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

[TB2]

Unfortunately, we do not at the present time have any geological evidence that a global flood has happened at any time in Earth's history. Ironically, I learned that from some of the leading, top Young Earth Creationist geologists in the world that I studied under while earning my master degree in paleontology.

 

[CrowCross]

The problem is the data don't fit with a global flood, nor support hydrological sorting, nor ecological zonation, nor catastrophic plate tectonics.

If you say so.

 

[CrowCross]

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.

heat and pressure???? I was once told the rock strata sank...was bent, then rose back up to the surface. I didn't really accept that as like you, they only presented an unsupported claim.

 

[ChristB4us]

The Bible dies not tell us the age of the earth

The Bible did when time was created hence the beginning by that first day. Then the beginning of the creation of the earth happened the second day by creating gravity in separating the water from one firmament, the water planet from the other firmament, the upper atmosphere. Then God laid the foundations of the earth that 3rd day in completing the creation of the earth.

Then He created the universe the fourth day for the sole purpose of giving her lights to that earth that fourth day for signs, seasons, days and years.

That is why it is written that He was done with creating everything in Genesis 1:1 on the 7th day.

 

[CrowCross]

Unfortunately, we do not at the present time have any geological evidence that a global flood has happened at any time in Earth's history. Ironically, I learned that from some of the leading, top Young Earth Creationist geologists in the world that I studied under while earning my master degree in paleontology.

Then you would have know about these large flood deposits

Some of the layers exposed in the Grand Canyon are just part of a large formation that cover entire continents. The Tapeats Sandstone crosses North America, southern Israel and Egypt. The Redwall Limestone is found in Nevada, Wyoming, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, England, and the Himalayas. To form these layers the oceans would have to completely cover the continents many times. The only way the strata could have formed is if the entire world was under water at the same time (ref)....Just saying.

 

[TB2]

Then you would have know about these large flood deposits

Some of the layers exposed in the Grand Canyon are just part of a large formation that cover entire continents. The Tapeats Sandstone crosses North America, southern Israel and Egypt. The Redwall Limestone is found in Nevada, Wyoming, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, England, and the Himalayas. To form these layers the oceans would have to completely cover the continents many times. The only way the strata could have formed is if the entire world was under water at the same time (ref)....Just saying.

I've studied the Tapeats Sandstone, and the Redwall Limestone first hand. These formations show evidence of slowly rising sea level. But at no time do these transgressive marine sequences ever completely cover the earth. And as I've explained on prior pages (see link below), the fossil record contains slow growing reefs and stromatolites throughout, which take centuries to grow, including Cambrian stromatolites (the age of the Tapeats Sandstone). Again, see the link below and read Young Earth Creationist geologist Ken Coulson's work on Cambrian stromatolites and why Cambrian strata like the Tapeats Sandstone can't be due to Noah's Flood because it contains hundreds of square miles of stromatolites and 100 ft vertical stacks of stromatolites that take centuries to grow, which rules out a one year global flood. The problem is we find reefs and stromatolites throughout the fossil record; they are not all at the bottom like we would expect with ecological zonation.

https://christcentered.community.fo...ord-cant-be-due-to-noahs-flood.636/post-19458

 

[TB2]

Because of problems like slow growing reefs and stromatolites found throughout the fossil record that take centuries (at bare minimum) to grow, YECs don't know where to put the flood boundaries.

That's a major problem: YECs can't even agree where to put the Pre-Flood/Flood & Flood/Post-Flood boundaries. So, for example, you cite evidence like the Tapeats Sandstone as evidence for the Flood, and yet there are YEC geologists who put the start of the Flood higher up in the record, so it can't be evidence of the Flood.

So, any Flood model has to start there by first answering the following question: where in the fossil record is the start and end of the Flood? YECs can't even agree on this.

 

[CrowCross]

I've studied the Tapeats Sandstone, and the Redwall Limestone first hand. These formations show evidence of slowly rising sea level. But at no time do these transgressive marine sequences ever completely cover the earth.

I never said they did...the flood covered the whole earth. The article showed the enormous area of deposits of the sandstones that the flood deposited.

And as I've explained on prior pages (see link below), the fossil record contains slow growing reefs and stromatolites throughout, which take centuries to grow,

You are looking at them as if the rate of growth was the same now as it was then. I also presented in other postings that the reefs could have easily been moved and deposited in their present location.

including Cambrian stromatolites (the age of the Tapeats Sandstone). Again, see the link below and read Young Earth Creationist geologist Ken Coulson's work on Cambrian stromatolites and why Cambrian strata like the Tapeats Sandstone can't be due to Noah's Flood because it contains hundreds of square miles of stromatolites and 100 ft vertical stacks of stromatolites that take centuries to grow, which rules out a one year global flood.

ref please.

The problem is we find reefs and stromatolites throughout the fossil record; they are not all at the bottom like we would expect with ecological zonation.

https://christcentered.community.fo...ord-cant-be-due-to-noahs-flood.636/post-19458

 

[TB2]

I never said they did...the flood covered the whole earth. The article showed the enormous area of deposits of the sandstones that the flood deposited

The geological evidence supports gradual sea level rise but not catastrophic flooding. There is no evidence the earth has ever been completely covered by water. During the early Paleozoic sea level rise *almost* covers all of North America, but not completely. Almost covers all of North America during the Cambrian except for a small peninsula of land called the Transcontinental Arch. At first blush, this seems like great evidence for the Flood, until you ask yourself where were all the dinosaurs at this time when most of North America was underwater??? We're they treading water, until the flood receded a little (not according to Scripture though) enough for land to appear so they could stop treading water and leave footprints on land and lay eggs and then the Flood rose a second time and buried them?

 

[CrowCross]

The geological evidence supports gradual sea level rise but not catastrophic flooding. There is no evidence the earth has ever been completely covered by water. During the early Paleozoic sea level rise *almost* covers all of North America, but not completely. Almost covers all of North America during the Cambrian except for a small peninsula of land called the Transcontinental Arch. At first blush, this seems like great evidence for the Flood, until you ask yourself where were all the dinosaurs at this time when most of North America was underwater??? We're they treading water, until the flood receded a little (not according to Scripture though) enough for land to appear so they could stop treading water and leave footprints on land and lay eggs and then the Flood rose a second time and buried them?

...and once again we have the bathtub flood scenario.

 

[TB2]

...and once again we have the bathtub flood scenario.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Regardless, that doesn't change the problem that during the early Paleozoic most of North America was underwater, so where were all the dinosaurs? You didn't answer the question

 

[CrowCross]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Regardless, that doesn't change the problem that during the early Paleozoic most of North America was underwater, so where were all the dinosaurs? You didn't answer the question

During the early stages of the flood the waters rose much like a tide in some areas then receded in the same fashion...eventually covering the entire earth. Many small flod becoming a large flood then once again small flood as the waters receded when the mountains rose and the valleys sank. It wasn't a bathtub scenario as you suggested.

 

[TB2]

During the early stages of the flood the waters rose much like a tide in some areas then receded in the same fashion...eventually covering the entire earth. Many small flod becoming a large flood then once again small flood as the waters receded when the mountains rose and the valleys sank. It wasn't a bathtub scenario as you suggested.

I didn't suggest a bathtub scenario. Those are your words. You are also just speculating. Your speculation also doesn't match the literal teaching of Scripture, which says the waters rose, then receded. Scripture says nothing about repeated changes in sea level during the Flood, nor does Scripture say anything about mountains rising and valleys sinking during the Flood. Just waters rising and falling.

In the geologic record we observe six large scale changes in sea level over time.

Here is a short time lapse video showing those changes.

Diageam showing global changes in sea level. At no time do we see the entire earth covered in water. We also observe sea level rise and fall multiple times. This contradicts Scripture which says the Flood waters rose and then fell.

You are looking at them as if the rate of growth was the same now as it was then. I also presented in other postings that the reefs could have easily been moved and deposited in their present location.

You need to provide evidence of fast growth reefs.

You merely claimed that but provided no evidence. I rebutted your theory, explaining in detail the problems with your theory:

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/why-the-fossil-record-cant-be-due-to-noahs-flood.636/post-19499

Different types of slow growing reefs and stromatolites are found throughout the fossil record

And these stromatolites and reefs can be quite large and are globally distributed. Take for example the Thornton quarry just south of Chicago in Silurian rocks. The whole thing is a fossil reef ~300 feet high and ~1.5 miles wide

So we have this giant reef (not at the bottom of the fossil record), but growing in the middle of our flood---a reef that would take centuries to thousands of years to grow.

And not just here, but stromatolites and reefs globally distributed throughout the fossil record.

Stromatolites are also photosynthetic so have to grow in shallow tidal areas.

And yet YEC geologist Ken Coulson has mapped out Cambrian stromatolites over an enormous regional geographic area, confirming what we know of the Cambrian that there were extensive *shallow* eperic seas

I also provided you links to the work of YEC geologist Ken Coulson who acknowledges these problems and explains the criteria he used to determine the Cambrian stromatolites he studied were not transported. I will repost again.

For more information, see my friend Ken Coulson's work, a YEC geologist I admire and respect who has been honest enough to point out these problems. See the links above, but especially this one published in the Answers for Genesis Research Journal. In the Discussion, he explains in detail the criteria used to establish in situ deposition of the stromatolites he did his doctoral work on, and how you can rule out that they were transported

Using Stromatolites to Rethink the Flood Boundary

One such evidence is when you find the "holdfast" intact attaching a stromatolite to the seafloor bottom

Global Deposits of in situ Upper Cambrian microbialites: Implications for a Cohesive Mode

 

[TB2]

And there's more.....

Then in the MIDDDLE of the what is supposed to be Noah's Flood, there are massive, regional scale (Permian) evaporite deposits of halite and gypsum salts that require evaporation to form.... right in the middle of what is supposed to be the Flood

And we also have another giant reef complex (Permian)

During the MIDDLE of what is supposed to be the Flood, we also find massive (Permian) Red Beds with layers of gypsum salt in between. The gypsum requires evaporation to form. And the red beds require atmospheric oxygen to literally rust out the iron. In both cases, dry, arid conditions on land are required.

And in the Triassic we find the same type of thing. Massive Red Bed deposits that can't form underwater but require dry, arid conditions and atmospheric oxygen to rust out the iron. These types of deposits can't form underwater

The article showed the enormous area of deposits of the sandstones that the flood deposited

You must account for all the evidence, not just some. If you're going to cite "enormous area deposits," then you have to account for enormous distributions of slow growing stromatolites and reefs. But you also must account for "enormous area deposits" of evaporites and red beds right in the MIDDLE of the Flood that can't form underwater.

You also still haven't rebutted the Biblical reasons given for why the fossil record can't be due to Noah's Flood...

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.

*You need to provide solutions to all the above problems and that still just the beginning.

*You also need to identify the specific location in the fossil record where Noah's Flood allegedly started and ended.

 

[CrowCross]

I didn't suggest a bathtub scenario. Those are your words. You are also just speculating. Your speculation also doesn't match the literal teaching of Scripture, which says the waters rose, then receded. Scripture says nothing about repeated changes in sea level during the Flood, nor does Scripture say anything about mountains rising and valleys sinking during the Flood. Just waters rising and falling.

Then did the flood happen like the filling of a bathtub?

 

[CrowCross]

Then in the MIDDDLE of the what is supposed to be Noah's Flood, there are massive, regional scale (Permian) evaporite deposits of halite and gypsum salts that require evaporation to form.... right in the middle of what is supposed to be the Flood

Evolutionists suggest that salt deposits (so-called evaporites) form as seas are filled and evaporated over long ages. This is not consistent with the many salt beds we find in the geologic record. Many of the salt beds are extremely thick and cover vast areas. It seems quite inconceivable that huge basins could repeatedly fill and evaporate in cycles over millions of years and remain in the same location. Modern salt lagoons fill in, erode, and migrate, so the same processes acting today could not produce huge salt beds.

Modern evaporites are impure, with many organisms living in them due to other mixed-in sediments. Large salt beds are absolutely pure. Since they contain no fossils and are extremely pure, they must not have formed from evaporating seas over vast ages. Many now think the salt was extruded as warm-to-hot supersaturated salt brines passed upward along faults and then rapidly cooled when they came in contact with the colder surface water, thus immediately releasing their salt load en masse to form pure salt deposits. Today we find these pure salt deposits and other important minerals in similar deposits that can only be explained by catastrophic processes—the processes that accompanied the Genesis Flood. ref

 

[TB2]

Evolutionists suggest that salt deposits (so-called evaporites) form as seas are filled and evaporated over long ages. This is not consistent with the many salt beds we find in the geologic record. Many of the salt beds are extremely thick and cover vast areas. It seems quite inconceivable that huge basins could repeatedly fill and evaporate in cycles over millions of years and remain in the same location. Modern salt lagoons fill in, erode, and migrate, so the same processes acting today could not produce huge salt beds.

Modern evaporites are impure, with many organisms living in them due to other mixed-in sediments. Large salt beds are absolutely pure. Since they contain no fossils and are extremely pure, they must not have formed from evaporating seas over vast ages. Many now think the salt was extruded as warm-to-hot supersaturated salt brines passed upward along faults and then rapidly cooled when they came in contact with the colder surface water, thus immediately releasing their salt load en masse to form pure salt deposits. Today we find these pure salt deposits and other important minerals in similar deposits that can only be explained by catastrophic processes—the processes that accompanied the Genesis Flood. ref

Make sure to cite your sources. This is a copy-paste from Answers in Genesis. I'm not going to take the time to correct the incorrect science. I will just make two comments....

Evolutionists suggest that salt deposits (so-called evaporites) form as seas are filled and evaporated over long ages

First, YECs have a bad habit of lumping any and everything they disagree with as "evolutionists." Need to be more accurate and nuanced than this. Evolutionists don't "suggest" this at all, because evaporites deal with geology. Geology is a completely different scientific field of study than evolutionary biology.

Second, it really doesn't matter whether evaporites are pure or impure. You can't form huge salt deposits underwater. Salts dissolve in water. Evaporites like gypsum and halite salts form by evaporation of water. So, the question is how can you have these massive evaporite deposits in the MIDDLE of what is supposed to be Noah's Flood? That is one of many problems for flood geology. One of many evidences against flood geology.

These are enormous area deposits...

 

[CrowCross]

Make sure to cite your sources.

My source was presented for you to click on and check out.

 

[TB2]

My source was presented for you to click on and check out.

Ahhhh, thank you. Now I see the "ref" in blue at the corner. Thanks

 

[CrowCross]

Second, it really doesn't matter whether evaporites are pure or impure.

Oh yes it does god buddy. The same reason can be seen in chalk deposits.

When you address the purity issue....get back to us.