Marine fossils on mountains (Flood evidence 1)

Marine fossils on mountains (Flood evidence 1)


Wednesday, November 27, 2013

HIGH & DRY SEA CREATURES

Flood Evidence Number One
by Andrew Snelling
December 7, 2007

Fossils of sea creatures are found in rock layers high above sea level. This is just one more evidence of the truth of God’s Word.

If the Genesis Flood, as described in Genesis 7-8, really occurred, what evidence would we expect to find? The previous article in this series gave an overview of the six main geologic evidences for the Genesis Flood. Now let’s take a closer look at evidence number one.

After we read in Genesis 7 that all the high hills and the mountains were covered by water, and all air-breathing life on the land was swept away and perished, the answer to the question above should be obvious. Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth that are filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were rapidly buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime? Of course, and that’s exactly what we find.

Marine Fossils High above Sea Level

It is beyond dispute among geologists that on every continent we find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers which today are high above sea level. For example, we find marine fossils in most of the rock layers in Grand Canyon. This includes the topmost layer in the sequence, the Kaibab Limestone exposed at the rim of the canyon, which today is approximately 7,000–8,000 feet (2,130–2,440 m) above sea level.1 Though at the top of the sequence, this limestone must have been deposited beneath ocean waters loaded with lime sediment that swept over northern Arizona (and beyond).

Other rock layers exposed in Grand Canyon also contain large numbers of marine fossils. The best example is the Redwall Limestone, which commonly contains fossil brachiopods (a clam-like organism), corals, bryozoans (lace corals), crinoids (sea lilies), bivalves (types of clams), gastropods (marine snails), trilobites, cephalopods, and even fish teeth.2

Read the rest of this article on AnswersInGenesis.org!

Noah’s Flood: Six Geologic Evidences (Overview)

Noah’s Flood: Six Geologic Evidences (Overview)


Monday, November 25, 2013GEOLOGIC EVIDENCES FOR THE GENESIS FLOOD

Part I: An Overview
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.
September 18, 2007

This is the beginning of a series of articles explaining the evidences from geology for the Genesis Flood. Each article will discuss one evidence. This first article simply overviews all the evidences discussed in upcoming issues.

Have you ever been tongue-tied when asked to provide geologic evidence that the Genesis Flood really did occur, just as the Bible describes? Then what follows is for you.

canyon

This article provides an overview of six geologic evidences for the Genesis Flood, and in a series of six articles to follow, each geologic evidence will be elaborated upon. Together, they will provide you with ammunition and a teaching tool for you and others.

Why is it that many people, including many Christians, can’t see the geologic evidence for the Genesis Flood? It is usually because they have bought into the evolutionary idea that “the present is the key to the past.” They are convinced that, because today’s geological processes are so slow, the rock strata and the earth’s rock layers took millions of years to form.

However, if the Genesis Flood really occurred, what evidence would we look for?

Read the rest of this article on AnswersInGenesis.org!

Was there a water canopy around the earth?

Was there a water canopy around the earth?


Friday, November 22, 2013

FLOOD MODELS AND BIBLICAL REALISM (PT. 4)
Canopy theory

The canopy theory, as a model for the beginning of the Flood, aligns strongly with this ‘antediluvian paradise’ idea. This asserts that the ‘waters above’ referred to a canopy of water vapour, which condensed and collapsed to provide the rain for the Flood (figure 1). A few decades ago, this was very popular—for good reason, since it seemed to explain many things about rain, rainbows and longevity. Now it is rejected by most informed creationists.

However, the real problem was that some creationists gave the impression that it was a direct teaching of Scripture; CMI cautioned against such dogmatism back in 1989 when the model was still very popular among many creationist writers.33 After all, for most of church history, no one had seen a canopy in the actual text of Scripture, yet God specifically wrote Scripture to teach, i.e. to be understandable (2 Timothy 3:15–17). Furthermore, it seems to contradict Scripture, since Psalm 148:4 says: “Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!” Clearly these waters could not have been a canopy that collapsed during the Flood, since they were still present during the time of the Psalmist over a thousand years later.

Read the rest of this article on Creation.com!

Did meteorites initiate the Flood?

Did meteorites initiate the Flood?


Thursday, November 21, 2013

Flood models and biblical realism (pt. 3)

Meteorite impact

In the Bible, the first cause for the Flood was “all the fountains of the great deep burst forth” and the second was “the windows of the heavens were opened” (Genesis 7:11). Keil and Delitzsch comment:

“The same day were all the fountains of the great deep (תהום te hôm the unfathomable ocean) broken up, and the sluices (windows, lattices) of heaven opened, and there was (happened, came) pouring rain (גשם geshem) in distinction from מטר (mātār) upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights.’ Thus the flood was produced by the bursting forth of fountains hidden within the earth, which drove seas and rivers above their banks, and by rain which continued incessantly for 40 days and 40 nights.”25

Thus the Flood began with fountains in the sea and other deep parts of the earth, and only secondarily from the rain. However, some Flood models involve a meteorite initiating the Flood. But this could never be derived from the biblical text, and is instead driven by ‘science’. But could it be acceptable anyway?

Certainly, there is strong evidence of large numbers of impacts on the earth and other solar system bodies. Further, the evidence from lunar craters—their location mainly in one quadrant and the ‘ghost’ craters26,27 —suggests that the main source of bombardment was a narrow meteoroid swarm that passed by before the moon had moved very far in a single orbit.28 A likely time for this swarm was in the Flood year. Indeed, multiple impacts would provide sufficient energy to maintain the Flood, including causing much water (liquid and vapour) to shoot into the sky and return as rain. The Bible is genuinely silent on this, so such a model is biblically acceptable; whether it can solve all the geological problems is an ongoing question.29

Read the rest of this article on Creation.com!

References

25. Keil, C.F. and Delitzsch, F., Commentaries on the Old Testament, n.d., original German in the 19th century, English translation published by Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, The Pentateuch, 1.

26. A ‘ghost crater’ is “the bare hint which remains of a lunar feature that has been practically destroyed by some later action.” Alter, D., Pictorial Guide to the Moon, 3rd ed., Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, 1973.

27. The problem is that huge ancient meteorite impacts would both obliterate previous craters and smash open the crust and release lava. This leaves a very narrow time window for new impact craters to form, then be partially buried by the lava, leaving ‘ghosts’. Walker, T. and Catchpoole, D., Ghost craters are young too, Creation 31(3):18, 2009; Samec, R.G., On the origin of lunar maria, J. Creation 22(3):101–108, 2008; creation.com/lunar-maria.

28. Faulkner, D., A biblically-based cratering theory, J. Creation 13(1):100–104, 1999; creation.com/cratering; Spencer, W.R., Response to Faulkner’s ‘biblically-based cratering theory‘, J. Creation 14(1):46–49, 2000; creation.com/crateringresponse. They propose that a brief, narrow swarm of space objects impacted the moon producing the distinctive, dark, basaltic maria (‘seas’). This explains why the maria are almost exclusively confined to one quadrant—the swarm passed before the moon had time to turn on its axis (it is tidally locked) and expose the other side.

29. Oard, M.J., How many impact craters should there be on the earth? J. Creation 23(3):61–69, 2009; further discussion in letter by Bernitt, R. and reply by Oard, 24(1):48–49, 2010.

Pre-Flood Earth: no precipitation, high oxygen/pressure?

Pre-Flood Earth: no precipitation, high oxygen/pressure?


Wednesday, November 20, 2013

FLOOD MODELS AND BIBLICAL REALISM (PT. 2)
No rain before Flood?

Many older creationist models asserted that there was no rain or rainbow before the Flood, based on Genesis 2:5, “for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land”, and the Noahic Covenant in Genesis 9:13. This is supposed to result in a warmer and more even climate in the antediluvian world.

Yet the first passage is describing the situation before Man was created; it is silent on whether there was subsequent rain in the 1656 years before the Flood (Genesis 5). And there are plenty of examples in Scripture where God took pre-existing objects or actions and bestowed a new conventional meaning on them. For example, bread and wine obviously pre-dated the Lord’s Supper.

Furthermore, the Bible gives no indication that the ‘laws of nature’ (really God’s regular ways of upholding His creation) were any different before the Flood from what they are now. Yet they would have to be if there were no evaporation, precipitation and differential refraction before the Flood.

Read the rest of this article on Creation.com!

Was the pre-Flood world a paradise?

Was the pre-Flood world a paradise?


FLOOD MODELS AND BIBLICAL REALISM
by Jonathan Sarfati

Biblical creationists by definition believe in a globe-covering flood. But how this occurred has been a matter of intense debate within the creationist geologist community. Some general observations can be made from a theological, philosophic and scientific perspective.


Hold the Bible strongly; hold models loosely

vertical temperature profile for a vapour canopy model of the earth’s atmosphere compared with the temperature profile today Figure 1. Calculated vertical temperature profile for a vapour canopy model of the earth’s atmosphere compared with the temperature profile today (after Rush and Vardiman). Increased water in the canopy increases the surface temperature of the earth limiting the amount of precipitable water that can be feasibly stored.

The Bible, as God’s written word, should be non-negotiable. Its teachings are propositional truth, and must be the foundation for all our teachings, including about the Flood. This applies not only to explicit statements, but to anything logically deducible from these statements.1 In fact, Jesus Himself endorsed the Flood as a real event, the Ark as a real ship, and Noah as a real person (Luke 17:26–27), so how can any of His professing followers deny it?

But where the Bible is genuinely silent, we are free to use science to help build models to help elucidate the clear teachings of Scripture. But these models are just man-made—they must never be given the same authority as Scripture. In any case, science is always changing, so being married to a model today will probably result in being widowed tomorrow. Worse, if the Bible is too tied up with a model later discarded, many will think that the Bible itself was refuted (cf. the church’s adoption of Aristotelian cosmology v Galileo2,3).

Model-building should be an example of the ministerial use of science. In contrast, the magisterial use of science, practised by all compromisers on Genesis, overrules the clear teaching of the Bible to come up with a meaning inconsistent with sound hermeneutics. Instead of the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), this is Scriptura sub scientia (Scripture below science).4 With these principles, some popular ideas can be examined.

Read the rest of this article on Creation.com!

References

1. Sarfati, J., Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation, J. Creation 12(2):142–151, 1998; creation.com/logic.
2. Schirrmacher, T., The Galileo Affair: history or heroic hagiography, Journal of Creation 14(1):91—100, 2000; creation.com/gal-affair.
3. See Sarfati, J., The Galileo quadricentennial: myth vs fact, Creation 31(3):49–51, 2009; creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial.
4. Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, Master Books, AR, pp. 49–593, 2004.