and untestable assumptions in the methodology. Apparently inconsistent radiometric dates are often quoted to cast doubt on the utility and accuracy of the method. Scientists who get involved in this ] point out that dating methods only rely on the assumptions that the ] governing ] have not been violated since the sample was formed (harking back to Lyell's doctrine of ]). They also point out that the "problems" that creationists publicly mentioned can be shown to either not be problems at all, are issues with known contamination, or simply the result of incorrectly evaluating legitimate data. | |||
| Creationists do not claim to have a scientifically verifiable method for dating the Earth, and instead rely solely on Biblical chronologies. | |||
| == Counterpoints == | |||
| {{Unreferencedsect|date=March 2007}} | |||
| === Water source === | |||
| If the flood were a global flood, a source of water would need to be found which could provide such a deluge. Flood geology supporters have proposed several sources at different times: (1) a ] in the upper atmosphere; (2) a comet strike; (3) the Earth's crust was much flatter, requiring less water in order to cover the face of the planet; and (4), subterranean water sources.<ref name="Isaak"/> | |||
| ====Vapor canopy==== | |||
| The proposed ] suggested a layer of water vapor in the upper atmosphere which, triggered by a meteoroid, caused a giant rain shower and so contributed to the flood. However, such a volume of water held suspended in the atmosphere would give rise to an atmospheric pressure in the order of nine atmospheres. The atmospheric temperature would also have to be extremely high to prevent the saturated atmosphere from condensing. The vapor canopy model has lost favour and is no longer accepted by most creationist scientists.<ref name="Isaak"/> | |||
| ====Comet strike==== | |||
| Had the Earth been struck by a comet providing enough water for a great deluge, gravitational heating would have boiled the water and nothing would have survived; any unprotected life on the surface would have been ]. | |||
| ====Subterranean water deposits==== | |||
| Water is less dense than rock; therefore, scientists claim, it would be forced to the surface long before the date of the flood. They add that at any significant depth beneath the surface of the Earth, the water would have been boiled, causing giant steam plumes which would be further heated by falling back to earth. | |||
| ====Crust transformation==== | |||
| Some flood geology supporters have proposed that the Earth's surface was much flatter in the past, thus allowing a much smaller volume of water to cover the planet. However, in order for the Earth's crust to reach its present form from such a flat stage over the past four thousand years, geologists point out, a tremendous amount of work would be required by a mechanism unstated by creationists. They point out that heating caused by the raising of the mountains and the lowering of the sea in about 150 days would be enough to raise oceanic temperatures on the order of 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit). | |||
| ===Geological evidence=== | |||
| ]; geologists do not believe the Rockies share erosion traits consistent with a great flood - erosion would be expected equal to the Appalachian Mountains, shown at left.]] | |||
| ] show an immense level of erosion. Geologists assert that if a flood had occurred, similar erosion should be found in the Rocky Mountains, shown at right.]] | |||
| Geologists claim that the flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly.<ref name="Isaak"/> However, different regions of the Flood need not have the same erosional intensities, because that depends on depth and gradient as well as rock hardness. | |||
| ===Archaeological evidence=== | |||
| Archaeology proves to be a potent source of evidence. Flood geology claims that the current sedimentary layers were produced by liquefaction, and that objects caught in the flood (including living creatures) were sorted by mass and location at the time when the flood engulfed them. However, archaeologists state that if this sorting actually took place, heavy, dense objects (such as human artifacts) would be expected to sink to the bottom. In actuality, man-made artifacts are very close to the top of the sedimentary layers. | |||
| Furthermore, archaeologists claim that a number of ancient cultures (such as those of ], Egypt and Mesopotamia), are older than the alleged date of the Flood, and that the flood would have destroyed much of the evidence of these civilisations and deeply buried the rest. Creationists don't dispute the latter point - they reject the dates of those civilisations. Archaeologists claim that these methods of dating have been verified time and time again (see ]). They also point out that carbon dating methods are entirely independent of the detailed records kept by those civilizations. See ] and ]. | |||
| ===Paleontological evidence=== | |||
| If fossilization took place extremely quickly during the Flood, then — paleontologists assert — fossilized remains should be far more numerous and widespread than is actually seen. | |||
| Furthermore, if creatures were differentiated by body size and density, then massive dinosaurs such as '']'' and '']'' should be found near the top sediments, rather than in sediments containing all the other Jurassic dinosaurs. | |||
| Additionally, paleontologists note that if all the fossilized animals were killed in the flood, and the flood is responsible for fossilization, then the average density of vertebrates was an abnormally high number, close to 2100 creatures per acre, judging from ] found worldwide.<ref>Schadewald, R. (1982) . ''Creation/Evolution'' '''9''', 12-17.</ref> | |||
| ===Grass evidence=== | |||
| One example of fossil distribution that is hard to explain for flood geology is the distribution of grass. Grass leaves, grass seeds and grass pollen are found only in the upper layers of the geological column. The conventional explanation is the relatively recent evolution of grasses. Since wet grass readily sinks, it is unlikely that natural sorting would lead to the observed distribution of plant fossils in the geological column. | |||
| ==Philosophical objections== | |||
| The scientific community objects to Flood Geology, and Creationism in general, on philosophical grounds as well as scientific ones. Perhaps the most fervent objection is grounded in ]. Occam's razor is a principle of parsimony formulated so as to "slice out" redundant assumptions from scientific theories: "It is vain to do with more what can be done with less." Therefore, say scientists, because science can comprehensively describe the relevant data, flood geology, which inherently requires on God, is redundant because of its underlying assumption of divine intervention. See ] for a more thorough discussion. | |||
| Scientists also object to Flood Geology on methodological grounds: they point out that flood geology supporters approach geology with the initial purpose of finding evidence for a worldwide flood, rather than looking at the evidence and then formulating a conclusion. To cement this point, they note that the ] recounts that geologists had looked at the evidence for a worldwide flood in the century before Darwin, and found it lacking, dismissing it in favor of uniformitarian models.<ref name="Isaak"/> | |||
| As a result of these objections, the scientific community considers Flood Geology and Creationism a form of religiously-based ]. | |||
| == Footnotes == | |||
| {{reflist|2}} | |||
| ==References== | |||
| * Brown, Walt, ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood,'' 2001. | |||
| * Dubrovo, N. A. et al., “Upper Quaternary Deposits and Paleogeography of the Region Inhabited by the Young Kirgilyakh Mammoth,” ''International Geology Review'', Vol. 24, No. 6, June 1982, p. 630. | |||
| * Hapgood, Charles H. ''The Path of the Pole'' (Philadelphia: Chilton Book Company, 1970), p. 267. | |||
| * Howorth, Henry H. ''The Mammoth and the Flood'' (London: Samson Low, Marston, Searle, and Rivington, 1887), pp. 2–4, 74–75. | |||
| * M. Huc, ''Recollections of a Journey through Tartary, Thibet , and China, During the Years 1844, 1845, and 1846''. Vol. 2 (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1852), pp. 130–131. | |||
| * H. Neuville, “On the Extinction of the Mammoth,” Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1919. | |||
| * Numbers, R.L. 1991. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, Berkely: University of California Press. | |||
| * E. W. Pfizenmayer, ''Siberian Man and Mammoth'', translated from ] by Muriel D. Simpson (London: Black & Son Limited, 1939). | |||
| * Ukraintseva, Valentina V. ''Vegetation Cover and Environment of the “Mammoth Epoch” in Siberia'' (Hot Springs, South Dakota: The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, 1993), pp. 12–13. | |||
| == See also == | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| ===Evidence For and Against === | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ===Flood geology sites=== | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * - Richard M. Davidson - John Nevin Andrews Professor of Old Testament Interpretation - Old Testament Department - Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| === Sites critical of Flood Geology === | |||
| * and . Old earth creationist websites explaining the problems of young earth flood geology. | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| *, adapted from the book ''The Biblical Flood'' by Davis A. Young, ISBN 0-8028-0719-4 | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 16:50, 27 June 2007
Redirect to: