Dispatches from the Creation Wars

The Defeat of Flood Geology

In the old days when I spent a good deal of time debating the evolution/creationism issue, the one issue that always seemed the most absurd to me was flood geology — the notion that most of the geologic record is the result of the Noahic global flood. Attempts by creationist geologists to support that argument are not just bad, they’re absolutely laughable.

It requires either monumental ignorance or monumental dishonesty to distort the facts to make them fit the flood model. A perfect example of this is the rank dishonesty of Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in The Genesis Flood, the book that, more than any other, launched the whole concept of scientific creationism, when they dealt with the Lewis overthrust. I discuss that example in some detail in an old post from 2006.

Phil Senter has an article in the latest edition of the Reports of the National Center for Science Education that takes a comprehensive look at the negation of flood geology by the flood geologists themselves. He looks, for example, at the fact that there are all kinds of formations and artifacts that could only have been deposited on land, not underwater, at all levels of the geological column — including those that creationists claim were deposited by this raging global flood.

A brief list of some of those formations and artifacts — meteorite craters, nesting sites, tracks and burrows of terrestrial animals, terrestrial volcanic eruptions, terrestrial sand dunes, mud cracks, and glacial deposits. We find evidence of these throughout the geologic column, including in all of the “flood strata.”

In many places throughout the world, for example, you can find dinosaur nesting sites well preserved in multiple strata over very long periods of time, evidence that dinosaurs returned to those sites again and again. They are found in strata that the creationists claim were deposited by the flood. So what on earth were dinosaurs doing building nesting sites while the whole world was underwater?

In 2007 I wrote a post about some of the many problems with flood geology. The astonishing thing is that there are so many people who continue to believe such nonsense.


  1. #1 David
    August 13, 2011

    Second atempt to post… come on, Ed.

    dogmeat wrote: “Let’s pretend that we accept the idea of a 450+ foot wooden ship
    built with the technology of the 3rd millennium BC, but I have to question the waste
    management and food service industry of the time. Where did they get food for all of
    those animals? Where did they keep it, how did they prepare it, and how did they
    keep one animal from deciding the other nearby animal looked delicious? Finally,
    when all of those animals were done eating, where did they relieve themselves?”


    Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study
    by John Woodmorappe


    Reviewed by Michael J. Oard

    There is no doubt that this book is the definitive work on the Ark and
    itsfeasibility. John Woodmorappe analyses, numerically where possible, about every
    conceivable question Christians and critics, alike, have ever asked about the
    feasibility of the Ark. Woodmorappe really shines with those aspects of the Ark that
    critics deem the most
    contradictory to reason, such as the number of animals on the Ark, the gathering of
    the animals, how could the eight people care for all the animals, and waste

    He also does not take the easy way out of difficulties. In the possible problem of
    the care of the animals, for instance, he does not opt for hibernation (although a
    possible solution, at least for some animals), but goes through the rigour of
    working out the problem without this easy solution.



    Excretory requirements

    It is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages every morning. Possibly
    they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where the manure could fall away from the
    animals and be flushed away (plenty of water around!) or destroyed by
    vermicomposting (composting by worms) which would also provide earthworms as a food
    source. Very deep bedding can sometimes last for a year without needing a change.
    Absorbent material (e.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and especially peat moss)
    would reduce the moisture content and hence the odour.


    The space, feeding and excretory requirements were adequate even if the animals had
    normal day/night sleeping cycles. But hibernation is a possibility which would
    reduce these requirements even more. It is true that the Bible does not mention
    it,but it does not rule it out either. Some creationists suggest that God created
    the hibernation instinct for the animals on the Ark, but we should not be dogmatic
    either way.

    Some skeptics argue that food taken on board rules out hibernation, but this is not
    so. Hibernating animals do not sleep all winter, despite popular portrayals, so they
    would still need food occasionally.