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

[TB2]

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.

*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.

 

[ChristB4us]

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.

Problem here is that you have not addressed why the fossils are not due to the Biblical global flood but just sowing doubts to the global flood due to the continuing existence of the Tigris & Euphrates river.

If I say the Marianna trench was where all the water went to and closed off forever to never flood the earth again; and science has discovered an ocean near the core that is more like sediments as if that excess water carried off the debris and what not with it, and the direction of the carving of the Grand canyon by that excess water running off is clue also as heading towards the direction of the Marianna Trench; then who is to say that the global flood took all that would bury the Tigris & the Euphrates river away from there from burying it and other sites too?

Let's say there was a local but huge flood in that area today. Once the waters receded, would not the environment and the returning normal weather re-establish and continue those two rivers? So why not the same for a Biblical global flood that covered the mountains?

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

Now address the fossils on that same mountaintop.

How can marine fossils and land animal fossils be buried together in that same sedimentary layer in that one smooth gradient by how they were both fossilized by, can exist unless they were runoffs from the receding waters from that global Biblical flood that covered the mountains?

 

[CrowCross]

Tigris & Euphrates Rivers should no longer exist today,

There are many examples of places, rivers, countries, cities named after what was pre-existing.

This is from an article on the subject:
If the Tigris and Euphrates mentioned are the same rivers by those names today, that would put the Garden of Eden somewhere in the Middle East, likely in Iraq. However, even a small local flood can change the course of a river, and the Flood of Noah’s day was more than a localized flood. The Deluge completely changed the topography of the earth. Because of this, the original location of the Tigris and Euphrates is uncertain. It could be that the modern rivers called the Tigris and Euphrates are simply named after those associated with Eden, in the same way that Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, is named after the town in Judea.

 

[CrowCross]

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]

There are many examples of places, rivers, countries, cities named after what was pre-existing

True

However, even a small local flood can change the course of a river

True. And it's true that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers have shifted their locations over time.

It could be that the modern rivers called the Tigris and Euphrates are simply named after those associated with Eden

The problem is Genesis 2.14 identifies the Pre-Flood Tigris River in relation to the Post-Flood ancient Assyrian capital of Ashur:

"14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates"

Ruins of Ashur, ancient capital of Assyria

 

[TB2]

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

Now address the fossils on that same mountaintop.

How can marine fossils and land animal fossils be buried together in that same sedimentary layer in that one smooth gradient by how they were both fossilized by, can exist unless they were runoffs from the receding waters from that global Biblical flood that covered the mountains?

There are many ways that assemblages of terrestrial and aquatic animals can occur that don't require a global flood, so that is not problematic. But in this case, I believe you might have accidentally misread the article, which says:

"The collection represents both sea and land animals, and through the 1,000-foot thickness of the main butte the group explored, the transition from oceanic to terrestrial environments was preserved in a smooth gradient.

''For example,'' Dr. Novacek said, ''we found the oyster beds and sand dollars just beneath the lowest sediments containing land animals. At that point the water was shallow and receding rapidly - a time of transition from sea to land, as the land was thrust up by magma and the movement of tectonic plates.''

The marine and land fossils weren't actually buried together, but were at separate stratigraphic horizons

 

[TB2]

Problem here is that you have not addressed why the fossils are not due to the Biblical global flood but just sowing doubts to the global flood due to the continuing existence of the Tigris & Euphrates river.

I don't have to address the cause of the fossil record. That is an interesting, but it is a separate question. The question of concern is whether or not the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood. And there are biblical reasons (given above) that suggest the fossil record can't be the result of Noah's Flood.

There are also scientific reasons. I will give you a few: slow growing reefs and stromatolites. If the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood, we would expect reefs (and stromatolites) to all be at the base of the fossil record. But we find them throughout the fossil record. It takes much longer than a year to grow these reefs and stromatolites, and they're very fragile (especially stromatolites) and can't grown in turbid, violent, catastrophic waters.

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.

Many YECs are convinced that the Great Unconformity marks the start of the Flood. The problem is there are giant reefs and stromatolites above and below the Great Unconformity.

A friend of mine, Ken Coulson, a YEC geologist I admire and respect has been honest enough to point out this problem. Here are some links to his work.

Rethinking the Flood Boundary

Using Stromatolites to Rethink the Flood Boundary

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

 

[CrowCross]

True

True. And it's true that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers have shifted their locations over time.

The problem is Genesis 2.14 identifies the Pre-Flood Tigris River in relation to the Post-Flood ancient Assyrian capital of Ashur:

"14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates"

The bible doesn't present a local flood but rather a world wide flood. The post flood rivers were given the same name.

 

[CrowCross]

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.

Who says your giant reef wasn't moved during the flood and redeposited elsewhere?

 

[TB2]

The bible doesn't present a local flood but rather a world wide flood. The post flood rivers were given the same name.

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.

"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

 

[TB2]

Who says your giant reef wasn't moved during the flood and redeposited elsewhere?

Great question. And the answer is that there would be evidence of transport. There are tell tale signs and criteria for establishing in situ deposition (in place) vs allochthonous deposition (transport from somewhere else). Think about a glass of water with mud, sand, and gravel that you stir up. The gravel settles out first, then the sand, and it takes days for the mud to fully settle out. Now consider a 300 ft high, 1.5 mile long Rock. The amount of energy it would take to suspend (without breaking it apart into pieces) doesn't make sense and goes against physics.

But let's say it still happened. It still doesn't make sense, because there are even BIGGER REEFS higher up in fossil record. So if the water slowed down enough for the Silurian reef above to drop out of suspension, then so would much larger reefs like the Permian Capitol Reef.

Flood geology is supposed to be based on hydrological sorting, right? So, if all the pre-Flood world reefs were ripped up and transported in a cataclysmic flood, then as the floodwaters slowed, the largest heaviest reefs would drop out first, then the medium sized ones, and finally the smallest ones. But we find just the opposite. The smallest reefs and stromatolites are at the base of the fossil record, and the largest ones in the middle to top. It contradicts hydrological sorting.

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 Model of Origins

 

[ChristB4us]

There are many ways that assemblages of terrestrial and aquatic animals can occur that don't require a global flood, so that is not problematic. But in this case, I believe you might have accidentally misread the article, which says:

"The collection represents both sea and land animals, and through the 1,000-foot thickness of the main butte the group explored, the transition from oceanic to terrestrial environments was preserved in a smooth gradient.

''For example,'' Dr. Novacek said, ''we found the oyster beds and sand dollars just beneath the lowest sediments containing land animals. At that point the water was shallow and receding rapidly - a time of transition from sea to land, as the land was thrust up by magma and the movement of tectonic plates.''

The marine and land fossils weren't actually buried together, but were at separate stratigraphic horizons

Smaller objects tend to lay first in receding flood water before larger ones.

Lowest sediments does not negate the forming of that one smooth gradient as it would have different layers of sediment.

Science has a name for it as it starts with an "h" I think. Those see through glass containers that has sand where you can see the ants at work? Well they have one just filled with different layers of colored sand as each color has a different mass or weight to it as this container is filled with water so that when you shake it up, they settle in the same layer of colored sands as they were before, no matter how hard you shake it up.

The fact that fossilized whale bones are NOT found underneath but with fossilized land animal bones as they can just bend over and pick them up should be telling.

 

[ChristB4us]

I don't have to address the cause of the fossil record. That is an interesting, but it is a separate question. The question of concern is whether or not the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood. And there are biblical reasons (given above) that suggest the fossil record can't be the result of Noah's Flood.

Isn't that the same as saying the flood caused this explosion in the fossil record whereas instead of the Cambrian period as assumed, it took place at the time of Noah?

There are also scientific reasons. I will give you a few: slow growing reefs and stromatolites. If the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood, we would expect reefs (and stromatolites) to all be at the base of the fossil record. But we find them throughout the fossil record. It takes much longer than a year to grow these reefs and stromatolites, and they're very fragile (especially stromatolites) and can't grown in turbid, violent, catastrophic waters.

That would be assuming that turbid, violent, catastrophic waters was happening everywhere instead of just air breathing living things being drowned out by the rising water in some places.

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.

Many YECs are convinced that the Great Unconformity marks the start of the Flood. The problem is there are giant reefs and stromatolites above and below the Great Unconformity.

A friend of mine, Ken Coulson, a YEC geologist I admire and respect has been honest enough to point out this problem. Here are some links to his work.

Rethinking the Flood Boundary

Using Stromatolites to Rethink the Flood Boundary

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

I can see by rising flood waters in many places as high as the mountains is how those things can survive. You do not have to have turbulent waters happening in every inch of the globe.

Then when the waters receded, they continued as they were in growing again just as the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers were flowing once again.

 

[TB2]

Smaller objects tend to lay first in receding flood water before larger ones.

Lowest sediments does not negate the forming of that one smooth gradient as it would have different layers of sediment.

You are misunderstanding. That "smooth gradient" is evidence of NON-catastrophic conditions

The fact that fossilized whale bones are NOT found underneath but with fossilized land animal bones as they can just bend over and pick them up should be telling.

You misread the article. The whale fossils ARE found beneath the terrestrial units and are NOT mixed with nonmarine fossils

 

[TB2]

That would be assuming that turbid, violent, catastrophic waters was happening everywhere instead of just air breathing living things being drowned out by the rising water in some places

I was "assuming" the best case scenario for flood geology. The truth is it's much worse for flood geology. We find evidence of slow, non turbid, non violent, non catastrophic gentle, repeated, rise-and-falls in sea level on a global scale. You haven't read the article links to Ken Coulson have you? If you don't believe me, believe him, a YEC geologist. We find global distributions of slow growing stromatolites that take centuries to grow and require low energy, quiet water conditions covering vast regions around the globe covering hundreds of square miles; with evidence of in situ deposition (growth in place, no transport). And not just single layers, but layers, upon layers, upon layers of stromatolites a 100 foot thick vertical sections. These sections automatically rule them out as Flood deposits (even YEC flood geologists agree). The problem is when you start going through the fossil record you find stromatolites like these in every major section, whittling down the options for where you can stick a world wide flood into the record.

 

[ChristB4us]

You are misunderstanding. That "smooth gradient" is evidence of NON-catastrophic conditions

But somehow mountains rising suddenly from the sea is not catastrophic?

And magically, land animal fossils are found with marine fossils but it happened at a different time? No.

You misread the article. The whale fossils ARE found beneath the terrestrial units and are NOT mixed with nonmarine fossils

They can't see that the mountains did not rise suddenly from the sea.

"Assemblages comparable to this are virtually unknown in the Andes, he said, since geological upthrusting generally destroys fossil beds. 'Remarkably Intact' Fossils" ~~ end of quote

"Nearly all of the fossils were embedded in surface rock and easy to pick up, he said." ~~ end of quote That includes land animal fossils.

"The collection represents both sea and land animals, and through the 1,000-foot thickness of the main butte the group explored, the transition from oceanic to terrestrial environments was preserved in a smooth gradient." ~~ end of quote

They just imagined that transition and yet they knew it would take a miracle for that sea bed fossil not to be destroyed.

Blind they are. Evidence of the biblical global flood, brother.

 

[ChristB4us]

I was "assuming" the best case scenario for flood geology. The truth is it's much worse for flood geology. We find evidence of slow, non turbid, non violent, non catastrophic gentle, repeated, rise-and-falls in sea level on a global scale. You haven't read the article links to Ken Coulson have you? If you don't believe me, believe him, a YEC geologist. We find global distributions of slow growing stromatolites that take centuries to grow and require low energy, quiet water conditions covering vast regions around the globe covering hundreds of square miles; with evidence of in situ deposition (growth in place, no transport). And not just single layers, but layers, upon layers, upon layers of stromatolites a 100 foot thick vertical sections. These sections automatically rule them out as Flood deposits (even YEC flood geologists agree). The problem is when you start going through the fossil record you find stromatolites like these in every major section, whittling down the options for where you can stick a world wide flood into the record.

I am sure there will be disagreement among YEC as there ae among Old Earth views.

I believe Jesus Christ. He confirmed the biblical global flood and the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah as a warning to believers to be ready or else.

Luke 17:26-37

 

[TB2]

I am sure there will be disagreement among YEC as there ae among Old Earth views.

I believe Jesus Christ. He confirmed the biblical global flood and the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah as a warning to believers to be ready or else.

Luke 17:26-37

Yes, but Jesus didn't say the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. That is an assumption that goes beyond the Bible.

 

[TB2]

But somehow mountains rising suddenly from the sea is not catastrophic?

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

And magically, land animal fossils are found with marine fossils but it happened at a different time? No.

It does no good to keep repeating a falsehood. They are NOT found with land animal fossils. Your article even says they're not.

Assemblages comparable to this are virtually unknown in the Andes, he said, since geological upthrusting generally destroys fossil beds. 'Remarkably Intact' Fossils" ~~ end of quote

And they would be even less likely to be preserved if they rose all at once in a global flood!

"Nearly all of the fossils were embedded in surface rock and easy to pick up, he said." ~~ end of quote That includes land animal fossils.

That just means they are eroded out. Fossils at the top of the Grand Canyon can be eroded out just as well as at the bottom. That doesn't mean the fossils are all in the same layer!

The collection represents both sea and land animals, and through the 1,000-foot thickness of the main butte the group explored, the transition from oceanic to terrestrial environments was preserved in a smooth gradient." ~~ end of ququote

Yes, the MUSEUM collection. What they collected from the field study.

Yes, the smooth transition refers to a slow, gradual recession of sea level over time as opposed to a catastrophic one where we would find evidence of scouring and rip up clasts and the like

They just imagined that transition and yet they knew it would take a miracle for that sea bed fossil not to be destroyed.

You are confusing the sea level regression ("transition") which happens during deposition and *before* mountain building with mountain building that comes after the deposition and sea level regression

You are also resorting to red herrings by failing to solve:

(1) the biblical problems in the OP; and
(2) the geological problems of reefs and stromatolites throughout the record that YEC flood geologists themselves have acknowledged as problematic

 

[Sereni-tea]

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.

Agreed.