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

[TB2]

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.

Other way around, my friend. Like I said, it doesn't matter how pure or impure it is: it all requires evaporation of water, not flooding. So, you still need to explain how you can have the type of thing we see in Death Valley and the Dead Sea right in the MIDDLE of the Flood.

But while you're working on my question, I'll go ahead and humor you and a swer yours (here are two links):

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD301.html

CD303: Evaporite purity

www.talkorigins.org

 

[CrowCross]

Other way around, my friend. Like I said, it doesn't matter how pure or impure it is: it all requires evaporation of water, not flooding. So, you still need to explain how you can have the type of thing we see in Death Valley and the Dead Sea right in the MIDDLE of the Flood.

But while you're working on my question, I'll go ahead and humor you and a swer yours (here are two links):

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD301.html

CD303: Evaporite purity

www.talkorigins.org

You with all your bragging about education and rock hunting just doesn't seem to get it. Purity shows a rapid formation of the salt. Do I really need to explain why?

 

[TB2]

You with all your bragging about education and rock hunting just doesn't seem to get it. Purity shows a rapid formation of the salt. Do I really need to explain why?

(Now I am more than willing to converse with you, but not gonna tolerate ad hominen personal attacks. I have done no bragging, nor have I personally attack you, so I expect the same respect.)

No! Just the opposite, in fact! And they're not as pure as you think (you obviously didn't read my links; so I'll copy paste below). And "rapid formation" would simply mean rapid evaporation but still WITH NO Flood.

But I reject your "rapid formation" claim from the start. You simply stated it, because YECs stated it (and the YECs stated it without actually providing any peer reviewed research evidence! Your whole....

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.

.... from AIG came from ICR YEC John Morris who merely stated it. The "many" is one single person, and that one person is a YEC who doesn't even back it up with any citations to peer reviewed literature. You deride me for my education supposedly blinding me to simple truths, and yet YOU are the one proposing a fantastic way to get massive evaporite deposits based on a single person's word without providing any evidence for the existence of such a thing, when the simple truth that *everyone* knows (and that you don't need a fancy education to know) is that salt crystals form from evaporation. And we have entire lakes like the Great Salt Lake, and Death Valley, and the Dead Sea that show this whole process in action of salt deposits forming by evaporation right before our eyes.

Now, to borrow your own words: "Do I really need to explain why" massive evaporite deposits covering hundreds and hundreds of square miles across the North American craton occurring in the MIDDLE of the fossil record are a problem for the Flood?

Claim CD303:​

Evaporite deposits could not be from evaporated inland seas because they are too pure; they contain no organic matter.

Source:​

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 106.

Response:​

1. Evaporite deposits do contain impurities. The Sedom Formation evaporites in the Dead Sea Basin, which are more than 2 km thick, are about 80 percent pure halite, with 20 percent gypsum, marl, chalk, dolomite, and shale and with significant amounts of pollen (Niemi et al. 1997, 46; see also Jux 1961; Klaus 1970). The Paradox Basin evaporites have many thin interbedded shale layers containing brachiopods, conodonts, and plant remains (Duff et al. 1967, 204).
   
   We should expect few impurities in evaporites because hypersaline basins are harsh environments in which few organisms can live.

 

[CrowCross]

(Now I am more than willing to converse with you, but not gonna tolerate ad hominen personal attacks. I have done no bragging, nor have I personally attack you, so I expect the same respect.)

Come onnnnnnnn...you've presented yourself as a far superior know it all who can't be wrong.

You keep posting the same stuff over and over again despite being answered.

 

[TB2]

Come onnnnnnnn...you've presented yourself as a far superior know it all who can't be wrong.

You keep posting the same stuff over and over again despite being answered.

I will ask you again to focus on the topic and not the person

 

[TB2]

To anyone following this thread (or those just joining), let me restate that I am not questioning the biblical Flood. I am only questioning the modern day YEC assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. The Bible doesn't actually say that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. This is a non-biblical assumption. This assumption also conflicts with the plain, literal teaching of the Bible. I have already given one example, and now I will give a second. First, to recap:

BIBLICAL EXAMPLE 1: the Bible identifies the Pre-Flood Tigris River (associated with the Garden of Eden) with the Post-Flood Tigris River that is still present on the Earth's surface today. Specifically, in Genesis 2.14, the Bible identifies the Pre-Flood Tigris River (associated with the Garden of Eden) as the river that "flows east of Ashur," the ancient capital of Assyria whose ruins can still be seen today on the surface of the earth just west of the Tigris River.

"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

PROBLEM: But if the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood then the Pre-Flood Tigris River should no longer be indetifiable in relation to a Post-Flood ancient city whose ruins are still visible on the surface of the earth, but should instead by buried under 5-6 miles of fossil record sediment.

BIBLICAL EXAMPLE 2: The geologic record records six major (rising-falling) changes in global sea level over time. These six major changes in sea level in the fossil record are evidenced by large rock units called metasedimentary sequences (or metasequences for short). The names of these six metasequences are the "Sauk," "Tippecanoe," "Kaskaskia," "Absaroka," "Zuni," & the "Tejas."

Here is a short time lapse video showing those changes.

View attachment 354

Importantly, YECs recognize and accept these six megasequences as evidence of major global changes in sea level. The only difference is YECs say the six megasequences are evidence of global changes in sea level during Noah's Flood. (See, for example, this Answers in Genesis article).

PROBLEM: This contradicts the plain, literal teaching of the Bible. According to the Bible, the Flood waters rose, and fell a single time; not six times. This is no trivial point. In the Bible, the rising-falling waters of Noah's Flood have an important theological meaning related to God's remembrance of Noah. The Genesis Flood account is told *chiastically* as a mirror-image like sequence of events in the first half of the story that are then reversed in the second half. In the first half (events A-O), God sends the Flood in judgment of humanity's sins and we see the Flood waters rise. But then when the situation seems bleakest, "GOD REMEMBERS NOAH" (event P). This is the pivotal turning point in the story. After God remembers Noah, He then starts reversing the entire sequences of events step-by-step, and the Flood water recede. The entire Genesis Flood account is center around this key, pivotal moment, and tuning point in the story when "GOD REMEMBERS NOAH."

The Flood waters rise as a result of divine judgment, but then "GOD REMEMBERS NOAH," and causes the Flood to recede. The Bible says the Flood rose, and then fell after God remembered and intervened. The Bible doesn't say the Flood waters rose and fell, and rose and fell, and rose and fell, and rose and fell, and rose and fell, and rose and fell six times.

Yet, that is what YEC flood geologists teach: that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood and that there were six major global changes in sea level during Noah's Flood that correspond with the six metasequences in the geologic record. Not only does this contradict the plain, literal teaching of Scripture, but it also contradicts the theological meaning of the Flood waters receding as a result of God's remembrance of Noah. Did God judge humanity (rising waters), then remember Noah (falling waters), then decide to judge again (rising waters), then remember Noah again (falling waters), and change His mind repeatedly a total of six times?

Furthermore, these global changes in sea level in the geologic record, were not small, trivial fluctuations. Notice in the Answers in Genesis diagram (below) from the article: that between global sea level change 4 and 5, the waters recedes all the way back almost to the levels they started at (and below present sea level!), and then rise back to the highest levels again in stage 5; and then between 5 and 6, abruptly fall below present sea level (and even below the water leve that the water level start at), before rising back again.

View attachment 353

This a second example of how the common YEC assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood actually contradicts the plain, literal teaching of the Bible.

 

[CrowCross]

BIBLICAL EXAMPLE 1: the Bible identifies the Pre-Flood Tigris River

This has been discussed. Just because you think they would not name a river after a previous river...is nothing more than speculation.

PROBLEM: This contradicts the plain, literal teaching of the Bible. According to the Bible, the Flood waters rose, and fell a single time; not six times.

No, the bible tells us the waters rose...it doesn't need to tell us how...but, you seem to be sticking with the bathtub scenario as the only possibility.

 

[TB2]

This has been discussed. Just because you think they would not name a river after a previous river...is nothing more than speculation.

Do you agree that Post-Flood cities like Babylon, Nineveh, Ashur, Ur are built on top of Flood sediments?

 

[TB2]

No, the bible tells us the waters rose...it doesn't need to tell us how...but, you seem to be sticking with the bathtub scenario as the only possibility

The Flood waters rose

"17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[a][b] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days."

Then God remembered Noah and caused the Flood waters to recede

"8 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible."

Are you saying the Bible is wrong?

 

[CrowCross]

Do you agree that Post-Flood cities like Babylon, Nineveh, Ashur, Ur are built on top of Flood sediments?

Any post flood city would have to be built upon flood sediment...unless that particular area was eroded to pre-flood bedrock and then they built their city on that bedrock.

 

[CrowCross]

The Flood waters rose

"17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[a][b] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days."

Then God remembered Noah and caused the Flood waters to recede

"8 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible."

Are you saying the Bible is wrong?

Are you saying the flood waters increased upon the earth like the filling of a bathtub?

Are you saying it would have been impossible for a tsunami to wash across a continent depositing sediment....raising the water level...then recede later to be followed by another tsunami?

The bible only tells us the water continued to rise until the high mountains were covered....it doesn't tell us how the waters rose.
Of course you insist it was like the steady filling of a bathtub

 

[TB2]

Are you saying the flood waters increased upon the earth like the filling of a bathtub?

Are you saying it would have been impossible for a tsunami to wash across a continent depositing sediment....raising the water level...then recede later to be followed by another tsunami?

The bible only tells us the water continued to rise until the high mountains were covered....it doesn't tell us how the waters rose.
Of course you insist it was like the steady filling of a bathtub

Question: During the Flood did the waters rise to their very highest point, then recede all the way back down to where they started and even go lower than present day sea level, then rise again to their maximum height again, then recede again all the way back down and go even lower than present day sea level a second time, and then rise again, and then recede again?

Yes or No? (It's not a trick question. I assume we both agree that's not what the Bible says)

 

[CrowCross]

Question: During the Flood did the waters rise to their very highest point, then recede all the way back down to where they started and even go lower than present day sea level, then rise again to their maximum height again, then recede again all the way back down and go even lower than present day sea level a second time, and then rise again, and then recede again?

Yes or No? (It's not a trick question. I assume we both agree that's not what the Bible says)

No. I think in certain locations it was likened to the last hurricane that struck Florida.
As the waters in Fort Meyer were increasing the water in Tampa was decreasing.

Are you claiming that the waters only increased on the planet...like a bathtub...and no part of earth decreased until finally succumbing to the flood?

 

[TB2]

No. I think in certain locations it was likened to the last hurricane that struck Florida.
As the waters in Fort Meyer were increasing the water in Tampa was decreasing.

Are you claiming that the waters only increased on the planet...like a bathtub...and no part of earth decreased until finally succumbing to the flood?

I've said nothing about a bathtub. You're the only one talking about a bathtub.

But anyway, to be clear it sounds like you agree with me that the answer to this question is NO.

"During the Flood did the waters rise to their very highest point, then recede all the way back down to where they started and even go lower than present day sea level, then rise again to their maximum height again, then recede again all the way back down and go even lower than present day sea level a second time, and then rise again, and then recede again?"

So we both agree that the above question is not what the Bible teaches about Noah's Flood, correct?

 

[CrowCross]

I've said nothing about a bathtub. You're the only one talking about a bathtub.

But anyway, to be clear it sounds like you agree with me that the answer to this question is NO.

"During the Flood did the waters rise to their very highest point, then recede all the way back down to where they started and even go lower than present day sea level, then rise again to their maximum height again, then recede again all the way back down and go even lower than present day sea level a second time, and then rise again, and then recede again?"

So we both agree that the above question is not what the Bible teaches about Noah's Flood, correct?

The bible only teaches the waters increased....it doesn't go into the details.

But, if you need to throw out all of the flood models that don't present your bathtub scenario...because the bible doesn't mention the mechanics behind the flooding of the earth...have at it.

 

[TB2]

The bible only teaches the waters increased....it doesn't go into the details.

But, if you need to throw out all of the flood models that don't present your bathtub scenario...because the bible doesn't mention the mechanics behind the flooding of the earth...have at it.

Stop saying my "bathtub scenario." Those are your words not mine. I do not envision a bathtub scenario. The earth and oceans are not a bathtub. So please, enough with the bathtub.

The Bible says the Flood waters rose. God remembered Noah, and then God caused the Flood waters to recede.

That's all I said. I not talking about mechanics and what the Bible leaves out, I'm talking about what the Bible actually says. And what the Bible says contradicts YEC Flood models that claim Noah's Flood rose to its maximum height then receded *below* present day sea level, then rose a second time to its maximum height, and then receded again a second time below present day sea level and even lower than the water level at the start of the Flood, and then rose again, and receded again.

Anyone can see that contradicts the Bible. If the waters receded all the way back to where they started, then the Flood would be over. All of those global rise-and-fall changes in sea level can't all be related to Noah's Flood. Perhaps one rise-and-fall can, but not all. So you need pick from the diagram below.

Option 1: Noah's Flood was from 1-4
Option 2: Noah's Flood was 5
Option 3: Noah's Flood was 6 (just to right of 5)

*Multiple major global rise-and-fall changes in sea level. They can't all be Noah's Flood. You have to pick one rise-and-fall event.

View attachment 358

 

[CrowCross]

Stop saying my "bathtub scenario." Those are your words not mine. I do not envision a bathtub scenario. The earth and oceans are not a bathtub. So please, enough with the bathtub.

The Bible says the Flood waters rose. God remembered Noah, and then God caused the Flood waters to recede.

That's all I said. I not talking about mechanics and what the Bible leaves out, I'm talking about what the Bible actually says. And what the Bible says contradicts YEC Flood models that claim Noah's Flood rose to its maximum height then receded *below* present day sea level, then rose a second time to its maximum height, and then receded again a second time below present day sea level and even lower than the water level at the start of the Flood, and then rose again, and receded again.

Anyone can see that contradicts the Bible. If the waters receded all the way back to where they started, then the Flood would be over. All of those global rise-and-fall changes in sea level can't all be related to Noah's Flood. Perhaps one rise-and-fall can, but not all. So you need pick from the diagram below.

Option 1: Noah's Flood was from 1-4
Option 2: Noah's Flood was 5
Option 3: Noah's Flood was 6 (just to right of 5)

*Multiple major global rise-and-fall changes in sea level. They can't all be Noah's Flood. You have to pick one rise-and-fall event.

View attachment 358

I wish you would have posted a reference.

 

[TB2]

I wish you would have posted a reference.

(See, for example, this Answers in Genesis article).

 

[CrowCross]

(See, for example, this Answers in Genesis article).

As they said...it's a complex geologic puzzle.

 

[TB2]

As they said...it's a complex geologic puzzle.

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.