• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Why the Fossil Record Can't Be Due To Noah's Flood

Flood geology is supposed to be based on hydrological sorting, right?
In some areas, yes...in other areas, no. Hydrodynamic selectivity is not the only method.
Other methods include ecological and biogeographic zonation. Differential escape and selective preservation are other means.

All though hydrodynamic selectivity show that the multi-continent large sandstones were deposited by more than a "local" flood.
 
The mountains did not suddenly rise. Learn about plate tectonics which we now measure with satellites. The Himalayas are continuing to get taller by an inch or so every year
Recumbent folds show the results of plate tectonics that happened rather abruptly. The folds show the rock strata in the formation were still plastic from recently being deposited by the flood of Noah and had the ability to bend and fold. I would imagine you would understand if the rock strata were "rock hard"...the strata would have snap, crackled and popped....fracturing and shattering if your model of continental drift were applied. Once again the flood scenario wins out.
 
Yes, but Jesus didn't say the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. That is an assumption that goes beyond the Bible.
Not when "science" claims this happened beyond 6,000 years. That is going beyond the Bible.

There was nothing but water that first day as that first day was created by that creation of light thus time began in establishing the "beginning".
 
Correct. The Bible doesn't present a local flood, but nor does it teach a mere "global" flood. "Global" doesn't go far enough. The Bible teaches a Flood of "cosmic proportions" as a reversal and undoing of the very Creation week itself. Undoing the orderly separation of earth and sea, of the waters above and the waters below, with a return to the primeval watery chaos of Gen 1.2.
Nope. There was no earth nor the universe that first day. Only water. The creation of the beginning by the creation of light in assigning the dark as night and the light as day in establishing each day as evening and morning that day and every day since as a 24 hour day.

The fact that Genesis 2:1-3 is citing the conclusion of how God did created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1 should be taken to that effect.

@CrowCross & @Sereni-tea

It cannot be considered returning to Genesis 1:2 in the imagination you cited when there was no planet with an upper atmosphere until day 2 when gravity was created in separating the water from the water as in the fimrment from the formament as in one place, the water planet from the other place, the upper atmosphere.

And so there was no land, let alone a planet that first day at all and therefore cannot be seen as returning to that state when the flood waters rose up and covered the very mountains.

Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. 6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. 7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

So do not believe the deceived nor the liars in that false science, but believe His words instead.
"The post flood rivers were given the same name."--- According to Genesis 2.14, the pre-flood & post flood Tigris & Euphrates are one in the same
@CrowCross & @Sereni-tea

Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
 
The fact that Genesis 2:1-3 is citing the conclusion of how God did created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1 should be taken to that effect.
Gen 1:1 is a form of summary....then Genesis continues with what God did to fulfill Gen 1. Gen 2 is basically a summary of day six of Gen 1.
 
Gen 1:1 is a form of summary....then Genesis continues with what God did to fulfill Gen 1. Gen 2 is basically a summary of day six of Gen 1.
Genesis 2:1-3 is the completion of how God did it in Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 1:In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 2:1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

But I agree that from Genesis 2:4 and onward is about the generations of mankind per the event of the sixth day but in more detail.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

That is a clue that this is another topic about where man came from and since man was not there yet to till the ground, it should be obvious that this is about the 6th day but in more detail.
 
Genesis 2:1-3 is the completion of how God did it in Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 1:In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 2:1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

But I agree that from Genesis 2:4 and onward is about the generations of mankind per the event of the sixth day but in more detail.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

That is a clue that this is another topic about where man came from and since man was not there yet to till the ground, it should be obvious that this is about the 6th day but in more detail.
I agree...though many believe Gen 2:1-3 belong in Gen 1.
 
If there was no universe, how was there water?
Hard to imagine but gravity was created the second day for how God started the creation of the planet earth by separating that water from one firmament ( a water planet ) to another firmament ( the upper atmosphere ).

As it is, you have to explain why God did that on the second day if there was already a planet with an upper atmosphere.

And creating the sun & the moon and the stars the fourth day if the universe was already there.

So this other notion about God recreating everything that got wasted between verse 1 & 2 is false because it is written that God rested the seventh day from all His creation in those 6 days. If there was an existence before that actual first day, then the first day ceases to mean the first day and thus not the beginning.

AND God cannot say He rested the 7th day from all His creation thus ignoring the time where He had created the heaven and the earth long before that first day.
 
Hard to imagine but gravity was created the second day for how God started the creation of the planet earth by separating that water from one firmament ( a water planet ) to another firmament ( the upper atmosphere ).

As it is, you have to explain why God did that on the second day if there was already a planet with an upper atmosphere.

And creating the sun & the moon and the stars the fourth day if the universe was already there.

So this other notion about God recreating everything that got wasted between verse 1 & 2 is false because it is written that God rested the seventh day from all His creation in those 6 days. If there was an existence before that actual first day, then the first day ceases to mean the first day and thus not the beginning.

AND God cannot say He rested the 7th day from all His creation thus ignoring the time where He had created the heaven and the earth long before that first day.
I have explained my views on Genesis 1 and it has nothing to do with science. I also do not hold to the idea of recreation between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, although whatever happened pre-redemptive history God has not revealed to us, so anything is possible.
 
I have explained my views on Genesis 1 and it has nothing to do with science. I also do not hold to the idea of recreation between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, although whatever happened pre-redemptive history God has not revealed to us, so anything is possible.
You cannot have pre-redemptive history if the first day was actually the first day thus the very beginning as time was created that first day.
 
WHY THE FOSSIL RECORD CAN'T BE DUE TO NOAH'S FLOOD

• This is not an argument against the biblical Flood.

• This is an argument against the common assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood.

1. The Bible doesn't actually say that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. That is an assumption.

2. There are biblical reasons to question this assumption.

3. There are scientific reasons to question this assumption.

‐-----‐‐----------------------------------------------‐------------
*Here is a biblical reason to question the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah Flood:

1. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as two of the four rivers associated with the Garden of Eden before the Flood.

2. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as still existing after the Flood.

3. But if the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood, then the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers should no longer exist today, but should be buried underneath >5 miles of fossil record sediment.

View attachment 316

*Counterargument: The usual reply to this is that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers in Genesis 2 (Pre-Flood) are not the same rivers as the (Post-Flood) Tigris and Euphrates Rivers referenced later in Genesis.

Problems with this Counterargument: (1) There is nothing in Genesis to suggest that two entirely different rivers (with the same names) are being referred to. (2) Genesis 2 identifies the (Pre-Flood) Tigris River with reference to (Post-Flood) Asshur (ancient capital of Assyria). (3) It is a completely ad hoc counterargument only proposed in order to try to save the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. (4) The straightforward, literal understanding of Scripture that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers are referring to the same rivers throughout Scripture (and not different rivers by the same name) was never questioned until recently in modern times, when oil drilling in the Middle East revealed that the Tigris & Euphrates are underlain by >5 miles of fossil record.
There are others cases where there is latent description. That means the verbal tradition used reference points from after to locate things before.

The classic shift is the height of the mountains. If the verbal recitation meant the mountains before upheaval, it is a smaller depth.

Some people have a real problem with depths of water over , for ex, Ararat. But Ps 104 refers to pushing mountains up, altering the mathematics.
 
Your picture also brought up "pitch"...and pretty much said it had to be oil. Though it may have been pre-flood oil pitch here is an article that explains...

How to Make Pine Pitch from Sap.​


Does the pitch mentioned in Gen. 6:14 have to have come from oil in the ground or could it have come from pine?
TB2.....did you miss this post?
 
In some areas, yes...in other areas, no. Hydrodynamic selectivity is not the only method.
Other methods include ecological and biogeographic zonation. Differential escape and selective preservation are other means.

All though hydrodynamic selectivity show that the multi-continent large sandstones were deposited by more than a "local" flood.
The problem is the data don't fit with a global flood, nor support hydrological sorting, nor ecological zonation, nor catastrophic plate tectonics.
 
Recumbent folds show the results of plate tectonics that happened rather abruptly. The folds show the rock strata in the formation were still plastic from recently being deposited by the flood of Noah and had the ability to bend and fold. I would imagine you would understand if the rock strata were "rock hard"...the strata would have snap, crackled and popped....fracturing and shattering if your model of continental drift were applied. Once again the flood scenario wins out.
Not definitive. Under heat and pressure, solidified rocks can become 'plastic' again. And also we *do* find fractured and shattered rocks throughout the fossil record too (!), which is problematic for a global flood.
 
Not when "science" claims this happened beyond 6,000 years. That is going beyond the Bible.

There was nothing but water that first day as that first day was created by that creation of light thus time began in establishing the "beginning".
The Bible dies not tell us the age of the earth
 
Back
Top