1. The history of “flood geology”To understand and evaluate “flood geology”, it is important first to understand its roots. “flood geology” is nothing more or less than a very recent manifestation of what shall here be termed radical diluvialism. “Diluvialism” is a universally recognized term for the belief that fossils are the remains of organisms left behind by a single, global flood. “Radical diluvialism” is here used to denote specifically the belief that this flood transformed the Earth’s surface, producing most of the features of the Earth’s current surface (mountains, rock formations, rivers, etc.) The main question to be considered here is how long radical diluvialism has really existed, and how much its original proponents were true to the religious and cultural ideas of current flood geologists.

Proto-diluvialismThe fundamental idea of a single catastrophe as the source of Earth’s geology is about as old as geology itself, appearing in pagan writings centuries before Christ. Greco-Roman authors were curious about geology (Pliny the Elder lost his life in a research/rescue mission to Pompeii), and made some creditable observations about the role of water in shaping the Earth’s surface. It was recognized that some rocks were somehow formed by water, that existing rocks were eroded by water, and that sea levels were subject to change. Proceeding from these bare observations, pagan authorities divided into what would in later ages be called uniformitarian and catastrophist camps. Some, like Herodotus and Aristotle, held that the world’s geography and geology were created by steady and generally slow changes over very long periods of time. Others, including Xenophanes, Lucretius and Seneca, held that the world as it exists was created by a singular catastrophe in the relatively recent past, sometimes identified with a world-wide flood, and that the only subsequent change had been steady erosion. The latter school will answer the description of the first diluvialists.

Diluvialism probably entered the Christian tradition in the second century AD. Earlier precedents could be argued through Revelations 6:12-18, which in describing earthquakes altering the Earth’s surface can be said to reflect the general idea of catastrophist geology. But John’s thought falls short of diluvialism, in that no reference is made to any similar calamity in the past. On the contrary, Revelations 16:18 explicitly denies a historic precedent: “No earthquake like it has ever occurred since man has been on the earth, so tremendous was the quake.” On the basis of this passage, it must be concluded (at the very least) that radical diluvialism represents teachings which were unknown to Jesus’ original followers.

The first major Christian thinker who can clearly be established as a diluvialist was Tertullian, who cited fossils as relics of the Deluge. However, he does not attribute all geologic features to it, and so was not a radical diluvialist. He cites what he considers diluvial fossils as evidence that “even the highlands were covered,” implying that the mountains themselves existed before the Flood. He clearly failed to appreciate that fossils have to be at least as old as the rocks they are found in. Other early Christian supporters of some form of diluvialism prior to ca. 1000 AD were Severian of Gabala, Eusebius, John Philoponus and Rabanus Maurus.

Diluvialism has sometimes been characterized as an “official” position of the Catholic church, that is, the branch of the church that evolved into Roman Catholicism, particularly in the Medieval period. In fact, of the figures listed above, only Rabanus Maurus, a German, came from western Europe, and several had strained relationships with the church at large. Tertullian was an iconoclastic figure, most closely affiliated with the Montanists, an early apocalyptic sect similar to what we know as pentecostalism. Eusebius, though a chronicler in the court of Constantine, was not from Europe and came under scrutiny at the Council of Nicea because of his associations with the heretic Arius. John Philoponus was directly condemned as a heretic after his death, his works being declared anathema in 681. Based on this data, it is quite conceivable that, while diluvialism presumably received early notice by (proto) Roman Catholic authorities, it never enjoyed lasting favor among them, and by the Medieval period may have been neglected to the point of being forgotten. It may also be suggested that apparent revivals of interest are owed either to rediscovery of old texts, or reintroductions from areas outside the west where diluvialism might have circulated with more favor.

Medieval and Renaissance Diluvialism The limited record of diluvialism in Catholic Europe was especially poor from the Middle Ages onward. This can be attributed to several factors. First, Western authorities increasingly doubted whether fossils were the remains of real organisms. Instead, it was widely suggested that they were somehow spontaneously generated in existing rock. Second, there was increasing support for the Aristotelian premise of gradual geologic change, most notably from the Averroeist school of the Middle Ages. Third, and perhaps most significantly, it was even then widely believed that the Flood was scientifically inexplicable. For example, Albertus Magnus, the most famous Medieval authority on geology, bluntly stated that a global Deluge was “impossible according to nature”. This was actually a conclusion that everyone could live with, since any scientific dilemma could be escaped simply by treating the Deluge as miraculous. In this context, anyone who sought evidence or explanations for the Deluge in the natural sciences would have risked attack from academia and clergy alike.

Nevertheless, there are at least three sources from ca. 1000-1500 that can be considered witnesses to circulation of diluvialist ideas- all from Italy, no less. The most widely noted is Ristoro d’Arezzo (1222-1282). His work presents a notable innovation: He describes mountains as products of the Deluge because they contain diluvial fossils. This is a significant step toward a modern understanding of stratigraphy. Another work which at least suggests a catastrophist influence is Dante Alighieri. Inferno refers several times to the terrestrial and infernal landscape being changed by Biblical catastrophes, NOT including the Deluge. The most notable is in the final canto, where, in a weird preview of plate tectonics, he describes Earth’s continents moving after Satan’s fall from heaven. It is doubtful whether Dante himself ever meant for this to be taken seriously as science, but it might well reflect more serious suggestions from diluvialists or other catastrophists. Finally, at the beginning of the 1500s, Leonardo da Vinci composed detailed refutations of diluvialism, with a thoroughness which would be difficult to explain unless there were serious, educated defenders of diluvialism to respond to.

Martin Luther: Founder of “flood geology”?For purposes of discussion, the history of diluvialism as a full-fledged system of geology can be said to begin with Martin Luther’s 1544 Genesis commentary. Regarding the effects of the Deluge on the Earth’s surface, Luther made the following comments: “Paradise, closed because of the sin of man, was then completely devastated and destroyed to the extent that no trace of it remained visible.... Thus, after the Flood were found mountains, where earlier there were fields in a pleasant plain; similarly, it is clear that there are now water sources where once there were none, and vice versa... The area of the Red sea was earlier a fertile field and, as is likely, a portion of the Garden. And the other gulfs, the Persian, the Arabian etc. are like vestiges of the flood.”

A striking thing about Luther’s commentary is that it clearly does not reflect a climate of widespread support for diluvial geology. He does not cite a single author, past or present, who held comparable views about the Flood. By all appearances, Luther proposed his system independent of any prior texts or traditions. (Of course, justifying his views according to earlier Catholic authorities would have been the least of his concerns!) Even more significantly, in his commentary on Genesis 2, he repeatedly speaks critically of commentators (particularly Origen) who believed that they could use this passage to find the Garden of Eden on a modern map.

Luther’s treatment of the pagan philosopher Aristotle casts an interesting light on his views about earth science. By Luther’s time, the “Aristotelian” view of geology had strengthened, to the point that it was openly supported by some top Catholic authorities. When Luther broke away from the church, he very specifically charged the Catholics with unacceptable compromises between Christianity and Aristotle. While there is (to the best of this author’s knowledge) no record of him making this charge about Aristotelian geology in particular, it is natural to suppose that his not-unjustified distrust of Aristotle’s body of work played a role in his choice of diluvialism instead. This would explain why virtually all further historic works on diluvialism came from Protestant circles, whereas the Catholics actively opposed it.

1643-1700: Diluvialism’s golden ageDespite the endorsement of Luther, diluvial geology did not come into its own immediately. For example, Bernard Palissy, a Protestant writer on geology in the late 1500s, firmly rejected diluvialism as scientifically unsound. He maintained, like Leonardo, that fossils were formed from aquatic animals that died of routine causes within stable environments. He also argued that the Deluge was an eruption of fresh water rather than a rising of the oceans. Finally, he pointed out quite astutely that, as the Deluge waters receded, remains of its victims would have been carried off of what is now dry land, most likely coming to rest somewhere on the ocean floor. By the 1600s, extreme diluvial effects like those claimed by Luther were also being challenged on Biblical grounds, as inconsistent with what Genesis reported about the Flood and the pre-Flood world. (See next chapter.) These critics articulated a “tranquil deluge” view, which held that the Deluge had covered the Earth without substantially changing its surface, based in no small part on the Genesis description of Eden (see next chapter). There were also some who suggested that the Deluge was actually local in extent.

Modern diluvialism did not come into its own until the mid- to late 1600s, when it figured prominently in a series of publications commonly nicknamed “the theories of the Earth”. A 1643 publication by Descartes was the first of this wave of publications. Descartes proposed that the Earth’s surface had originally been smooth, but natural contraction had fractured its crust to produce mountains, seas and other features. This argument was made without any reference to the Bible, or even to a flood. In a sarcastic flourish, the philosopher stated that this was only a fantasy, because the Earth was created as it is supernaturally.

The work of Descartes was openly used by Steno, universally regarded as a pivotal figure in the development of geology. In his work Prodromus, Steno formally described laws by which geologic formations and structures to be dated relative to each other, principles still universally used today. He was nominally a diluvialist, but clearly skeptical of the short time scale required by a strictly literal reading of the Biblical Flood narrative. Rather than insisting on the Genesis time scale of one year at most, he wrote, “Whether the waters receded suddenly or over the course of many centuries... nothing definite can be said.” He also refused to use the Deluge to minimize other historical causes, saying that “in the last four thousand years, many and varied (geologic) changes have undoubtedly occured.” It is, incidentally, worth noting that Steno was the only Catholic contributor to 17th-century diluvialism. Since he was a convert to Catholicism living in a Protestant land, he may be regarded as an exception that proves a rule.

Diluvialism reached its peak near the close of the 17th century in the works of Thomas Burnet, Woodward and William Whiston. These three men are in all likelihood the most successful historic proponents of diluvial geology, and are certainly the best-known to historians. All three treated the Deluge as the central cause of change on the Earth’s surface. Their systems were fairly diverse. Burnet offered nothing more or less than a recapitulation of Descartes, while Whiston and Woodward added the supposition that the

Earth’s crust had been reformed. The latter two disagreed on the extent of this reformation. Woodward assumed that the Earth’s entire crust had been dissolved and reformed, while Whiston proposed that only an upper portion had been thus affected. In addition, Whiston proposed that the Earth had originally been surrounded by a translucent “water canopy”, a contention repeated by many flood geologists. It is Whiston who comes closest to modern “flood geology”.

As historians invariably point out, none of these men had the slightest allegiance to a literal reading of the Bible. In fact, they can fairly be described as highly liberal. Woodward openly stated that he relied on the work of Seneca, as well as Genesis, to devise his system. Burnet argued in print that the Genesis accounts of creation and the fall were to be interpreted alegorically. Whiston was actually condemned and removed from clerical office on the charge of Arianism!

Diluvialism after 1800Even in their own time, these few “theorists” were unable to raise much support for their views in academic circles. They won only a few scientists to their cause, and were roundly condemned by such noted and diverse authorities as Linneus, Lavoisier and Buffon. Buffon is a good candidate for the last historic authority of science to bother even to refute diluvialism in any depth. The reception from the clergy may have been even worse. Myriad objections were raised, and many viewed the attempt to explain or prove the Deluge with science as impious and materialistic. Not surprisingly, the Catholics were especially hostile. For example, the French authority Pere Castel wrote, “It is a fitting punishment that, in abandoning a sane theology, they have arrived at a miserable physics.”

Despite such overwhelmingly negative responses (or perhaps because of them!), there was a steady stream of diluvialist publications into at least the 1820s. There was also continued interest in the Biblical Deluge from mainstream scientists, particularly Cuvier and Buckland. The latter published the last well-known, professional scientific work to attribute specific geologic phenomena to the Deluge. By 1835, Buckland himself had recanted. As Charles Lyell agressively promoted uniformitarianism, with an emphasis on known forces acting over long periods of time, scientists quickly backed away from catastrophism in general. Any remaining academic enthusiasm for the Deluge seemed to vanish after 1850. The most striking indicator of its failure was Phillip Gosse’s (in)famous publication Omphalos. In this, the last well-known defense of a young Earth from a successful “mainstream” science writer, Gosse did sincerely what Descartes before him had done sarcastically: reject any and all natural and historical explanations of geology in favor of supernatural ones. He maintained that, while God did create the Earth in six days only a few thousand years ago, as per the most literal readings of Genesis 1, He also created the very geologic features which give the Earth an appearance of a much longer history. While by no means the first use of the “appearance of age” argument, Gosse’s work is still the quintessential example, and also provides the apt and succinct name of diachronism. It was also an effective admission that, even if the literalist reading of Genesis were true, there was no way that science could “prove” it or even by harmonized with it on science’s own terms.

The next phase in diluvialism’s history represents a very dramatic change in its character. In the late 1800s, the cause was taken up by the American Ellen G. White and her followers in what became the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination. This denomination held a rather paradoxical theology, simultaneously emphasizing strict fidelity to Old Testament commands and modern-day prophecy. Science and academia were viewed with great suspicion: White once declared that “the words of learned men must be strained for any hint of infidel suggestion.” She regularly experienced “visions” which she believed were divinely-inspired revelations. Her ideas regarding the Deluge apparently came from these experiences. On appraisal, they are no more than a recapitulation of the “theories of the Earth”, tainted by the blunders and naivete of even earlier diluvialists. In particular, she supposed that modern mountains were ruins of

larger ones existing before the flood, and that fossil animals had somehow been buried in pre-existing strata after the Deluge.

These writings lead directly to the founder of modern flood geology, G.M. Price. Price had barely any formal education beyond a high school level, and apparently none at all in the field of geology. This did not stop him from reviving diluvialism wholesale in the 1924 tome The New Geology. Though he had nothing to offer that had not been proposed in the 1600s, he insisted on a clean break with the “theorists” of that period, dismissing them as “travesties against the Bible and true science alike.” He achieved little impact outside the circles of the Adventists, and even there, those with a reasonable grasp of geology quickly dismissed his ideas. It did not help his cause when he proved unable to perform basic tasks in geology in the field.

While Price labored in vain, an interesting side-branch of the diluvialist lineage emerged and briefly thrived: the “theories” of Immanuel Velikovsky, who reportedly corresponded with Price. However, though he showed a transparent interest in justifying particular readings of Scripture, Velikovsky relied far more on secular rather than sectarian arguments and methods. He attributed remarkable (in fact, impossible) effects to a variety of Biblical events, from the Deluge to Joshua making the sun stand still in the sky. His works were published by the respected Macmillan and Doubleday companies. The former withdrew his titles from print after an impressive array of scientists threatened to boycott the company’s textbooks. Thus ended the last penetration of the diluvialist tradition into any form of mainstream academia.

Returning to Price, he founded several short-lived societies. One of these was attended by a very young man named Henry Morris. Twenty years later, Morris corresponded with John Whitcomb to write The Genesis Flood. From this point onward, it became intimately associated with the young-Earth movement. In this context, it has accreted many religiously conservative features unknown or entirely anathema to previous proponents: Biblical literalism (particularly with regard to Genesis 1); a peculiar eschatology of the Fall; supernaturalism, accompanied by hostility toward science, particularly where it reconstructs history on known physical principles; and a general attittude of religious and social conservatism. All of these developments are quite novel, and deserve utmost scrutiny; this shall be the subject of the next chapter.

2. The Biblical case against Radical DiluvialismIt has been shown in the previous chapter that the scientific concepts within flood geology were proposed independently from the Bible or Judeo-Christian tradition. The next logical step is to consider whether the Bible itself can in any way justify these concepts. This is of great importance in countering not only the specific claims of flood geology but its general outlook. Whether on attack or defense, the first and last claim of proponents is that flood geology is “Biblical” while any and all orthodox alternatives are not. When The Genesis Flood was caustically criticized, Whitcomb and Morris declared, “The real issue is not the correctness of the interpretation of various details of the geological data, but simply what God has revealed in His Word concerning these matters.” In practice, this means that neither uniformitarianism nor diluvialism receive a fair evaluation on scientific standards alone. This resembles nothing so much as a cowardly school bully who hits when no one is looking but cries for the teacher if his victims hit back. The only effective way to counter this is to show that flood geology cannot be supported with the Bible.

Crucial tangents: Genesis 1 “days” and animal deathIn the overall context of the flood geologists’ ideology, questions about the Deluge are almost secondary. While they argue radical diluvialism as an alternative to modern “uniformitarian” geology, their rejection of uniformitarianism in the first place is based on two separate ideas which they assert as points of doctrine:

Genesis 1 can only be interpreted as six “literal” (24-hour) days.In terms of exegesis, the flood geologists only have three major arguments, all of which are easily disproved. First, it is claimed out that ordinals are never used for figurative days in surviving Hebrew texts. This is simply false: For one thing, there are a few known cases where an ordinal is used in an obviously figurative use of “day”. For another, and far more importantly, the “first” day of the Genesis 1 narrative is not an ordinal; the text translates most accurately as “one day”. Second, it is claimed that the combined use of “day”, “morning” and “night” can only apply to a 24-hour period. (Note that even they do not deny that the individual terms can be figurative.) This claim is also simply false. “Morning” and “night” literally refer to sunrise and sunset. Since the sun is said to be created on the fourth “day”, at least the first three uses of the terms must be figurative on some level. Third, it is claimed that there can be no events prior to the first day. The third claim is also false. The text presumes, at a minimum, that the Earth itself existed before “day one”. Preceding “days” can be argued on a peculiarity of the text and Jewish tradition: The “sunset” is placed at the beginning of each day, as Jews normally did, which logically implies a prior “sunrise”.

People and animals were immortal before the Fall.Because statements elsewhere in the Bible (particularly Romans) which describe human death as a result of the Fall, flood geologists maintain that humans were literally immortal before the Fall, that animals must likewise have been immortal, and that the Fall and key doctrines related to it would be refuted if any animal died before the Fall. On these grounds alone, conventional geology is rejected at face value, simply because it assumes that animals lived and died before humans even existed. The only necessary

rebuttal is that a straightforward reading of the Genesis account contradicts the first of their assumptions. The text says, “`He (Adam) must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat, and live forever.’” (3:22) The most straightforward reading of this text is that Adam was physically mortal even before the fall, and could have become immortal even afterward.

Even more damning than the exegetical bankruptcy of these “doctrines” is the complete lack of precedent for the significance which flood geologists assign to them. It is axiomatic among everyone except dogmatic “young-Earthers” that the meaning of Genesis 1 has always been a subject of debate, and that even those who historically defended the letter of the “6-24” position clearly had no intention of condemning all other views as heretical. (It can be added that a suspicious preponderance of historic “6-24” supporters come from Protestantism.) The same point can be made even more emphatically for animal death. Luther’s commentary does not even mention any interpretation of Genesis 3 which attributes animal mortality to the Fall. But Luther does list many alternative interpretations without objection, up to and including an opinion that Adam would not have lived forever even with the fruit of the tree of life. (Luther’s own stated position is that, if Adam had eaten the fruit of life, he would have been immediately transported from the physical to the spiritual realm.)

Eden and its environsThe most fundamental assumption of radical diluvialism is that the geography and geology of the Earth before the Deluge were completely different from what they are today. It this is true, then Biblical passages about the world before the Deluge should not contain any references to known geological formations, nations and other landmarks. In fact, there is ample evidence that the geography and geology assumed in Genesis 1-5 is substantially the same as what was known to Moses and his readers.

Genesis 2:10-14This passage is the earliest problematic text to be addressed in diluvialist literature, being discussed in some depth by Luther. Most commentators, in the past and the present, interpret this passage as a description of modern geography. References are made to four regions (counting Eden itself) and to four rivers. Of particular interest are references to rivers called Heidekel and Prath, universally translated as Tigris and Euphrates, two rivers in modern Iraq. A look at a geologic map of Iraq reveals a crushing problem for diluvialism: The rivers run over and through fossil-bearing rock. The laws of stratigraphy (formally laid down by Steno in the 1600s) tell us that the fossil-bearing strata must therefore be older than the rivers, and could not be products of the Deluge.

The answer of flood geologists is that the geography is only apparently similar. In his 1976 book The Genesis Record, Henry Morris wrote, “In general it is evident that the geography described… does not exist in the present, nor has it ever existed since the Flood… (T)he ante-Diluvian rivers were completely obliterated by the Flood, and have no physical connection with their counterparts in the present world.” (Italics added.) The modern Tigris and Euphrates are assumed to have been named after features of the pre-Deluge geography. It is also assumed that the original readers of Genesis had traditions to this effect.

This view clearly goes against the prevailing interpretations of the passage. Almost all commentators, past and present, have accepted the identification of the rivers at face value. What debate has occured has mostly been over the identification of the problematic Gihon and Pishon. The only concern raised with Prath and Heidekel is that these rivers are said flow from a common source, whereas the Tigris and Euphrates certainly do not. This does present a serious discrepancy, but falls far short of justifying Morris’s radical conclusion of “no physical connection”. By comparison, Luther offered this far more modest solution: “My answer regarding this passage is that (all of these) rivers are still in existence, but not such as they were. Not only were their sources thrown into disorder (by the Flood), but they themselves have been changed.”

Speaking of traditions, some mention is in order of the ancients’ severely flawed understanding of rivers. On a practical level, it was quite possible for people unaided by 20th-century technology to disagree on whether two rivers were connected, or even whether there was one river or two. This was why finding the source of the Nile River was hailed as a feat of cartography and pure adventuring. On a theoretical level, there were sometimes even greater misunderstandings. Modern science recognizes that all

parts of a river must be connected on the surface, and all other rivers connected to it must be similarly connected on the surface. The ancients had no such understanding. It was very widely believed that rivers flowed under ground, even under the sea. Granting this belief as part of the Bible’s original context, it would be understandable if Biblical authors sometimes spoke of rivers as connected or as one in the same even while knowing that a surface connection was unproved or actually nonexistent. In summary, a sincere and geographically accurate description of a river system from antiquity could very well conflict with modern understanding.

In putting forward his improbable conjecture, Morris asserts that his views are based on traditions dating beck to before the time of Noah. This only highlights how far short his claims are from reality. It is clear that no tradition supporting his position can be traced back further than a few centuries. It is equally clear that the real reason that the identity of the rivers is being questioned is a scientific problem: The principles published by Steno make the pre-Deluge existence of today’s rivers incompatible with the supposed Diluvial origin of fossils. This conclusion is unintentionally reinforced by an anonymous writer for Answers in Genesis, who writes, “These clearly are not the same rivers, because they run through Flood-deposited strata filled with billions of dead things.” This argument depends upon Steno at every step. Therefore, it can only be regarded as a compromise between Biblical interpretation and modern geology- the very thing flood geologists insist to be unacceptable.

The most fundamental problem in the flood geologists’ argument clearly lies in who is doing the arguing. For historical diluvialists like Thomas Burnet, the necessary reinterpretation of Genesis 2 could at least be accepted as part of a consistent method of exegesis. This is because Burnet was also in favor of interpreting the “days” of Genesis 1 as something other than 24-hour periods. Flood geologists, on the other hand, will not even accept this idea as within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. In this way, they show themselves to be hypocrites.

Genesis 4:16This verse provides another possible reference to post-Flood geography in a pre-Flood context. It states that Cain was exiled to “the land of Nod, east of Eden.” While the land of Nod (which literally translates as “wandering”) cannot be conclusively identified, it is by all appearances a region familiar to Moses. The name suggests an inhospitable region where most inhabitants live as nomads, and could certainly apply to a region of modern Iraq or one of its neighbors. This verse is further evidence that the Flood did not change the Earth’s geography beyond recognition. It is also strong evidence that, contrary to the claims of flood geologists, the pre-Flood world was not a place of universally mild climates.

Notice is also in order of the phrase “east of Eden” here, and “east in Eden” in Genesis 2. In both cases, Eden appears to be a definite location on the current Earth. This presents further evidence that the ancient Hebrews did not envision the Deluge as having drastically changed the Earth’s surface.

Genesis 4-5 and Genesis 10The strongest support for the conclusion that Genesis 2 refers to modern rivers is that they are located in relation to post-Flood nations, such as Asshur, named in Genesis 10. It is necessary for flood geologists to assume that these names, too, are really referring to completely different pre-Flood places. This premise encounters two major difficulties. First, none of the nations named in Genesis 2 recur in the extensive pre-Flood lineages in Genesis 4 and 5. Second, they do all occur in the post-Flood genealogy of Genesis 10. In short, the author fails in two chapters to refer to any of the hypothetical pre-flood nations necessary to diluvialism in two chapters, but refers to them all in Genesis 10. Therefore, the simplest explanation is that the post-Flood nations are the only ones the author could mean. This argument, admittedly one of ad silentium, is reinforced by the mention of two Havilahs in Genesis 10:7 and 10:27. The implication is that, where the same name does refer to two different places or people, the author takes care to explain that fact. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to assume that if Genesis 2 was meant to refer to nations other than those in Genesis 10, he would have explicitly referred to them in pre-Flood genealogies.

Genesis 6:14The main problem presented to diluvialism by Genesis 2 is that it implies the existence of strata with they attribute to the flood thousands of years earlier. This possibility is independently supported by Genesis 6:14. According to this verse, Noah was told to coat the ark inside and oat with kopher, which most literally translates as “covering” and which various translators have rendered as “pitch”, “tar” or “bitumen”. Much depends on the interpretation of this word, for it can easily be interpreted as some kind of petroleum product, which would indicate that fossils existed before the Deluge. Luther, writing before science recognized the organic origins of coal and oil, spoke of this idea in fairly positive terms, writing, “What ‘bitumen’ is, I do not know… If someone says that it be (flammable) pitch, I have no objection.” By necessity, the flood geologists have disputed this view, arguing that the substance was really tree sap. This is certainly a legitimate interpretation of the word, but it equally certainly does not rule out the alternative of a petroleum product. At least some flood geologists have conceded this point in principle, but insist that oil and related substances could have formed in the thousands of years before the Deluge. But this misses the point. If any fossils existed before the Flood, then there is no reason why those associated with the Tigris and Euphrates in particular could not have originated beforehand.

Ezekiel 27, 28, 31 and 36:35These chapters, specifically verses 27:23, 28:13, 31:9, 16 and 18 and 36:35, represent the greatest concentration of references to Eden. To varying degrees, they present challenges to diluvialism.

Ezekiel 27:23 is the most directly problematic. It refers to “Eden” as a modern nation trading with the kingdom of Tyre. Furthermore, it is associated with Asshur.

28:13 also refers to Eden in the present tense, again in connection with Tyre. It is associated with a number of economic minerals, including shahom, which the NIV translates as “onyx”, also mentioned in Genesis 2:12.

The verses in chapter 31 specifically refer to the “trees of Eden”, in the context of prophecies against Lebanon. Here, there are no connotations of Eden as a place in the present world. On the contrary, 16 and 18 say that “the trees of Eden” have gone to “the earth below”. The most natural understanding is that Eden, or at least its organic components, is destroyed. But verse 9 presents a direct challenge to diluvialism because Eden is compared unfavorably to Eden. While Eden definitely represents lost grandeur, it does not represent the unachievable.

Verse 36:35 is fairly innocuous in the present discussion. It says that a waste land will become “like the Garden of Eden”. Eden functions as nothing more or less than an analogy. The only potential problem is that it describes the conditions of Eden are replicable in the present, a conclusion diluvialists would reject.

The flood and its effectsHistorically, the causes and effects of the Deluge has been a source of great controversy. In the 1500s and 1600s, radical diluvialism competed with a multitude of rival models. Noteable examples include the “local flood” model, the “tranquil flood” model, the “freshwater flood” model, the “land-sea reversal” model, and the “supernatural deluge” model. This profusion of differing views highlights the need to be wary when flood geology is offered as the only Biblically tenable view of the Flood. With an eye to these historic adversaries of diluvialism, we shall consider those parts of the flood narrative which are problematic for flood geology:

Genesis 61. Nature and scale of destruction. A general question central to the diluvialist controversy is how much the Deluge would have affected the Earth’s surface. Flood geology obviously assumes that the effects were very dramatic. Henry Morris supposed that all animals (not just on land), all plants and even pre-Deluge river channels would have been obliterated. Can this conclusion be justified by the text?

One central assumption made by flood geologists is that the Flood was accompanied by other forms of catastrophe, particularly seismic and volcanic activity. (In fact, the magnitude of volcanic activity required by the model is so great that the actual Flood would have been redundant!) Nothing in the Genesis narrative suggests this. While this kind of “argument from silence” is to be approached with caution, several factors do make the absence of references significant. Accounts of geologic cataclysm elsewhere in the Bible (such as the Genesis account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah) are detailed enough to support the expectation that any diluvial cataclysms would be described in similar detail. Genesis 6:17 can, in fact, be taken as a reasonably precise description of what would happen. Here, God says, “I am going to bring floodwaters… to destroy all life under heaven.” There is no suggestion that many fatalities would be caused by other phenomena, as would surely happen in the “flood geology” scenario.

Another YEC assumption is that because the Bible says the Flood “destroyed” the preexisting world, even the geology and geography would have been obliterated. This argument can be dismissed virtually at face value. The diluvialists’ only proof text from the flood narrative itself is Genesis 6:13, “I will destroy them with the earth.” But exactly the same verb is used in Genesis 18-19 for the destruction of Soddom and Gomorah, and archaeologists have had no trouble finding the locations and even physical remains of these cities. There is therefore no reason why the pre-Flood world’s geography should not also survive in a recognizable form, even if it were devastated by a cataclysm.

The idea that it would have destroyed all animal life fares no better. The flood narrative states that the Flood would “destroy” all animals upon the earth (land) with the breath of life. This clearly does not include aquatic animals. (Besides, how could Noah have saved fish?) On careful consideration, the text is potentially ambiguous on whether the destruction of terrestrial animals was really universal. The verb used, shachath, has many possible translations. It frequently denotes devastation or corruption, rather than total

destruction. Therefore, the terminology used does not preclude the survival of some terrestrial animals within areas directly affected by the Flood.

The olive tree of Genesis of 8:11 is perhaps the greatest Biblical problem for radical diluvialism. Radical diluvialism leaves no chance of pre-Deluge plants surviving the Deluge. They would all have been uprooted, buried, or destroyed by non-aqueous forces. Morris proposes that the olive tree sprouted from seedlings, but this is no more plausible under his model than the survival of pre-Deluge vegetation. If Morris’s model were correct, the Earth in the aftermath of the Deluge would have been totally inhospitable to any tree. The soil would be depleted of nutrients and saturated with salt, the air and water would be contaminated with volcanic pollutants, and a layer of airborne volcanic dust would obscure the sun. In this scenario, no terrestrial life would survive. The only solution is to suppose that God miraculously removed all of these problems. Feasible, to be sure, but it would be altogether simpler to choose a model of the Deluge that does not predict them in the first place.

2. “The windows of heaven” and “the fountains of the deep”. Throughout history, much controversy has centered on the causes of the Deluge. According to Genesis, the flood began when “the windows of heaven” and “the fountains of the deep” were opened. This suggests, contrary to the “supernatural deluge” faction, that the flood waters had a natural source. But what were these sources? “The windows of heaven” clearly denotes rainfall. “The fountains of the deep” are more problematic. One of the most common and plausible interpretations is that they are subterranean water sources. Since many ancient writers believed that rivers flowed up from the ground, the opening of “the fountains of the deep” could be understood simply as an increase in river flow, which a modern observer would attribute to rainfall. This was the view of Bernard Palissy, the principle proponent of the “freshwater deluge” model. If correct, Palissy’s model would effectively refute flood geology. Assuming that the pre-Deluge world had modern ratios of fresh to salt water (admittedly a disputable point), the Deluge waters would have been grossly inadequate to deposit the quantities of sedimentary rock called for by diluvialism. Furthermore, the Deluge could not account for marine deposits. Finally, as Palissy pointed out, a freshwater Deluge would primarily have moved animal remains and other objects from the land to the sea, not vice versa. Therefore, the most likely resting place for Diluvial bodies and debris would be the deep ocean, which is the paleontological equivalent of a black hole.

Apart from these particular problems, the sources of the Deluge brings up the problem of whether the Deluge, as literally described in the Bible, can be explained by science. This was a major source of conflict between past radical diluvialists and religious conservatives. Where diluvialists consistently treated the Flood as a phenomenon to be explained in terms of current physical laws and processes, the conservatives said it was a miracle. In the minds of many conservatives, the diluvialists’ efforts were not only futile, but impious. A French cleric named Castel wrote, “In a fitting punishment of divine providence, it happens that in abandoning a sane theology, they have arrived at a miserable physics.” The flood geologists themselves have no consistent position on this critical issue. On one hand, they consistently speak of the Deluge as having physical

causes and effects. But on the other, they emphatically deny the uniform operation of the very laws of physics before, during and after the Deluge. Once again, the contemporary system of “flood geology” proves incoherent and out of touch with historic diluvialism.

3. “The waters advanced”. If the text is read in a straightforward, literal fashion, the picture that emerges is one of continuous, rapid advance, followed by slow recession. Those who claim the Phanerozoic rock record for the Deluge must adopt a completely different view. The rock record clearly records many rises and falls in sea level. Ironically, the fossil record fails to support the central claim of biblical literalists, that the entire Earth was covered at one time by water.

4. “The mountains were covered.” A major point of disagreement between Luther and earlier diluvialists was over the origins of mountains. Where Luther said the Flood created the Earth’s mountains, earlier diluvialists like Tertullian spoke of the same mountains being “covered” by the Flood. The Bible is clearly with Tertullian. Genesis 7:18-19 states, “All the mountains under the entire heaven were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits.” “All the mountains under heaven” can most naturally be understood as all mountains now in existence. The specific figure of 15 cubits further indicates that the mountains were already at their present height. If the pre-Diluvial mountains were of a different and unknown height, then the figure would be useless. By the same reasoning, it is possible to question whether the Deluge covered the entire surface of the Earth. “All the mountains” could simply be understood as all mountains known to Moses and his original followers.

5. The Flood duration. The conflict between diluvialism and uniformitarianism has always centered upon time scale. If the diluvialists are held to strict literalism, then the scales are tilted ridiculously against them. Even if they could prove that the Earth is really only a few thousand years old, contrary to the accumulated data and theories of two centuries of modern geology, they would still face the overwhelming burden of fitting about 95% of the Phanerozoic rock record into no more than a year, and most of that into as little as 6 weeks.

6. Noah’s covenant. In Genesis 9:12-16, God promises Noah that He will never again flood the Earth. This message is repeated in a number of other verses, including Psalm 104:9 and Job 38:8-10. These verses have played a curious role in the history of diluvialism. At one time, such passages presented a major obstacle to the “modern” explanation of fossil-bearing strata as the product of gradual deposition in seas that had subsequently receded. Many Christians rejected this solution because they understood the Bible to say that coastlines were literally unchanging. For example, Luther wrote of a divinely imposed barrier that held back the seas. Logically, this left the Deluge as the only agency that could have deposited the remains of marine animals far from the present seas.

In the 1600s, as already noted, diluvialists began admitting changes in shorelines, but only in the inland direction. The logical implication was a “final leveling” in which the continents eroded away and the seas once again covered the Earth- contrary to the

covenant with Noah! Thomas Hutton, the founder of uniformitarianism, objected on the theological grounds that this was inconsistent with a wise and loving God. It was his proposal of creative and destructive forces, in approximately equal measures, that best preserved the sense of Scripture.

Psalm 104:8-9Though not often discussed, this Psalm is central to any discussion of diluvialism. It furnishes the only possible support for geologic change during the Deluge. It also formed the basis for objections to a “uniformitarian” solution to the origin of fossils.

Psalm 104:8 has been cited as support for a world-transforming Deluge. In the past, this verse was sometimes translated as follows: “The mountains rose up and the valleys (alt. plains) sank down.” This would seem to support geologic change during the Deluge. However, this translation does not fit well with the rest of the passage, and is rarely encountered in current English translations. In a sampling of major translations, this translation was found only in the RSV. All other translations offered the following translation: “You covered (the Earth) with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your voice they took flight.; they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys,to the place that you assigned for them. You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the Earth.”

The alternative translation clearly fits much better with the context, and is therefore to be preferred. The producers of the RSV eventually recognized this, and changed to the alternate reading in the NRSV Bible. If this were not enough reason to reject a radical diluvialist reading of the verse, two more objections can be added. First, “the mountains rose up” can easily be understood as an apparent “rising” as the sea levels sank, rather than a true increase in height. Surprisingly, Luther favored such a figurative reading in his commentary on the Psalm. (This makes it difficult to understandnd why he claimed diluvial mountain-building in his later Genesis commentary. Did he change his mind in the intervening years, or did he believe that the Deluge somehow moved pre-existing mountains?) Second, the passage does not necessarily describe the creation of new mountains or valleys. It can be understood much better as an enlargement of preexisting features, in which case rocks and fossils in the mountains and valleys would have existed before the Flood.

Verse 9 is equally significant to diluvialism. It has frequently been cited as Biblical support for the belief, in opposition to Aristotle, that shores were literally unchanging. This is probably the source for a statement by Luther about a “barrier” that held back the sea. Luther’s contemporary Bernard Palissy, a noted geological writer of the time, was sufficiently impressed by this argument that he rejected Aristotelianism. The “theorists” of the 1600s put an interesting twist on this view, by arguing that the only sea level change was the sinking of the land through erosion. This school of thought can still be seen in a statement by Henry Morris that “subsidence and oscillation… have no observational basis” (Morris, 1961). This claim leads directly to the next passage to be considered…

Job 14This passage very succinctly answers the argument against Aristotle: “Water disappears from the sea… a riverbed becomes parched and dry… a mountain erodes and crumbles… a rock is moved from its place… water wears away stone and torrents wash away soil.” (Job 14:11, 18-19.) In light of this passage, it is clear that past diluvialists were wrong to reject Aristotles view about changing sea levels as contrary to the Bible. The rest of the passage strongly suggests the Aristotelian image, inherited by modern uniformitarianists, of an Earth subject to slow and steady change. This passage clearly reveals the need for a critical reappraisal of radical diluvialism. It also falsifies the persistent image of “Biblical” diluvialism fighting against “secular” uniformitarianism, which YECs play upon to good effect. If anything, the picture that emerges is the opposite; Aristotle’s claims only substantiated what Scriptural authors had already said, whereas Luther and other radical diluvialists did knowingly or unknowingly raise an originally pagan idea in opposition to Aristotle.

In summary, the Biblical account of the world before, during and after the Flood does not affirm any of flood geology’s major claims in theology or science. Instead, it omits or openly contradicts many of their claims. Therefore, flood geologists cannot simultaneously defend diluvialism as consistent with the Bible while rejecting orthodox geology as “un-Biblical”. Instead, they must either abandon flood geology or adopt a more “liberal” theology in which neither diluvialism nor uniformitarianism are necessarily favored.

3. Sedimentology

By necessity, the primary aim of flood geology is to explain the origin of sedimentary rock. Virtually all fossils are contained in sedimentary rock (the sole exceptions being the occasional hapless victim of a volcanic eruption). Furthermore, sedimentary rocks are by far the most commonly associated with long periods of time. Finally, sedimentary rocks in general are associated with deposition by water. Sedimentary rocks would therefore appear to be the most promising source of geologic evidence for diluvialism, but conversely also present the greatest threat. If flood geology cannot succeed in sedimentology, it cannot succeed anywhere.

Questions of credibilityThe first question that may be asked is why credentialed geologists would support flood geology if it could not account for the origin of sedimentary rock. The best way to adress this is to consider to what extent flood geology is supported by sufficiently credentialled authorities on sedimentology. The following is a list of all living flood geologists known to the author at this time with doctorate-level credentials in geology from reputable universities:

1. Steve Austin- Dr. of Geology, delivered dissertation on coal.2. John Baumgardner- PhD in geophysics; also has credentials in engineering.3. John Morris- geologic engineer.4. Andrew Snelling- uranium geologist.5. Kurt Wise- paleontologist.

Of these 5, 3 have obviously limited credentials in the specific area of sedimentology. As a geologic engineer (like the late Henry Morris before him), John Morris is no more authoritative in sedimentology than a carpenter would be in botany. Essentially the same thing may be said of Baumgardner. Snelling would presumably specialize in igneous rocks, which are as separate from sedimentary rocks as animals are from plants, therefore he also has no special authority on sedimentology. Wise carries far more credibility, since the study of fossils is intimately connected with the sedimentary rocks they are found in. However, he would not qualify as a specialist. As for Dr. Austin, he is a qualified sedimentologist, but he has willfully abused his knowledge by endorsing (if not originating) fraudulent claims about Mt. St. Helens. In summary, all of the handful of credentialed geologists involved in the flood geology are either obviously underqualified as sedimentologists, or are obviously dishonest. If they should happen to be right, it is largely in spite of their credentials.

Theoretical considerationsA central assumption of flood geologists is that a disaster such as the Noachian Deluge must have had a greater impact than any event before or since (except possibly Creation itself) on the Earth. By this reasoning, diluvialism becomes not only a convenient explanation of geology, but a necessary proof of the Bible. This argument can best be answered by a look at a number of factors which actually limit the effects a single event can have on the Earth’s surface. Once these limitations are recognized, it becomes clear that the dramatic effects assumed by diluvialism are neither necessary, nor logical, nor helpful to establishing the reality of the Flood.

The most elementary question regarding the Flood is whether it could be expected to leave much evidence of itself. The answer is definitely NO. The simple fact is that there is no professional precedent for using thickness of deposits as a measure of the magnitude of the event that formed them. More orthodox catastrophists, from Rev. Buckland to Louis Alvarez, have made good cases for global catastrophe with very thin but distinctive and widespread strata. In the case of Alvarez, the conclusion of catastrophism has won universal acceptance. Therefore those who would treat full-blown radical diluvialism as a necessary implication of the Deluge are setting a burden of proof for themselves which no professional would ask them to meet.

Even if it is assumed that the depositional effects of the Deluge were as great as diluvialism supposes, it does not follow that much of it would still be around in the present. The fundamental problem is that sedimentary processes can erase their own effects. This, all by itself, reduces diluvialism to arbitrary assumptions. No matter how much sediment the Deluge transported, there is no reason why much of it should be found on land today. Since 72% of the Earth’s surface is currently under the oceans, most “global Deluge” sediment would be deposited at the bottom of the ocean to begin with. Of the material deposited on Earth’s current land area, a large quantity would inevitably have been washed back into the sea as the flood waters receded. (Even more would have gone into the sea if the Deluge were accompanied by volcanic and seismic activity!) Any volume of Deluge sediment that did remain on the land would have been further reduced by compaction and post-Deluge erosion.

At this point it may be asked, just what volume of Diluvial sediment is necessary for the event to account for the global fossil record? The average thickness of continental Phanerozoic sedimentary rock is commonly estimated as 1 mile (1.8 km). Multiply that figure by the surface area of our planet, 525 million square kilometers, and the resulting figure is 945 million cubic kilometers. A plausible round number for the original volume of Deluge sediment would be 1.5 billion km3. By comparison, the total water supply of Earth is “only” 1.4 billion km3. Needless to say, the flood geologists must allow a miraculous source of water for the Deluge (unless they are willing to redub it as “Noah’s Mud.”)

So far, we have dealt only with the most abstract flaws in diluvialism. It is now time to consider the practical limitations on the deposition of sediment. The first is the issue fluid types. A fluid, in sedimentological terminology is a moving mixture of water and sediment, and fluid types are defined primarily by what percentage of the volume is sediment. Each type of fluid has limitations on what it can achieve. A Newtonian fluid has no strength and constant viscosity, but is no more than 30% sediment by volume. Non-Newtonian fluids also lack strength, but their viscosity is variable. The movement of such a fluid will be predictably erratic, and generally sluggish. At still higher loads, the fluid becomes a plastic. A plastic has strength, and will therefore behave as a fluid only under an external input of force. This means that, for the Deluge to deposit 1.5 billion km3 of sediment, while continuing to behave like a conventional (Newtonian) fluid, there would have to be 3.5 billion km3 of water- not only more than is known to exist on Earth, but 2.5 times that amount!

Further limitations are imposed by the issue of critical velocity. The critical velocity is the current speed necessary for particles of a given size to be moved. The Hjulstrom diagram is still the archetypal study of the issue, and reveals a number of complications and limiting factors in sedimentation:

i. Given a certain velocity, a current can move any and all particles in a given size range (at least up to the point where it becomes non-Newtonian). Any increase in sediment load due to increased velocity will be in proportion to the composition of the sediment, not the change in force.ii. The critical velocity is lowest for particles of about 0.2 mm diameter, and increases (somewhat surprisingly) for larger and smaller particles. New particles taken up with increased velocity will therefore either be fewer in number or smaller in individual mass. iii. Change in CV is consistently small compared to variation in size, and grows smaller for the largest particles. iv. Particles from .005 to 10 mm, about 20% of the size range covered in the diagram, will move in a current with a velocity of only 2 miles per hour (1 mile=1800 m).v. The Hjulstrom diagram assumes a constant depth of 1 m. At greater depths, critical velocities for given particles become greater. vi. The diagram also assumes constant density of fluid. In practice, however, the fluid will undergo some increase in density as it transports larger loads of sediment, which will also increase critical velocities.vii. Under conditions of turbulent flow, a significant percentage of particles move randomly, diminishing any specific effect (deposition or erosion) indicated by current direction. Turbulent flow is more likely in a faster current.viii. Based on the Hjulstrom diagram, it can be predicted that a current which rises and then recedes will be increasingly inefficient in the directional transport of particles as it advances but increasingly efficient as it recedes, and therefore favor erosion rather than deposition.

In summary, the diluvialists attempt to eliminate any need for long periods of time by stupendously magnifying all other factors fails even in theory in the face of the simple

limitations of nature. That, all by itself, is reason enough to bar it from any further hearing. But, lest some persist in doubt, or even resort to some less extreme rationalization for the YEC pseudo-doctrine, it is worthwhile to press on and see how badly it fails in practice.

Current indicatorsCurrent indicators are a vital part of sedimentology, but unfortunately are almost never discussed outside of professional literature. They are features used to describe qualitatively and quantitatively the nature of the current that deposited a stratum. Using current indicators, it is easy to determine whether a given stratum was deposited by a slow-moving current or a swift, potentially catastrophe-related one. In many cases, it is possible to determine with a fair amount of precision how fast the current was moving. In particular, one can determine current speed based on the size of ripple marks and similar features. By any appraisal, these plainly preclude diluvialism. Most will clearly show currents well within the range of present phenomena. None show anything close to the forces assumed by diluvialism.

Morris’s own treatment of ripple marks can only be regarded as flippant and self-contradictory. On page 409, he points out the existence of ripple marks on the ocean floor, and states that “this fact strongly militates against any assumption that the oozes have been settling calmly in static water over a great period of time.” A few pages later, he makes this stupefying statement: “One can never be sure in any given situation that the particular deposit has not been disturbed or that the deposition rate has been constant” (page 411). Based on these quotes, his position must be summarized thus: “Physical evidence can prove catastrophic causes, but the same evidence cannot prove gradual causes.” This is nothing less than the intentional omission of vital evidence, in short, outright fraud. What is worse, he presented his fraudulent model to millions of laymen who would never hear the truth.

VarvesProminent place is given in Genesis Flood to the discussion of flood varves, particularly in the Green River shale (421-429). Varves are thin layers of alternating light and dark color, associated with seasonal deposition in lakes. Where many varves occur in succession, many years of depositional activity can be inferred. It is, of course, of utmost importance for flood geologists to rationalize these phenomena in accordance with their own beliefs.

Morris begins his argument with the “flood geologists’” pervasive error of setting up a false dilemma. Morris states as an objection that “no matter how tranquil a lake may be ordinarily, occasional storms stir up the bottom, and occasional river floods dump into the lake large quantities of sediment… To imagine such an extensive lake, fed as it was by many rivers, could continue so impossibly quiet, inactive and undisturbed for six million years is rather ridiculous.” Any geologist would readily affirm this. But, it is equally ridiculous to take what Morris objects to as an accurate account of what his opponents argue for. He quotes one of the very people he criticizes (one F.J. Pettijohn) as saying, “`The cause of such laminations are variations in the rate of supply or deposition of the different materials… especially cyclical changes related to diurnal or annual rhythms, and also to aperiodic storms or floods.’” (It. added.) “Annual rhythms” would include seasonal floods, and “aperiodic storms or floods” presumably means floods of unusual magnitude. Nothing could be further from the caricature of “quiet and inactive and undisturbed for six million years.”

Ironically, Morris’s specific objections are largely reasonable, but unhelpful to his own diluvialist explanation. Especially noteworthy is a rhetorical question, “how does one explain... a dead fish lying on the bed of a lake for about two hundred years while the slowly accumulating sediments gradually cover it.” (427) This is certainly a reasonable objection to the specific chronology, but is no less incompatible with his own explanation. A fresh carcass would not stay on the bottom long enough to be buried unless the water were tranquil and shallow.

Despite his ready appeal to caricature, Morris makes it clear enough that his reservations are, to some extent, shared by “orthodox geology”. He specifically notes an “uncertain tone” in a quoted source, and reports that “only one real study” had been done up to that time (pg. 424). He also describes significant differences between the Green River shale and more securely identified Pleistocene lake sediments. Taking the gist of what Morris says on good faith, the most sensible conclusion is that the shale was a weakly argued example of the phenomenon in question. But that does not mean that no examples are to be found before the Pleistocene, and it does not in any way justify radical diluvialism as an explanation. On the latter issue, the most fundamental problem is quite independent of time: Whether they are deposited slowly or rapidly, lake sediments imply a stable and discrete body of fresh water, which could not possibly exist in the midst of a world-wide flood. Even if all Morris’s points are accepted, he has still failed to rule out localized depositional actions. His successors, far from correcting his error, have eclipsed it with a much greater one…

“What About Mt. St. Helens?”Ever since the spectacularly documented (but not particularly impressive) 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens, it has been a cause celebre for young-Earth creationists. Invariably, it is charged that the explosion and its products somehow represent “sedimentary” phenomena that were previously thought to take “millions of years” by “uniformitarian” geology. (See Bartelt, 1998.) When they try to justify this claim, they will typically allege that something like laminae exist in Mt. St. Helens ash, offer as “proof” a photo taken from too great a distance to see anything of importance, and then say that these laminae are the same as “annual” deposits (eg. Sarfati 2004).

It is unfortunate that very few have pointed out that the very term “sedimentary” is being used in a manner contrary to professional practice. It is virtually a rule of thumb that a volcanic deposit should be placed among IGNEOUS rocks, NOT among sedimentary ones. Comparing one to the other like comparing clams and walnuts. I consider this whole line of argument to be outright FRAUD, especially when it comes from YECs with credentials in geology, like Steve Austin, Andrew Snelling and Kurt Wise.

The degree to which this misrepresents professional practice is even more apparent when one considers Hutton’s actual contributions to volcanology. It should go without saying that the origin of strata like those seen at Mt. St. Helens was established long, long before Hutton’s time: Pliny the Elder described pumice as volcanic, and the circumstances of demise proved it beyond the slightest doubt! But there was a great controversy in the late 1700s over whether basalts were igneous or sedimentary (in the terminology of the time, “plutonist” or “neptunist”). Hutton’s approach was to compare the disputed basalts with known volcanic material. Because of striking similarities, he concluded that basalts were indeed volcanic. It can therefore be said that flood geologists who call volcanic ash “sedimentary” are making an error which “uniformitarian” geology corrected.

The most pitiful thing about this fraud is that the latter-day flood geologists have sacrificed their credibility and ethics for a “victory” that had already been handed to them on a platter. By comparison, Morris did not need to obfuscate the division between sedimentology and volcanology to cast reasonable doubt upon the explanation of laminae as evidence of annual flood deposits. In fact, one of the differences he cited between Green River and undisputed lake sediments was “extensive deposits of volcanic ash mingled with the shale”. He also made a point to acknowledge magnanimously that orthodox geology was well on its why to conceding the point. So, why have his successors wasted their breath on the issue? I am inclined to think it is because they either are too ignorant to engage in any intelligent dialogue about geology, or else know enough to realize that such a dialogue will never work in their favor. So, they merely amuse and misdirect even less knowledgeable audiences by fighting a staged battle with a man of straw. And, to repeat, this is how they behave when facts are approximately in their favor!

TurbiditesIn an account of deep-sea sediments (409-412), Morris mentions “turbidity currents” as evidence against “any kind of gradual undisturbed accumulation” in the formation of marine sedimentary rock. Once again, he makes a fair enough point against more extreme variations of uniformitarianism, but in the process makes it all the more clear that his own position is untenable. Turbidites, for the uninitiated, are flows of sediment that move along the ocean floor, usually triggered by submarine earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. They travel at great speed, and can move over great distances. They are archetypical plastic flows; their movement is generally triggered by external shocks (particularly from submarine volcanic eruptions or earthquakes) or simple gravity. They can quite safely be described as the most powerful sedimentary force known and documented by geology.

So, why would these be damaging for flood geology? For starters, they illustrate the futility in trying to describe a phenomenon and its effects based on magnitude alone. Regardless of how big they are, a turbidite and a conventional, Newtonian flow cannot be compared. There is as much fundamental difference between them as there is between a “human cannonball” and a man flying in an airplane. Turning to specifics, turbidites provide a further demonstration of the stupidity of tyring to use a volcanic erruption as a basis for sedimentology. Turbidites and similar plastic flows, absolutely ALONE among sedimentary phenomena, would invite some serious comparison with volcanic phenomena (especially since they are often triggered by volcanoes). However, the very thing which would invite that comparison- the role of external force- is exactly what sets turbidites entirely apart from other sedimentary processes.

Turbidites also undermine all attempts to use the Deluge as a basis for explaining organization in the sedimentary record. The photos from Mt. St. Helens that flood geologists are fond of flaunting show (supposedly) neatly organized strata in the ash. The insinuation is that sedimentary catastrophes could produce such fine stratification in a short period of time. In reality, turbidites are characterized by the ABSENCE of orderly stratification. In large part because of the rapid manner in which they are deposited, turbidites are conspicuously disordered. They are poorly settled, with large pockets of empty space which are prone to collapse, dramatically disrupting the sedimentary sequence.

The biggest problem posed by turbidites and other plastic phenomena for flood geologists is that they oppose the process of continental deposition by moving vast quantities of sediment downhill. What is worst, they are associated closely with the kind of seismic and volcanic phenomena which flood geology assumes with outlandish excess. Logically, this only makes it less likely that any significant amount of Deluge sediment would remain upon the present continents. It also makes it even harder to account for the ever-problematic survival of the olive tree.

EvaporitesOn pages 412-417, immediately after his discussion of marine sediments, Morris discusses evaporites, perhaps the most problematic of deposits for diluvialism. Evaporites are minerals such as gypsum and salt which form from precipitates left behind after the evaporation of water. Of course, this is the exact opposite of what a flood could be expected to create. Ironically, time is not a compelling issue. Contemporary examples (including the bizarre case of the former Aral Sea) prove beyond reasonable doubt that sizeable evaporite deposits can form in time intervals as short as decades or centuries. Therefore, they present a problem to YECs only as long as they insist upon the agency of uninterruped flooding over an interval of just one year.

Morris makes only half-hearted efforts to incorporate evaporite formation into his scenario, and these only illustrate the futility of such a venture. He suggests that at least some evaporites might have been created by rapid evaporation during the Deluge. This simply does not make sense. An obvious problem is that, based on the distribution of evaporites in the rock record, one would have to assume continuous episodes of marine recession during the Deluge- once again, the opposite of what the narrative indicates! A less obvious but even greater problem is that rapid evaporation can inhibit the formation of evaporites. The reason for this counterintuitive fact is that, to form evaporites, water must first sit long enough for minerals to become concentrated in the solution (Warren, 1999). If evaporation rates are too high, standing water will evaporate before this can happen. Finally, it must be said that there is no conceivable way that a single episode of evaporation could produce the quantities of evaporites found in the rock record. Individual formations are known to exceed one mile in thickness. By Morris’s own figures, this would require the evaporation of a column of water more than 50 miles deep! That is over 7 times the deepest ocean trench!

Morris’s main proposal about the origins of evaporites is, in a way even more problematic. He argues that many, most or even all evaporite deposits could have been formed through diluvial reworking or metamorphism of preexisting evaporites. Neither solution can be convincingly be applied in all cases, simply because geologists can easily prove them or rule them out. Neither solution mitigates the problem of time. (Metamorphism, in particular, would probably take more time than the formation of the original evaporites!) Finally, and most obviously, neither explanation accounts for where the preexisting evaporites came from. On this point, Morris would seem to be caught in a catch-22. To suppose that they were simply made ex nihilo in “creation week”, as Morris seems to imply, represents another dangerous concession to diachronism. But to suppose that they were formed by prosaic processes before the Deluge effectively concedes the point to uniformitarianism.

In the characteristic fashion of a crank, Morris looks away from the problems of his own model and foncentrates on petty objections to conventional explanations. He argues at great length that the thickest evaporite deposits (and the only kind he mentions) require a “combination of features”, specifically subsidence and steady marine influx, found “nowhere in the world today”, the uniformitarian solution must involve “a sizeable increment of pure imagination” (pg. 415). Thiat the present world contains no direct

analogy for the environments that produced these deposits is generally agreed to be true, but for Morris to call reconstructions of these environments “pure imagination” is plain libel. Stratigraphic sections unequivocally testify to subsidence, and the existence of any sedimentary rock proves input of some kind. Furthermore, given Morris’s remarkable denial of the existence of subsidence, he is clearly unfit to render any conclusion on the subject!

Morris takes his gratuitous skepticism even further by stating that anomalies in evaporite sequences point either to non-marine evaporite formation or “special” brines with a different chemistry from present sea water, implying of course that uniformitarian solutions can accomodate neither. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. There is an ample record of recent non-marine evaporites, and since the observed rates are orders of magnitude slower than modern marine evaporites, enlarging their role in the rock record only damages the diluvialists’ case. There is also an ample record of changing sea water chemistry in the present, which means that differences between ancient and modern marine evaporites are only to be expected.

In a pathetic follow-up to Morris’s convoluted reasonings, recent flood geologists have asserted that evaporite deposits were formed at the scene of submarine volcanic activity, like sulfur crystals observed around modern hydrothermal events. But the modern sulfur crystals chemically have nothing in common with salt deposits. Furthermore, there is no correlation between continental evaporite deposits and any form of volcanic rock.

Glacial depositsOne of the most obvious examples of apparently gradual phenomena in the geologic record are glacial sediments, associated with strata throughout the rock record. Clearly, no glacial phenomena could occur during the Biblical Deluge. Glacial activity obviously requires far more time than the one year of the Biblical Deluge. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that major glacial activity could coincide with a global increase in sea level.

Morris’s response to this problem is the contention that under extreme conditions, a flood may produce semi-solid masses of sediment which might leave products similar to glaciers. This is undeniably true, but, for Morris’s grandiose purposes, irrelevant. After all, it is one thing to show that there are two possible explanations for a phenomenon, and quite another to show that one of them can be excluded in all cases. To the latter end, Morris makes the far more ambitious claim, that paleoecological data rules out glaciation. This argument fails miserably. His contention depends upon the assumption that because plants from the Carboniferous survive today mainly in the tropics, their presence is a reliable sign of tropical conditions. The rebuttal to this and many similar arguments is that extinct organisms cannot be assumed to have exactly the same habitats as their modern relatives. In the case of the Paleozoic ice ages, non-biological paleoclimate indicators strongly support long-term cooling.

Aeolian depositsAnother type of deposit that requires long periods of time and processes completely different from flooding are aeolian or wind deposits. A famous example of (alleged) aeolian deposition is the Coconino sandstone of the Grand Canyon. The response of current flood geologists is that the Coconino was really formed hundreds of feet under water by a swift-moving current.

The first thing that can be said against this claim is that it is strictly “argument by annecdote”. Aeolian deposition is a phenomenon reported from many different locations all over the world. Whether it is the process involved in this case is essentially irrelevant. Further investigation shows that the Coconino is, in fact, not a particularly strong example, as freely admitted by proponents of the aeolian explanation: “The basis for considering the Coconino Sandstone to be of eolian origin involves numerous criteria, some of which are distinctive of an eolian environment and others merely compatible with but not diagnostic of it. No single type of evidence seems entirely conclusive, but, together, the various features present very strong evidence” (McKee, 1979). In other cases, the evidence for subaerial deposition is far more conclusive.

Another point to be made against the argument is that, even if correct, it does not really suggest anything that sedimentologists would consider out of the ordinary. Steve Austin has written, “The thickest sets of cross beds in the Coconino Sandstone so far reported are 30 feet (9 metres) thick. Cross beds of that height imply... a water depth of around 300 feet (between 90 and 95 metres)... The minimum current velocity would need to be over 3 feet per second (95 centimetres per second) or 2 miles per hour. The maximum current velocity would have been almost 5.5 feet per second (165 cm or 1.65 metres per second) or 3.75 miles per hour” (Austin, 1992). Nothing is described that would not be plausible in a prosaic marine depositional environment. Far more importantly, nothing that is described comes anywhere close to what would be expected from the Noachian Deluge!

In fact, the argument is so completely wrong that (from anyone with Austin’s level of training) it can only be regarded as fraudulent: Austin says, “The average angle of slope of the Coconino cross beds is about 25° from the horizontal, less than the average angle of slope of sand beds within most modern desert sand dunes. Those sand beds slope at an angle of more than 25°, with some beds inclined as much as 30° to 34°, the angle of ‘rest’ of dry sand.” This use of statistics is inept (at best) on multiple levels. Given the variation admitted, the proposed “minimum angle” would more appropriately be expressed as 25+2 degrees, or as low as 23. In fact, actualistic records of aeolian crossbeds show angles ranging from under 10 to over 40 degrees (Allen, 1970). An average from this range could easily be 25 or less. For example, the median of 10 and 40 is exactly 25. Of course, the most obvious problem is that, even under the best of circumstances, averages are NEVER reliable predictors of individual behavior.

Any lingering question about depositional environment can be easily addressed by trace evidence: foot prints and other marks found in the rocks. These are present in abundance in the Coconino sandstone, and all unequivocally testify to a terrestrial environment:

plant roots, numerous and diverse prints of normally terrestrial animals (such as spiders) which experts say could only be made in dry sand, and especially rain drop impressions. The last of these traces incidentally dispense with the only criticism offered against the trace evidence, which is that at least some of the vertebrate tracks were made on a moist surface.

In summary, flood geology as applied to sedimentology is supported only by the unqualified (or dishonest), makes impossible expectations, ignores limiting factors on sedimentation, and fails repeatedly in individual cases. There is no reason why it should receive any further discussion.

6. Paleontology

The central aim of diluvialism has always been to explain the origin of fossils. Flood geologists persist in claiming that only the Deluge can account for the fossil record. (As already shown, the Bible itself suggests otherwise.) Since fossils are important to the orthodos dating of strata, a successful challenge to paleontology would have serious repercussions even if it failed to vindicate diluvialism. It is to this area that we shall now turn.

TaphonomyThe subdiscipline of taphonomy can be summarily described as the study of the

origin of fossils. The taphonomist’s job is to describe the history of an organism from the time of its death through petrification as a fossil. The writings of Leonardo da Vinci pioneered the discipline. He wrote specifically to refute the claims of diluvialism, demonstrating that fossil marine organisms had lived on the present continents for long periods of time.

Nevertheless, Morris and other flood geologists emphatically argue that the Deluge is a better mechanism than any other for the production of fossils. The main argument offered is that modern, prosaic processes are inadequate to bury remains fast enough for fossilization. More ambitiously, the flood geologists offer the Flood as an explanation for the order in which organisms appear in the fossil record. They believe (incorrectly!) that this order is consistent with differences in mobility, and that this could be explained in terms of which animals were first overcome by the Flood. Alas, these ambitious claims are refuted by the most elementary principle of taphonomy: Dead things float. This has the following implications:

1. Most organisms killed by a flood will not be buried by the same event. The reason for this is fairly obvious: Organic matter is generally more buoyant than the suspended silt, sand and other debris from which sedimentary rocks are constituted. Therefore, recently dead organisms will probably not settle out of a flood current until most of a flood’s sedimentary deposition has already occurred. If fresh organic remains do get buried, it will most likely be in a subsequent and possibly unrelated depositional event. This not only disposes of the flood geologists’ contention that the Deluge would solve the problem of rapid burial, but also raises the question whether it was ever reasonable to expect abundant physical remains associated with the Deluge.

2. Most organisms killed by a “global flood” will not be accessible to paleontologists. Once again, this principle is fairly elementary. It is intuitively obvious that if anything, living, dead or inorganic, floats long and far enough, it will go beyond the shore, past the relatively shallow waters of the continental margin, and over the deep-sea ”black hole” that represent most of the planet’s surface area. Besides being entirely inaccessible, these regions feature rapid erosional processes that can easily destroy pre-existing deposits, fissures that could swallow the biggest terrestrial mountains with room to spare, and subduction zones estimated to have destroyed 20% of the ocean floor since the end of the Cretaceous period!

3. Flood victims are less likely to be intact when buried. The main taphonomic argument of flood geologists is that only a flood could bury remains quickly enough for them to be preserved as fossils. But this argument is very nearly the reverse of the facts. The best mechanism for rapid burial is a plastic flow. Remains from these deposits can be quite spectacularly preserved. Fossils from recognized flood deposits, on the other hand, are commonly of fairly poor quality: disarticulated, weathered, broken, even chewed or encrusted by other organisms. Theory and observation can readily explain this. A fresh carcass in an unobstructed current will float for a long distance over a relatively long period of time. Stronger current will make the carcass disintegrate more quickly. When museum workers want to reduce a carcass to a mountable skeleton (a process called maceration), a common procedure is toleave it in a jar of meat tenderizer and then spray it with an ordinary garden hose! The time involved in this procedure is, incidentally, a fitting rebuttal to the underlying premise that organic remains decompose too quickly to be buried intact by prosaic processes. Even in these intentionally unfavorable circumstances (including, in my personal experience, temperatures approaching 100 degrees!), it can take days or even weeks for a small carcass to reduce to disarticulate, bare bones. Poor but typical fossils like the ones described above would have required months or years to reach their present states.

4. Any sorting of organic remains will be based on size, not lifestyle. This dispenses with the flood geologists’ attempts to use their model to explain the fossil record. The idea that a flood might sort animals based on “mobility” is not even taphonomically plausible. The more sensible prediction of sorting by size, which was indeed made by Woodward, is plainly incompatible with the facts. By the late 1800s, the famous paleontologist E.D. Cope made the opposite contention in the “law” that bears his name: Smaller organisms are succeeded by larger ones. While it is very dubious as a “rule of thumb” about biological change, it is certainly true in many cases. That is reason enough to flatly dismiss diluvialism.

5. No organisms would be buried in life position. As far as paleontologists are concerned, this is the nail in the coffin for diluvialism. Even Leonardo da Vinci was able to demonstrate that fossil shellfish with little or no mobility were still buried in plausible life positions, and must therefore have inhabited their present resting places much longer than the one year alloted by the Bible for the Deluge. The additional phenomenon of trace fossils (more technically called ichnofossils) reaffirm this conclusion, especially when the actual remains of their makers occur in the same deposits. (Oviraptor dinosaurs preserved on top of their nests are a spectacular example.) The “rebuttal” of Morris and his successors is that such preservation requires rapid burial, and is therefore evidence against uniformitarianism and for diluvialism. Of course, this only illustrates the hopelessness of the false dichotomies that underlie both their own untenable “theory” and their inexcusable treatment of their opponents.

6. Organisms would not be buried in natural assemblages. Since theory and observation tell us (as above) that a flood would mix the remains of its victims together in an essentially random fashion, it follows that there would be virtually no chance of finding

anything close to a natural ecological assemblage. In fact, the evidence for natural assemblages is overwhelming: adults associated with young, predators with prey, tracks with track makers, and so on. Flood geology does not predict such assemblages, cannot explain them and cannot accommodate them. This is its most significant failing. Not only does flood geology fail to explain the phenomenon, but it also cuts paleontologists off from the only explanations that can readily account for assemblages: long-term change and local variation in ecologies. By attributing all fossil assemblages to a single, global event, flood geology frankly discounts any change over time, and leaves no room for differentiation between local ecologies either.

Index fossils and “living fossils”Index fossils are another important concept in paleontology, but the meaning of the term is rarely explained in any depth outside of text books, and is routinely misused. The flagrant misuse of the term by YECs, in particular, rivals their incessant references to “sedimentary volcanic deposits” as colloquial oxymorons. Index fossils are organisms (usually a distinct species) that are used to diagnose a particular level of the geologic column. That much is general knowledge. What seems most to elude the understanding of laymen, with the most damaging of effects, is that relatively few fossils qualify as such. They have to be selected, according to exacting criteria. Though not often listed “officially”, the first criterion to be met is that a fossil must be common enough for its presence or absence to mean something. An organism that is rarely found as a fossil will be of no use for stratigraphic purposes, especially if its scarcity can be attributed to preservational factors (eg. no hard parts) rather than ecological absence. The next criterion, and by far the most important, is that the organism must have a short lifespan, as defined by how many different levels of the rock record it is found in. Finally, to be used as an index fossil, an organism must have wide geographic range. When the use of index fossils is called into question, all of these criteria are invariably disregarded. A few examples will suffice.

Perhaps the most frequently cited is the genus Latimeria, the famed survivor of the coelecanth lineage, discovered in 1939. The last known fossil relatives of Latimeria occur at the end of the Cretaceous period, 65 million years ago. It is routinely cited by young-Earthers as evidence of problems in the adequacy of the fossil record, which is certainly fair enough. Unfortunately, many go further and cite it as an “index fossil” that had been found alive, as if fossils indistinguishable from Latimeria had been used as index fossils until the living fish was found. There are, in fact, many critical distinctions between Latimeria and its fossil relatives, all underlined above. In more general terms, it is fair to say that coelecanths were never very significant to biostratigraphy. Even when they were thought to be extinct, they were recognized as an exceptionally long-lived, conservative and relatively uncommon lineage, obviously holding little or no promise for biostratigraphy. While there even now is not any reason why a coelecanth genus or species should not be used as an index fossil, the relevant professional literature records no notable instances where this was done.

Even when YEC citations do not present such distortions of the facts, they do not place it in context. Invariably, it is implied (if not explicitly stated) that before a fresh specimen was caught, paleontologists were convinced that no coelecanth could possibly have survived past the end of the Cretaceous. In reality, paleontologists generally avoid making such unqualified declarations. When discussing the very first and very last of a lineage, professionals typically abide by the axiom, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Louis Agassiz, the person who first described the coelecanths from fossils, held to this principle more strongly than most. In the last expedition of his career, he troved for deep-sea life, expecting to find organisms otherwise known only from fossils.

Given this background, the discovery of Latimeria should be regarded not as a disproof of modern paleontology, but as posthumous vindication of one of its pioneers.

Another example that is routinely cited is the tuatara, another lone survivor of a fossil lineage. Once again, YECs refer to it with some frequency as an “index fossil”, completely misrepresenting what the term means. The lineage in question was even less promising to biostratigraphers than the coelecanths, mainly due to the generally poor fossil record of small reptiles of all types. Again, the gap in the group’s fossil record is easily accounted for by taphonomic bias. Finally, in contrast to Latimeria, paleontologists and zoologists cannot be accused of entirely overlooking a living member of a taxon. The tuatara was known to science by the time paleontologists started describing its fossil kin, but their relationship was not recognized until some time later.

To the informed and objective perspective of a paleontologist, the tuatara actually raises far more questions about the use of the phrase “living fossil” than the use of fossils for biostratigraphy. The earliest known fossil sphenodonts date from the mid- to Late Triassic. The problem is, so do the earliest known crocodilians and turtles, and creatures close enough to modern lizards that specialists debate whether or not to classify them as such. So, why should the tuatara be singled out from living reptiles as a “living fossil”? The only real difference is that the sphenodont line dwindled while the others thrived. In summary, it is fair to say that the very phrase “living fossil” is, in this case and many others, no better than a misleading colloquialism. It can be added that, if there are any “living fossils” that truly challenge the prevailing understanding of life history, they are not lonely survivors like the tuatara but ancient and enduringly successful lineages, like turtles.

The only YEC claim that even refers to actual index fossils is the claim of “living graptolites”. The graptolites are a kind of fossil invertebrate known to have lived from the Cambrian through the Carboniferous periods. The group includes an unusually large number of species that are considered index fossils. Their classification was long considered problematic, but in the last forty years or so, the general consensus has emerged that their closest living relatives are an obscure group called the pterobranchs. Some specialists have gone so far as to argue that they belong in a single taxon, in which case either a) graptolites are extinct pterobranchs or b) pterobranchs are living graptolites. Of course, this taxonomic debate has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the use of graptolite index fossils. Biostratigraphers don’t even care what an index fossil is, as long as it is useful for their purposes. Of course, that has not stopped YECs from ranting and raving about graptolite “index fossils” found alive. This demonstrates that, even when (seemingly by coincidence) they refer to real index fossils, they still show no understanding whatsoever ot what the term really means.

Ultimately, these words from Henry Morris himself are the best answer to such attempts to discredit index fossils: “It is the assemblage, rather than any individual species, that is considered typical of a particular age, although certain individual species are used as `index fossils’ in many cases.” Biostratigraphy will not stand or fall over any one “index” species. It is not essential for a biostratigrapher to show that species A did not

appear until after species B died out. For practical purposes, it will suffice to show that species A became less common while species B grew more common. It is fruitless for anyone to pursue such arguments any further.

Anomalous humansPerhaps the most common YEC argument related to fossils is that humans have

been found alongside fossil organisms. If this could actually be proved, then they would at the very least force a serious revision in biostratigraphy. It is worthwhile to begin by examining the history of such claims. Alleged fossil humans, often of giant proportions, have been steadily reported since antiquity. Infamous examples include “scrotum Humanum”, now regarded as the first dinosaur bone to be described in scientifically satisfactory detail, Homo diluvii testis, described by Scheutzer and debunked by Georges Cuvier as a large salamander, and the supposed remains of “King Theudobocheus”, which Cuvier exposed as a mammoth leg. Despite his record as a debunker, Cuvier diplomatically treated the antiquity of humans as an open question, declaring that, while no remains of humans were to be found among known fossils, they might have existed in areas or environments with no fossil record. This is perhaps the last positive comment on the issue to be made by a noteable professional.

After Cuvier, notices of human remains or artifacts in the geologic record come mainly from newspapers, and these are sometimes cited by current YEC publications. All that need be said of these are that they lack credibility. They come from “popular” rather than peer-reviewed professional publications, making their credibility unproved at the outset. It is safe to assume that many of these reports are sincere and accurate, to the best of the abilities of the people involved. But, it is equally safe to assume that many are hoaxes, either faked specimens passed off as real to well-meaning journalists or invented out of whole cloth by the newspapers themselves. The 19th century was a golden age for hoaxes, and history offers many examples of fraud by and against newspapers: the Locke Moon hoax, “Jacko” (a figure of bigfoot folklore), the Feejee mermaid, the Cardiff Giant, etc, etc. At this late date, there is no way to sort these out.

Interestingly, even the lore of modern flood geology does not reflect an immediate interest in “fossil humans”. G.M. Price himself was openly skeptical, declaring that, since the Flood was sent to destroy ancient man, their remains, if present at all, would be buried too deeply to be found readily. With the release of Genesis Flood, the search for pre-Diluvial man became a major concern. Any number of alleged human fossils have been publicized in YEC sources.

Carl Baugh’s Creation Evidence Museum provides an all-too-representative sample of “fossil human” material. Of six objects on display at his website, two are artifacts- a hammer and a pot- reportedly recovered from pre-Tertiary rocks. The artifacts are unquestionably authentic, but they are equally unquestionably common implements of 19th- and 20th-century miners and geologists. What obviously happened was that they were lost in the vicinity of ancient formations and were covered by dust or mud that later reconsolidated. The other three are blatant pseudo fossils. Another, the notorious Burdick track, was conceded by Morris himself to be a likely hoax. A supposed human finger, complete with alleged soft tissue, is an obvious pseudofossil, most likely a concretion or stretched pebble. Internal and external detail fall about as far short of

authentic fossils (including known dinosaur hands) as a preschooler’s fingerpainting does of a Van Gogh . A supposed human handprint would, if it were at least an authentic trace, come closer to the shape of a crocodile’s foot than a human hand. Prominently visible and totally undeformed laminae in the sides of the “trace” make it clear that it was, in fact, formed after the strata were deposited and consolidated.

The centerpiece of Baugh’s sorry collection is the infamous “trilobite boot print”, more formally known as the Meister print. This is purported to be the track of a human shoe, often characterized as a heeled boot, and contains several fossil trilobites. It has a remarkably long history. First discovered in 1968, it was first publicized in 1970. It was, perhaps, one of the first YEC “discoveries” in recent times to receive enough attention to be debunked in mainstream publications (Conrad, 1981). Even so, it was promoted by Morris and his affiliates until at least the late 1980s, and still is likely to be encountered in presentations or recent publications by young-Earthers.

By any objective appraisal, this specimen never deserved serious attention, let alone promotion as authentic. The first count against it was that it did not represent a plausible life assemblage. Trilobites were marine animals, and authentic trilobite tracks make it clear that this was their natural habitat. Even if humans had existed at the same time, this is obviously not a place one would expect to find their footprints. It is far more probable either that the trace was made by an entirely different organism, or that it is a pseudofossil. Any amount of examination readily affirms the latter conclusion. Authentic fossil footprints are concavities or convexities in the surrounding sediment. But the Meister “print” is blatantly a three-dimentional mass, discrete in every possible way from the rock around it. In places, the trilobite-containing material can be seen to rise above or dip below the slab’s matrix. The only reasonable diagnosis is a concretion formed after the trilobites were buried, and possibly after the matrix was petrified. Many similar masses are known from the area, which do not show even superficial similarity to a footprint.

It is highly significant to note the way presentation effects the apparent credibility of the specimen. If one were to simply look at the specimen in normal light, it would look pretty much like what it is: a differently-colored splotch of rock shaped vaguely like a human foot. The photo on Baugh’s sight was clearly lit at a low angle, casting shadows which give a largely illusory impression of depth (but, to the attentive eye, revealing that it is not really an impression). But what one is most likely to see in YEC literature is a black-and-white image, reproduced rather poorly from what may be the same original photo. In these murky images, none of the telltale edges can be seen clearly, and the trilobite-bearing mass appears to be black, which it certainly is not. This effect could have been achieved by putting water or oil on the specimen before taking the photo(s), or even by retouching the image. Hence, the most widely circulated images are the ones which make it look the most convincing. It is almost saddening to say that there is no reason to assume that any insincerity or conscious deception was involved. A very disturbing thing about scientific fraud (of one variety or another) is that it is usually committed not by cynical charlatans, but by people who show every sign of sincere belief in what they are trying to “prove”.

The most massively publicized of these alleged human fossils are the infamous Paluxy River tracks. At first, these were generally dismissed as pseudofossils or even outright hoaxes. Well-documented instances of the forging of tracks in the 1930s and ‘40s were readily seized upon to justify the latter explanation. (More thoughtful critiques pointed out that photos in YEC publications showed “traces” that had openly been filled with fluid, and that the supposed human affinities were less clear without it.) As mainstream attention was grudgingly brought to bear on the problem, it was soon concluded that many were, indeed, real traces, but of dinosaurs, not men. This raises a significant point. Occasionally, reports of anomalous humans may herald legitimate discoveries that could genuinely alter our understanding of prehistoric life. Just as the infamous “scrotum humanum” pointed ahead to the recognition of dinosaurs, so the study of Paluxy tracks has contributed significantly to the understanding of trace preservation and of dinosaur behavior. But, this speaks more ill than good of young-Earthers. Their openly antagonistic attittude toward mainstream science probably did far more to delay professional investigation at Paluxy than to encourage it, and the fact that those who finally did investigate did so mainly to refute their own intemperate claims reflects poorly on all concerned. How many other significant discoveries are being denigrated or overlooked simply because of the unwelcome publicity of flood geologists?

Somewhat surprisingly, this is one area where young-Earth proponents show signs of backing down. Hoaxes, pseudofossils and misinterpreted finds like those already discussed have been increasingly viewed even in young-Earth circles. Statements since 1990 from ICR and AiG suggest at least a “de facto” shift toward the original cautious stance of Price. Continued claims about fossil humans seem to come mainly from comparatively minor figures, particularly Carl Baugh. This appears to be creating a certain amount of friction between flood geology’s promoters, as in the following comment from AiG’s website: “We are sorry to say that, while AiG thinks he’s well meaning, (Carl) Baugh unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically... Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh `evidences’ despite being approached on the matter.” How their layman base responds to these low-key conflicts may well determine the shape and character of the flood geology movement, if not its very survival.

“Out-of-order” sequencesIn addition to ubiquitous reports of fossil humans, the other major strategy of

YECs against orthodox paleontology is to cite common local gaps and anomalies in the fossil record as direct evidence against the validity of biostratigraphy. This creates difficulties for any one person who would seek to refute them, because it draws upon three diverging banches of geology: sedimentology, paleontology and structural geology. The last of the three is especially formidable, even to those with a fairly high level of training. (One of my only Ds as an undergraduate was in structural geology.) The various arguments are addressed together here only because it seemed the most convenient place to do it. In general, they can be categorized as relating to unconformities.

Paleosols: On pages 418-421, Morris discusses the problem (addressed as such above) of organisms in life position, focusing specifically on “forests” of Yellowstone. In context, however, it is clear that the possible life stance of the trees is only one piece of evidence for a passage of years. What is at least as important is the overwhelming evidence that the trees grew in the same sediment in which they were buried(it is universally reported that some trees still have the original soil attached to their roots), and that the sediment is formed from eroded lava flows directly below them. This would make the deposits what geologists call a paleosol. The implication of all paleosols is that one stratum became solid rock before the one above it was even deposited. The absolute minimum time interval would be several decades.

Reworked material: These could be grouped together with anomalous humans, except that this designation assumes that authenticity is already proved. Reworking can lead to two things. First, it can cause older fossils to be reburied alongside younger life forms- also known by the far more interesting name of “zombie” fossils. Second, and more strangely, the matrix may be temporarily dissolved back into sediment, and before reconsolidating, incorporate younger organisms. In either case, there are three useful lines of evidence:i. Pieces of a foreign matrix are attached to or associated with the anomalous fossils.ii. The anomalous fossils display a different level of preservation than those around them.iii. The anomalous fossils would not naturally occur in the same environment with the rest of the assemblage.

These are ranked approximately in level of worth. The first proves reworking beyond a reasonable doubt, the second shows it to be probable, and the third proves at least that the anomalous fossils were transported from another environment.

Faults: Faults are perhaps the most common cause of stratigraphic anomalies, and the first potential explanation worth considering if there are anomalies in fossil occurrences. Faults can disrupt statigraphic sequences in three ways. First, they may throw strata out

of the horizontal, or even turn them upside down. (Overturned sequences shall be discussed seperately below.) Second, they may lift strata on one side higher than the same strata on the other. This often leads to a third type of anomaly, a local gap in the stratigraphic sequence, caused by a selective eroding away of the uplifted rock. The fourth anomaly, and perhaps the strangest, is the thrusting of one rock over another placing older strata over younger ones. It is highly significant to note that faults are commonly diagnosed without reference to fossil evidence. As long as the fault itself has not been buried, the characteristic shattering, scraping and deformation of the rock will be obvious to anyone with a trained eye. Even if such direct evidence is not in view, the presence of a fault can easily be established beyond reasonable doubt by stratigraphic anomalies, which often appear so suddenly and starkly that one may stand on a clearly unaffected hill and see an anomaly plainly on the next.

Where anomalies in the fossil record are attributable to faults, flood geologists proceed in the finest tradition of the turtle-stacker by denying the fault’s existence. Morris, like Price before him, focused specifically on denying the existence of the Lewis Overthrust. Like Price before him, he did not help his case when he proved unable to locate the (alleged) overthrust on his own figures. Morris used a fairly remarkable line of argument. He admitted that there was abundant evidence (eg. breccias) that might be associated with faults, and even that “small-scale” overthrusts had occurred on the unconformity. However, he not only denied that the unconformity as a whole could be attributed to overthrusting, but declared that “overthrusting on a large scale is... probably physically impossible.” This very statement sufficiently illustrates the flawed and oversimplistic nature of his objections. The modern approach to the problem has been to show how “small-scale” thrusting events can multiply into a “large-scale” overthrust.

Folds: Folds are a common geologic phenomenon, caused when rock strata are compressed into folds be tectonic force and other sources of pressure. These, along with tilting, are the primary cause of angular unconformities. Since the days of Hutton, these features have commonly been regarded as proof of the passage of long periods of time between depositional events. Morris turned this argument on its head by arguing that folds could only form in unconsolidated “soft and plastic” sediment. His very phrase is oxymoronic. By definition, something which is plastic has a combination of strength and flexibility. Laymen may have trouble imagining both properties in a solid rock, but anyone with proper training in geology should know better. The property of plasticity rises from the fact that rocks are made of countless mineral grains, which in turn are made from molecules and atoms binded together in hightly ordered structures. If these bonds are changed in angle but not broken, the structure of the rock is changed at its most fundamental level. If this happens on a sufficiently large scale, the whole rock will stretch, twist or fold. Of course, this can ONLY happen if the rock is already consolidated! The most dramatic demonstration of the power of the phenomenon to reshape “solid” objects are deformed fossils. Morris’s contention is thus refuted, and folds restored to their proper place as a refutation of diluvialist claims.

Overturned sequences: In extreme cases, folding and faulting may cause a sequence to be turned over entirely, making any fossils therein to appear to proceed from oldest to

youngest. YECs have made much of these, to no useful effect. A logical drawback is that these are the same as a conventional upright sequence in all respects except orientation (eg. Cambrian, Jurassic, Tertiary instead of Tertiary, Jurassic, Cambrian). As such, they are not nearly as damaging as an essentially random jumble (eg. Jurassic, Cambrian, Tertiary) would be. The important question, of course, is how to prove or disprove the explanation. If the presence of a fault or fold can be directly demonstrated, any further proofs are redundant. If such direct evidence is absent, one can turn to “up indicators”. Mud cracks are a good example of an up indicator. If the sequence is right-side up, they will appear as cracks. If it has been overturned, they will appear as ridges instead. If there are no mud cracks or any other up indicator, then one must be content to say that an overturned sequence has neither been proved nor ruled out.

In all of these anomalies, the flood geologists apply a standard of “heads I win, tails you lose”. If evidence for an unconformity is present, they try to reject it or explain it away. If no direct evidence is present, this is treated as direct evidence against an unconformity. At all times, they ignore the fact that one proved unconformity will entirely disprove diluvialism.

In summary, flood geology fails even to provide a good explanation of fossils, which from the beginning was the raisson d’etre of diluvialism. At every turn, its proponents have made claims which not only fail, but fail even to address real problems. Still, they may continue to pose the question: How do we know how old the Earth is?

5. The age of the Earth: Radiometric dating and geochronologyThe current revival of “flood geology” is clearly directly linked to the question of the age of the Earth, and also to questions about the validity of the historical sciences in general. It is, therefore, only appropriate to finish by examining the state of geochronology. Geochronology is, quite simply, the dating of rocks. If it can be shown that these methods are consistent, trustworthy, and above reasonable doubt, then it can be shown at the outset that “flood geology” does not solve any real and current scientific problems.

Radiometric dating is based on ratios of a “parent” element and a “daughter” isotope produced by the parent’s radioactive decay. Apart from carbon dating of relatively young biological materials (bone, wood, etc.), radiometric methods are used exclusively for igneous rocks, which are formed by the cooling of liquid rock, either above the ground as lava from volcanic eruptions or below the ground as magma.

Radiometric dating methods were instrumental in establishing a modern consensus on the age of the Earth. In the 1800s, before radiometric dating (or radioactivity itself) was known, the most geologists were able to agree on was that the Earth was at least several millions of years old. As soon as radiometric dating was applied to the problem, an age of over 1 billion years became axiomatic. Current estimates favor an age of 4.5 billion years.

Of course, the YEC/FGLG movement will have none of this. They consider it essential that their interpretation of the Bible must trump any and all other considerations. But, in contrast to the likes of Gosse, they are not content to let science work on its own terms while they go their own way. For no reason that is readily apparent, they want at least to be able to disprove science’s best estimate of the age of the Earth. To this end, they have set out to discredit radiometric dating.

Theoretical objectionsOne prong of the YEC offensive is to attack the basic premises from which radiometric dating works. In this way, like the defense attorney trying to suppress evidence on technicalities, they try to persuade their audience to reject radiometric age determinations on principle alone

A radiometric date represents the ratio of two atoms: a parent (X) and a daughter (Y). Ideally, a rock will begin with a given quantity of X (X0) and no Y. Over a fixed period of time called a half-life, half of the atoms of X will transform into Y. The ratio can thus be expressed algebaraically asX = X0/2 n Y X0(2n-1/2n)

As critics will immediately point out, the ratio can be changed by factors other than age. Some daughter isotope (Y0) may already present at the time the rock formed. There may also be leakage of X and/or Y in and/or out. Potential error caused by these factors can be shown as a slight adjustment to the equation:X= (X0/2 n )+/-Xc Y (X0(2n-1/2n))+Y0+/-YcWhere n= number of half-lives, X= amount of parent isotope, Y= amount of daughter isotope, X0=X at the time of rock formation, Xc= parent isotope leaked in or out, and Yc= daughter isotope leaked in or out, Y0= daughter isotope present at rock’s formation.

Once these adjustments are made, it should be obvious that the problem of leakage, while real, is entirely insufficient to cause the kind of error “young-Earthers” would like to assume. For starters, the error it produces will be random. Depending on the isotope and the direction it is going, the rock could appear too old or too young. Second, radioactive decay is exponential where leakage is arithmetic, which under most circumstances means the former will have greater effect. Therefore, anomalously high ages will usually be less than twice the rock’s real age. Third, leakage involves opposite changes in two rocks. For one rock to receive a massive infusion of daughter isotope, another rock must have lost the same amount. Thus, there will be about as many rocks that date “too young” as “too old” (already predictable by the random nature of error). This means that, in the wide sampling that would be used to date geologic periods, “too old” ages will be canceled out by “too young” ones. Actually, this is not entirely true. If the specific cause of leakage is heating (which generally metamorphoses rock), the change will specifically be daughter isotope escaping the rock. (This is the same process that removes the daughter isotope while the rock is liquid.) This means that, if radiometric ages err in any particular direction, it is toward too low ages.

Within this theoretical realm, the final argument of flood geologists is to deny that radiometric “constants” are really invariably. On this basis, they hold out the notion that half-lives could somehow be shortened. It can be said at the start that this comes suspiciously close to falling back from all their other objections: If changes in the length

of halflives are being appealed to, then determinations of n by isotope ratios is no longer necessarily under dispute. It can also be said that this is all but an invocation of the supernatural, and if that is going to be brought in, then their “flood geology” must vie with Gosse’s diachronism as much as with conventional geology. In any event, their solution has no value for the express goal of shoehorning the entire Phanerozoic into one year. That would take not just the increase but millions-fold increase in radioactive decay. By that scenario, igneous rocks would not form with misleading isotope ratios, but melt from their own heat; all living things would spontaneously combust and the air itself would ignite as all the carbon-40 on Earth broke down in an instant; and even those problems would be moot because every star in the universe would go supernova. Of course, one may always assume more supernatural miracles to prevent these things from happening, but why invoke a multitude of miracles when one will do?

Limits of error An intermediate question between theoretical and practical concerns is whether error, in the case of specific rocks, can be recognized, and also whether there is a theoretical limit to the amount of error that can be caused. In an unsuccessful attempt to argue for non-random error caused by selective leaching of uranium (335-336), Morris made the charge that the degree of leaching is unknowable. The implication is that leaching will not only favor high rather than low errors, but produce error with no theoretical limit. This can be written off quite easily. There are many ways to judge whether leaching has occurred and how much:

a. The occurrence of leaching can be detected by evidence of weathering by water and/or anomalous occurences of uranium in neighboring rock and soil. An odd result is radioactive fossils. In some areas, paleontologists have used Geiger counters to look for fossils. In my personal work as a paleo lab voluntary, I had a conversation or two about safety dealing with a slightly radioactive tortoise shell. (I was told that I shouldn’t worry about it, but it was suggested that I not eat my lunch in the lab!)

b. A concordia diagram, which compares the ratios of U235/Pb206 and U238/Pb207, can determine how many leaching events occured and when.

c. The laws of physics offer definite limits on how much leaching can occur at one time. Soil or rock cannot hold more than a certain volume of water (V), and that volume of water cannot hold uranium or any other substance beyond a certain concentration (C).

d. The error in age caused by a given amount of leaching, or action by any other factor, is limited by the ratio of that figure to 1) the amount of native parent isotope in the rock (which is exponentially greater in younger rocks); 2) the net loss of the parent isotope (which could be reduced by quantities leaking in from other rocks), 3) the net change in the amount of the daughter at the same time, and .

e. The amount of a material removed by leaching or any other cause will vary with the properties of a given rock (eg. some rocks are more resistant to water) and will reach an absolute limit at the point where further action by a given cause (heat, water, etc.) would destroy the rock.

Thus, it can be demonstrated through both evidence and theory that error can be recognized independent of anomalous dates, that it can be quantified to reach the correct age, and most importantly that the known causes of error have definite limits which fall far short of the disparity between the billions of years indicated by geology and the ca. 10,000 years claimed by Biblical literalists.

Argument by anecdote: Silly answers to stupid testingIn practice, “flood geologists” rely more heavily on giving examples of radiometric age determinations which are obviously in error. Perhaps the most prominently-used anomaly by flood geologists is a 19th-century lava flow that “dated” as over 1 billion years old. Most examples cited are too high, so it can be taken as at least an implicit

postulate of their position that most known radiometric anomalies are too old.

This last assertion represents the most obvious evidence of selectivity in this line of argument. Unfiltered professional literature, in contrast, will supply “too young” ages about as readily as too old ages. For example, a study of 28 historic lava flows found that 8 provided ages inconsistent with history, of which 5 were too low and 3 too high (Dalrymple, 1969). Even YEC reports of tests they commissioned themselves include anomalously young ages. (These are, indeed, the only YEC references to anomalously low dates I have noted.) The apparent preponderance of “too-old” ages, as indicated by the YECs’ own media, can only be regarded as a wrong impression produced intentionally. It serves a very definite purpose: Presenting only (or mostly) “too old” ages suggests true bias rather than random error, and only the former would serve the purpose of arguing down the age of the Earth.

When these anomalous ages are cross-checked with mainstream professional literature, a pervasive common denominator is a known or possible heterogeneous sample: simply, material whose components actually are formed at several different times. These take many forms: Intrusions may bore through older rock. Conversely, inclusions of the older rock, also called xenoliths, may be incorporated into more recent material. (In the “one billion year old” lava flow mentioned above, the samples for which that age was obtained were identified as xenoliths before the test was performed!) The liquid may have gone through two phases of cooling, indicated by crystals that are sometimes large and sometimes small. Most strangely, there will sometimes be partially dissolved crystals in the matrix. In such cases, of course, dating anomalies are not only explainable but a foregone conclusion. Examples like these give cause for special suspicion where flood geologists do their own tests. Any knowledgeable and attentive student of geology can identify causes of dating anomalies even before such an anomaly is known. It would therefore be entirely possible to choose samples in such a way that, when tested, all of them gave erroneous dates. And what is to stop YEC geologists from doing just that?

Many “anomalies” cited by flood geologists involve the even more fundamental problem of inappropriate use of radiometric methods. A disproportionate number of anomalies cited by flood geologists, especially from tests they conduct themselves, involve rocks independently judged too old or too young for the given method to be used. According to orthodox geology, the usefulness of a particular method depends on the independently-determined age of the rock. If the test involves a parent isotope with a short half-life, it would not be used for a rock already judged very old, nor would a test involving an isotope with a very long half-life be used on a rock known to be formed recently. Flood geologists proudly report that when they ignore these warnings, and measure short-lived isotopes in ancient rocks or long-lived ones in historic deposits, the results are frequently higher or lower than the rock’s independently-reckoned age. They insist that this is evidence that dates from accepted, appropriate applications are also wrong.

Only three answers are necessary to this willful abuse of procedure. First, from the standpoint of data analysis, anomalous ages are as inconsistent with each other as with orthodox geochronology: Samples from the same source, and therefore (barring

heterogeneity) the same age, can produce several different anomolous ages, while anomalous ages from rocks clearly formed at different times can be identical. (The latter is especially true of carbon-dating anomalies, which consistently present ages of 50,000 years.) This would point to random error, rather than any factor that would systematically affect geochronology. Second, from a theoretical standpoint, while radiometric methodology predicts that there will be no native presence of certain isotopes in rocks above or below certain ages, it would also indicate increasing error due to the same amounts of contaminants in rocks outside an accepted age range. Finally, from the standpoint of professional procedure, it is unrealistic to assume that any test will have no possibility of contamination or other error, or that the specific cause of the error can always be identified. Let it be noted, furthermore, that in endgame it is the flood geologists, not orthodoxy, who grandiosely claim to exclude the possibility of natural contamination and human and mechanical error.

Alternate chronologies The most persistent and, in some ways, the most fundamental challenge to orthodox geochronology is that other methods, presumed to be at least equal to radiometric dating in its usefulness, provides an age of the Earth much lower than the 4.5-billion-year figure arrived at by radiometric dating. The “method” invariably involves extrapolating modern measurements of a phenomenon over thousands or millions of years, and comparing the result to what is known in the present or plausible in the past. In this manner, they presume either to refute the orthodox figure for the age of the Earth, or at least to provide a scientifically viable altternative. The most direct challenge offered to geology is that the stereotypical “uniformitarian” method of extrapolating what is observed in the present into the past is used to argue against the overall conclusions of uniformitarianism. The following are representative examples.

Heat lossAn argument which is sometimes encountered in flood geology literature is that the present rate at which the Earth loses heat is too great for it to be more than tens of millions of years old. This represents a revival of the last serious, mainstream scientific challenge to the uniformitarian premise that the Earth is billions of years old, being made originally by Lord Kelvin in the 1800s. Kelvin argued on this basis for a maximum age of 100 million years for the Earth. A generation of scientists regarded it as a serious theory, and men as influential as T.H. Huxley wholeheartedly endorsed it. Kelvin assumed that there was no production of new geologic heat, but after the discovery of radioactivity in the 1890s, this was almost immediately decided to be wrong, and Kelvin himself offered no protest. (It has since been established that Kelvin made a further error by not allowing for the circulation of molten material, which actually accounts for most of the difference between his figure and the modern one.)

Something which the ubiquitous accounts of this controversy rarely if ever discuss is the exact relationship of Kelvin to uniformitarianism. In methodology, Kelvin would seem to be as “uniformitarian” as Lyell or Hutton. Having observed a trend in the present, he extrapolated it directly into the past. In reality, they represent very different approaches, a fact most evident in their treatments of volcanic activity. Hutton and Lyell, perhaps the last faithful Aristotelians, held that the conditions of the Earth’s surface were the same over time. (For Hutton, this was based in an explicitly theistic belief that the Earth was designed to support life indefinitely.) It was, for example, assumed that frequency and magnitude of volcanic eruptions was constant over history. (It should go without saying that they still accepted individual eruptions and deposits as catastrophic by the standard of ordinary experience, but see discussion of Mt. St. Helens.) Kelvin’s model necessarily challenged this premise, as much as it challenged their idea of the Earth’s age: In earlier times when the Earth had more heat, the Earth’s conditions would have been very different. In particular, volcanic eruptions would have been more frequent and violent. Kelvin and the uniformitarianists hence assumed nothing less than different kinds of uniformity, on one hand, of conditions, and on the other, of trends. The implication for the present discussion is that many if not most of the “alternate chronologies” offered by flood geologists do not pit uniformitarianism against itself, but instead draw upon a quite different methodology which Hutton and Lyell personally opposed.

Moon dustThis is one of the most infamous arguments by flood geologists. In its familiar variation, it asserts that the known thickness of dust on the Moon is too thin to represent billions of years of accumulation. It made an early appearance in The Genesis Flood (379-380) in which Henry Morris applied essentially the same argument to the Earth. This argument is based on outright bad data. The studies cited were made in the 1950s, mainly in Hawaii, much too narrow in geographic and chronological scope to provide a basis for the kind of extrapolation attempted. By all indications, those who conducted the original studies had reservations about their ability to distinguish between meteoritic and purely terrestrial material, which would make their measurements a maximum figure. By the 1970s, direct measurements from space proved to be well under 10% of the 1950s figure. This did not keep the major flood geology promoters from circulating this argument until the early 1990s.

HeliumAccording to talkorigins.org, this argument was circulated even before the publication of The Genesis Flood, in which it appears on pages 384-385. There, Morris argues that the known concentration of atmospheric helium, compared to observed rates of release, would represent “only” 26 million years of accumulation. As usual, this is assumed to represent the maximum possible age of the Earth. More recent variations may put the figure at under 200,000 years old. This rather begs the question how well the level of atmospheric helium was measured in the first place: Most of the gas would predictably either be concentrated in the uppermost levels of the atmosphere or rapidly ascending through the lower levels, making direct measurement difficult! In any case, because of the height involved and the lightness of the gas, it would be relatively easy for significant amounts of helium to escape into space. Morris’s attempted rebuttal is that the upper atmosphere is too cold for helium to escape. The only necessary rebuttal is that there is no logical reason why temperature should be essential: Thrust from the famed solar wind would be adequate. Despite the self-evident defects, this argument seems to be one of the best-circulated and most steadily supported of the alternate chronologies.

Magnetic fieldIn 1973, Barnes published a paper arguing that the Earth’s magnetic field was decaying exponentially and irreversibly, and that more than 10,000 years ago, it would have been too strong for the planet to be habitable. This idea was generally promoted among flood geologists until well into the 1990s, and is still sometimes defended. But Barnes’ original “work” was based on assumptions refuted ten years before his publication. Studies of sea floor basalts beginning in the 1960s showed that iron particles in different rocks, formed at different times, pointed in opposite directions. Ordinary observation showed that particles in the original lava would have aligned with magnetic north, just like the needle of a compass. Thus, the simplest explanation for the differing orientations of iron was cyclical reversals in the magnetic field, and mainstream professionals were quick to accept this conclusion. It has since been accepted as a means of correlating rocks. A later attempt was made to rehabilitate his argument, which is futile even taken at face value because it leaves the fact of field reversals undisputed.

The common denominator in all of these arguments is that they are scientifically flawed on multiple levels, to the extent that one is hard-pressed to avoid regarding that the sources are either inexcusably lazy or actively fraudulent. Behind every “alternative”age is a disputable or already disproved assumption, data that is limited at best and irreproducible at worst, and statistical methodology that virtually reverses every accepted principle. The other common characteristic is that they do not, singly or collectively, prove any constructive point: No two methods support each other, and apart from the unusually weak “magnetic field” argument, none of them are less than one order of magnitude greater than the 10,000-year “Biblical” figure which flood geologists treat as non-negotiable. The flood geologists thus show no more inclination to accept the “alternate” ages they arrive at than drug dealers are reputed to have for using their own product! It can be added that what “review” there is in their own ranks is no more purposeful than the hydra biting off its own head: For every one “chronology” that is retracted, several more that are no better remain in circulation.

The bottom line is that orthodox science, in contrast, has produced higher levels of certainty, through the exclusion of low and high ages. At the start of the 20th century, estimates gave a spread of 1 to 10 billion years , an uncertainty factor of ten (1000%). At the time The Genesis Flood was written, the spread had shrunk to 3.5-5 billion years, with an admitted uncertainty of about 16%. Today, the figure is down to 4.3-4.8 billion years, with an uncertainty figure of around 12%. The result is less uncertainty, and a stronger consensus among qualified professionals.

Allen, J.R.L. 1970 Physical processes of sedimentation. Allen and Unwin.

Bartelt, Karen. 1998. “A Visit to the Institute for Creation Research”

G.B. Dalrymple, “40Ar/36Ar Analyses of Historic Lava Flows,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6 (1969): pp. 47-55.

Ellenberger, Francois. History of Geology (v 1 and 2). 1999.

Ham, Ken. 2003. Why won’t they listen? Master Books.

McKee, E. D., 1979. A study of global sand seas: Ancient sandstones considered to be eolian. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1052, Reston, VA: USGS.

Sarfati, Jonathan. 2004. Refuting Compromise. Master Books.

Schreiber, B.C, ed. 1988. Evaporites and hydrocarbons. New York: Columbia University Press.

Snelling, Andrew A. and Austin, Steven A., 1992. “Startling evidence for Noah's Flood--In a Grand Canyon Sandstone!” Creation Ex Nihilo 15(1):47. [1]

Warren, J. 1999. Evaporites: Their evolution and economics. Blackwell Science, Ltd.