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

[CrowCross]

It's a forced fit. AiG makes such a big deal about following the literal teaching of Scripture and not compromising, but picks and chooses what it accepts as literal in the Bible. The six rise-fall global changes in sea level we see in the geologic record can't all be made to fit a single rise-and-fall Flood. Not if we're going to stay true to the literal teaching of Scripture.

A single rise and fall event...here you go again acting like Mr. Bubbles in the bathtub playing with your yellow duck.

The bible required no flood...then a rise in water....the mountains covered...waters decrease...then back to no flood.

What happened with the water level in the bible between the rising of the water and the mountains being covered....is not mentioned.

You semed to have used the figure in a deceptive way presenting the rises and fall of the water as occurring all over the globe at the same time rather than in various locations across the planet.

 

[TB2]

A single rise and fall event...here you go again acting like Mr. Bubbles in the bathtub playing with your yellow duck.

The bible required no flood...then a rise in water....the mountains covered...waters decrease...then back to no flood.

What happened with the water level in the bible between the rising of the water and the mountains being covered....is not mentioned.

You semed to have used the figure in a deceptive way presenting the rises and fall of the water as occurring all over the globe at the same time rather than in various locations across the planet.

Okay, I'm listening. I'll hear you out. According to Genesis 8.1 *when* and *why* did the Flood waters start receding?

 

[CrowCross]

Okay, I'm listening. I'll hear you out. According to Genesis 8.1 *when* and *why* did the Flood waters start receding?

Genesis 8:1 tells us only part of the method as to how God made the waters subside.

1But God remembered Noah and all the animals and livestock that were with him in the ark. And God sent a wind over the earth, and the waters began to subside.

In Gen 1 we read of something similar...9 And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” And it was so.

Was the same method used? Perhaps. But as ayone applying proper hermeneutics understand other portions of the bible are often used to help fill in the "gaps".

In Psalms 104 more info is given....
5 He set the earth on its foundations,
never to be moved.
6 You covered it with the deep like a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.....See Gen 7:19.
7 At Your rebuke the waters fled;
at the sound of Your thunder they hurried away—
8 the mountains rose and the valleys sank....(as we see it was more than wind.)
to the place You assigned for them—
9 You set a boundary they cannot cross,
that they may never again cover the earth.....see Gen 9:11

 

[TB2]

Genesis 8:1 tells us only part of the method as to how God made the waters subside.

1But God remembered Noah and all the animals and livestock that were with him in the ark. And God sent a wind over the earth, and the waters began to subside.

In Gen 1 we read of something similar...9 And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” And it was so.

Was the same method used? Perhaps. But as ayone applying proper hermeneutics understand other portions of the bible are often used to help fill in the "gaps".

In Psalms 104 more info is given....
5 He set the earth on its foundations,
never to be moved.
6 You covered it with the deep like a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.....See Gen 7:19.
7 At Your rebuke the waters fled;
at the sound of Your thunder they hurried away—
8 the mountains rose and the valleys sank....(as we see it was more than wind.)
to the place You assigned for them—
9 You set a boundary they cannot cross,
that they may never again cover the earth.....see Gen 9:11

That fits perfectly with what I said. If the mountains rose and the valleys sank the water still recedes only one time (!)

 

[TB2]

If you want to know the true facts of the situation get this book written by Christian geologists

 

[CrowCross]

That fits perfectly with what I said. If the mountains rose and the valleys sank the water still recedes only one time (!)

The waters only rose to cover the mountains one time and receded only one time. God gave the promise to not flood the earth again.

 

[CrowCross]

If you want to know the true facts of the situation get this book written by Christian geologists

View attachment 371

 

[TB2]

If you want to know the true facts of the situation get this book written by Christian geologists

View attachment 371

Lol the book I recommended ("Monument to an Ancient Earth") was written in response to yours ("Monument to Catastrophe") because of how inaccurate it is

 

[CrowCross]

Lol the book I recommended ("Monument to an Ancient Earth") was written in response to yours ("Monument to Catastrophe") because of how inaccurate it is

So you say....can you point out 1 example? Go to your book and find your best example that shows where Austins book is inaccurate.

 

[TB2]

So you say....can you point out 1 example? Go to your book and find your best example that shows where Austins book is inaccurate.

I've already given you half a dozen, but you just want to naysay and hand wave instead of engaging directly with the facts

 

[CrowCross]

I've already given you half a dozen, but you just want to naysay and hand wave instead of engaging directly with the facts

I've addressed them....now, present your best argument from the book...YOU MADE THE CLAIM....now back it up...or retract.

 

[TB2]

I've addressed them....now, present your best argument from the book...YOU MADE THE CLAIM....now back it up...or retract.

One of the first points made in the book is the same one I started the thread with. This one (the diagram is from the book too).

I'm not saying you haven't responded. To your credit you have responded to this multiple times. But do you see how your responses haven't yet solved the problem? We agreed that Post-Flood cities will be on the surface of the earth on top of the fossil record if flood geology is true. But Gen 2.14 identifies the Pre-Flood Tigris River in relation to a Post-Flood city on the surface of the earth (on top of the fossil record). Do you see how that is still an unsolved problem for flood geology?

 

[EarlyActs]

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.

I'm here bc you said to come here to see that the fossil record can't be due to the flood.

I have no idea what you are saying. I'm referring to the fossil record as in opisthotonics in some 13 N American states and provinces, among other places. Maybe I should say it this way: I don't look at samples smaller than watersheds of continents.

I think I already posted here about the latency problem. This is oral record originally. The oral records grew. What we have in Gen 1-39 is what Joseph knew to be the narrative of his people. The usual example is about the depth of water of the mountains; the question being when. They were being contorted. The narrative doesn't specify, but looks back flatly on history the way some prophets looked flatly at the future and were unable to distinguish near and far.

We don't know if the original lines about these rivers were about before the event, or about after the event, where they would be described as a person later would find them.

There is also audience-limitation in the Genesis narrative. The whole planet gets addressed at times but there are lines that only matter to people in the fertile crescent, as if they were were the whole planet, or the only people that mattered. Yet there is the tables of nations that show awareness of other places on other subjects. One place called Bab-El had an 'access' to God but there are many structures like it.

One other note on an item from the Enuma Elish here about the great deep. Gilgamesh has to go down to the great deep to paradise for redemption or to save his life. Set in that same region, it seems to be indicating the elevations were very different before the cataclysm. That there is 5m of fossil deposition there is absolutely no surprise at all. Thus the language of Ps 104 is important again.

Shell Peak on top of Klahanie in Olympic, WA, is named for the profusion of sea shells and fossils. You can find similar rock 50 miles away actually at the coast at sea level. Mountains were moved indeed.

 

[EarlyActs]

One of the first points made in the book is the same one I started the thread with. This one (the diagram is from the book too).

I'm not saying you haven't responded. To your credit you have responded to this multiple times. But do you see how your responses haven't yet solved the problem? We agreed that Post-Flood cities will be on the surface of the earth on top of the fossil record if flood geology is true. But Gen 2.14 identifies the Pre-Flood Tigris River in relation to a Post-Flood city on the surface of the earth (on top of the fossil record). Do you see how that is still an unsolved problem for flood geology?

But see the issue of latency in oral transmission etc.

 

[EarlyActs]

Well my page is failing to reply to specific posts right now.

re "Jesus didn't mention fossils in connection with Noah's flood." Nor toothbrushes. Come on, really. I don't know of anything even close to mentioning fossils at all. There is scant reference to archeology: a metal bed that was exceptionally long for a late-version giant. A copy of the torah in a wall...

 

[EarlyActs]

Well my page is failing to reply to specific posts right now.

re "Jesus didn't mention fossils in connection with Noah's flood." Nor toothbrushes. Come on, really. I don't know of anything even close to mentioning fossils at all. There is scant reference to archeology: a metal bed that was exceptionally long for a late-version giant. A copy of the torah in a wall...

TB2: about the Himalyas rising. You are using Lyell's argument: everything is confined to current processes and rates. Forget it. I totally disagree. S. Africa recorded a 10K ft slippage within the past few decades, I mean a single event.

 

[TB2]

I'm referring to the fossil record as in opisthotonics in some 13 N American states and provinces

Please expound

Set in that same region, it seems to be indicating the elevations were very different before the cataclysm. That there is 5m of fossil deposition there is absolutely no surprise at all. Thus the language of Ps 104 is important again.

Shell Peak on top of Klahanie in Olympic, WA, is named for the profusion of sea shells and fossils. You can find similar rock 50 miles away actually at the coast at sea level. Mountains were moved indeed.

Shells on top of mountains don't demonstrate a global flood, but plate tectonics. This is not supposition. In the geologic record we can literally trace the shoreline as it rises and falls multiple, numerous times. We also find evidence of plate tectonics. All these things are supported by multiple independent lines of evidence. At no time do we see water covering the entire earth. YECs recognize the evidence for plate tectonics and of course have Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. But the physics don't work and requires plate movement at impossible speeds that generate too much heat and that would cause severe fracturing of all the nice strata beds that YECs claim are evidence of the flood. Can't have it both ways. Then the volcanic islands and sea mounts that YECs say were formed rapidly too. But you can't rapidly form volcanic islands in a given location if the plates are rapidly moving at the same time. Again, can't have it both ways. Can't have rapid plates movement and rapid volcanic Island formation in place if the plates are moving that fast

 

[TB2]

Jesus didn't mention fossils in connection with Noah's flood." Nor toothbrushes. Come on, really. I don't know of anything even close to mentioning fossils at all. There is scant reference to archeology: a metal bed that was exceptionally long for a late-version giant. A copy of the torah in a wall...

Of course he didn't. We wouldn't expect him to. But that's why this is so anachronistic. Reading modern understanding and ideas (like plate tectonics and sedimentological processes) in the Bible before such a thing was even known. If that's what Scripture meant to teach, then it only became understandable in modern times.

 

[EarlyActs]

Agreed.

I can't seem to make a link to this original TB2 line, but my reaction is why bother studying something so fundamentally disrupted. Downstream from here, you can't tell us about layers and make arguments because they were violently disrupted.

I was reminded of this in SE AK when trying to find the depth of sediment in a channel and the chart showed a layer of material (sulphur?) slanting up like everything else here but jambed in out of nowhere. Geologic record yes, but it is like the patent office in Dickens' LITTLE DORRIT. Not worth reading! Maybe that is why there is wisdom to the succinct 'the fountains of the great deep burst open.' To explain further is folly.

 

[TB2]

Jesus didn't mention fossils in connection with Noah's flood." Nor toothbrushes. Come on, really. I don't know of anything even close to mentioning fossils at all. There is scant reference to archeology: a metal bed that was exceptionally long for a late-version giant. A copy of the torah in a wall...

Of course he didn't. We wouldn't expect him to. But that's why this is so anachronistic. Reading modern understanding and ideas (like plate tectonics and sedimentological processes) in the Bible before such a thing was even known. If that's what Science meant to teach, then it only became understandable in modern times

TB2: about the Himalyas rising. You are using Lyell's argument: everything is confined to current processes and rates. Forget it. I totally disagree. S. Africa recorded a 10K ft slippage within the past few decades, I mean a single event.

Then you're not hearing me. I've already told you that's a strawman. Modern geologists don't assume strict Lyellian uniformitarianism anymore but recognize both catastrophic and slow processes based on what the evidence indicates. It is well known that rates of plate motion have not been constant, so large scale slippages are already recognized. And rates represent *average* rates. But what we don't is all of the geologic record happening in a single calendar year