|
|
|
|
|
Flood GeologyFlood geology or creation geology is the collective term for a number of creationist ideas which seek to describe the events recorded in the Old Testament as being a record for the geological history of the Earth. Specifically, the Great Flood is claimed to be the origin of most geological features on the planet, which is also held to be much younger than it is measured to be by mainstream scientists. Flood geology is a part of the broader endeavor of creation science, advocated primarily by those who profess creationist beliefs (particularly Young Earth creationism). Although the idea of a global flood was debated early in the history of geology and geosciences, the literal biblical interpretation of a global flood and associated deluge mythology is not considered a scientific theory by mainstream scientists. Many scientific objections have been raised concerning the proposed mechanics of flood geology, which often require the suspension of basic laws of physics - something which mainsteam science sees as being extremely improbable. A massive flood of the size suggested by creation geologists has extreme physical problems. In particular, the amount of water required to cover the Earth's entire surface is enormous and no naturalistic mechanism proposed to explain where it came from or where it went will satisfy mainstream proponents. The mechanisms proposed by creationists to account for the fossil record, lithospheric layering, and tectonic formations are balked at by the vast majority of scientists in the geologic field. In short, most mainstream geologists consider creation geology to be pseudoscience. Origins of flood geology The science of geology was founded in the United Kingdom in the 18th century. Its practitioners sought to understand the history and shaping of the Earth through the physical evidence laid down in rocks and minerals. As many early geologists were clergymen, they naturally sought to link the geological history of the world with that set out in the Bible. The ancient theory that fossils were the result of "plastic forces" within the Earth's crust had by this time been abandoned, with the recognition that they represented the remains of once-living creatures. This, though, raised a major problem: how did fossils of sea creatures end up on land, or on the tops of mountains? As early as the 2nd century AD, Christian thinkers had proposed that fossils represented organisms that were killed and buried during the brief duration of the Flood. This theory became commonly held, aided by the geological peculiarity that much of northern Europe is covered by layers of loam and gravel as well as erratic boulders deposited hundreds of miles from their original sources. This was interpreted as being the result of massive flooding, though it is now believed they are the product of ice age glaciations (an unknown phenomenon at that time). Geologists proposed that the Great Flood had been a time of massive upheavals, with old continents sinking and new ones rising, thus transforming ancient seabeds into mountain tops. By the early 19th century, however, this view had fallen into disrepute. It was already thought that the Earth's lifespan was far longer than that suggested by literal readings of the Bible (an age of 75,000 years had been suggested as early as 1779, as against the 6,000 years proposed by Archbishop James Ussher's famous chronology). James Hutton's promotion of Charles Lyell's doctrine of uniformitarianism advocated the principle that geological changes that occurred in the past are understandable from present-day phenomena. The idea that all geological strata were produced by a single flood was rejected in 1837 by the Reverend William Buckland, the first professor of geology at Oxford University, who wrote: - Some have attempted to ascribe the formation of all the stratified rocks to the effects of the Mosaic Deluge; an opinion which is irreconcileable with the enormous thickness and almost infinite subdivisions of these strata, and with the numerous and regular successions which they contain of the remains of animals and vegetables, differing more and more widely from existing species, as the strata in which we find them are placed at greater depths. The fact that a large proportion of these remains belong to extinct genera, and almost all of them to extinct species, that lived and multiplied and died on or near the spots where they are now found, shows that the strata in which they occur were deposited slowly and gradually, during long periods of time, and at widely distant intervals.
(Buckland, Geology and Mineralogy Considered With Reference to Natural Theology, 1837) Although Buckland continued for a while to insist that some geological layers related to the Great Flood, he was forced to abandon this idea as the evidence increasingly indicated multiple inundations which occurred well before humans existed. He was convinced by the Swiss geologist Louis Agassiz that much of the evidence on which he relied was in fact the product of ancient ice ages, and became one of the foremost champions of Agassiz's theory of glaciations. Mainstream science gave up on the idea of flood geology, which required major deviations from known physical processes. Flood geology was revived in the 20th century by George Macready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist who wrote The New Geology in 1923 to provide an explicitly Christian fundamentalist perspective on geology. His work was adapted and updated by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr. in their book The Genesis Flood in 1961. Morris and Whitcomb argued that the Earth was geologically recent, that the Fall of Man had triggered the second law of thermodynamics, and that the Great Flood had laid down most of the geological strata in the space of a single year (the same model that Buckland had decisively rejected 130 years earlier). Given this history, they argued, "the last refuge of the case for evolution immediately vanishes away, and the record of the rocks becomes a tremendous witness . . . to the holiness and justice and power of the living God of Creation!" This became the foundation of a new generation of Young Earth creationist thinkers, who organized themselves around Morris' Institute for Creation Research. Their impact on creationism and fundamentalist Christianity was considerable. Armed with the backing of wealthy conservative organizations and individuals, Morris' brand of flood geology was widely promoted throughout the United States and overseas, with his books being translated into Chinese, Czech, Dutch, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. Flood geology is still a major theme of modern creation science, though it (and creation science in general) no longer has any significant crossover into mainstream science. Comparison with mainstream geology Geology relies on a number of principles, one of which is Lyell's doctrine of uniformitarianism. The Earth is estimated to be some 4.5 billion years old, and geological history is divided into four distinct eras characterized by well-defined breaks in the fossil record. Mainstream geologists study the lithosphere of the Earth to gain information on the history of the planet. By contrast, creation geology explains geological formations primarily with respect to three defining eras of biblical history: - The original creation of the Earth by God, in which God separated the land from the primordial waters as recorded in Genesis 1:9. Some creationists have asserted that this original dry land corresponds to a type of Pangaea.
- A global flood which lasted for a year and occurred between 4500-6000 years ago, and altered or destroyed many antediluvian geological formations.
- The years subsequent to the flood until today, in which geological phenomena behaved in much the same way as they do today.
In general, however, the geological record of Earth is divided by Flood geologists into four main stages: - The lowest levels of sediments would be rocks and sediments formed during creation week, when God caused the dry land to appear. These sediments should be devoid of all fossils.
- Next would be sediments formed in the time between Creation week and the Flood, a period of 1700 years according to Biblical chronology. These would comprise only a tiny part of the geological record.
- The bulk of the geological record would have been laid down during the year-long Flood. These should show evidence not of a calm flood leaving a layer of silt, but of large tectonic upheavals, massive erosion, deposition, and transport, and reworking of sediments more than once. It would also include the mass burial of many creatures.
- Above the flood sediments would be evidence of minor post-flood catastrophes, a relatively recent ice age, and normal geological processes as we see occurring today.
A group of so-called scientific creationists or creation scientists continue to search for evidence in the natural world that they consider to be consistent with the above description, such as evidence of rapid formation. For example, there have been claims of raindrop marks and water ripples at layer boundaries, sometimes associated with the claimed fossilized footprints of men and dinosaurs walking together. Most of this evidence has been debunked by mainstream proponents, and some have been shown to be fakes http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html. More prosaically, creationists will rely on observations of unexplained phenomena made by mainstream scientists or a general incredulity about geological mechanisms of mineral, rock, and fossil formation. Believers in Flood Geology base their belief in a global flood on the Bible and on an interpretation of geological field work that they believe gives strong evidence of a global flood. They also point out that the flood story is not limited to the Bible, but is found in many cultures, places and religions. The near-universality of the global flood story may indicate that such stories are grounded in some actual event in the recent past. Mainstream scientists have presented evidence indicating that a massive local flood in the Black Sea area may be responsible for the preponderance of the myths, but rigid creationists generally reject this and declare Genesis to be the most accurate historical record of that global flood. Most creation scientists believe that the Earth prior to the global flood was significantly different from the Earth today. The fossil record is explained as a record of the pre-flood Earth, all of the fossils being formed within the forty-day catastrophe. The principles used by mainstream geology to characterize the development of the layers in the lithosphere and the fossil record over time are rejected. Age of the Earth Most young Earth creationists, who the majority of proponents of flood geology describe themselves as, accept the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar which in turn is based on the Vulgate version of the Genealogies of Genesis, believe that God created the planet Earth approximately 6000 years ago, in the space of one day. Much of creation geology is devoted to debunking the dating methods used in anthropology, geology, and planetary science that give ages in conflict with the young Earth theories. In particular, a lot of attention is paid to trying to discredit radiometric dating and isochron analysis with the goal of removing this piece of evidence that is used by mainstream proponents against their creationist counterparts. Radiometric dating analysis indicates that the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. Young Earth creationists reject these ages determined by these radiometric dating methods, due to perceived tenuous and untestable assumptions in the methodology. Dating methods are said to rely on untestable assumptions, and apparently inconsistent radiometric dates are often quoted to cast doubt on the utility and accuracy of the method. Mainstream proponents who get involved in this debate point out that dating methods only rely on the assumptions that the physical laws governing radioactive decay have not been violated since the sample was formed. They also point out that the "problems" that creationists publicly mentioned can be shown to either not be problems at all, are issues with known contamination, or simply the result of incorrectly evaluating legitimate data. Creationists do not claim to have a scientifically verifiable method for dating the Earth. Geological processes claimed to have occurred during the flood If the global flood actually occurred, then it would have had a radical effect on geology, and traces of that flood would be observable today, making the idea at least somewhat falsifiable. Eighty percent of the Earth's crust is covered by sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rocks are formed as particles of sediment are deposited out of air, ice, or water flows carrying the particles in suspension. As sediment deposition builds up, overburden (or lithostatic) pressure squeezes the sediment into layered solids in a process known as lithification ("rock formation") and the original connate fluids are expelled. Amongst creationists there is ongoing debate about which sediments are flood sediments, which are pre-flood sediments, and which are post-flood sediments. Some proponents of flood geology have proposed that a global flood as an explanation for the means by which sedimentary rocks were created over the entire Earth's surface. The explanation has been met with much derision in creation vs. evolution debates where mainstream proponents point out that a large number of sedimentary formations are inconsistent with a short-timescale creation. Liquefaction Liquefaction, a phenomenon commonly seen in quicksand and earthquakes, is claimed to have played a major role during the creationists' conception of a literal global flood. Creationists believe that the resulting periods of liquefaction due to the catastrophe would cause the sediments to layer into strata. Other processes cause the strata to bend smoothly in places to explain bends and folds, while earthquakes would still be the major cause of radical discontinuities in others. Flood geologists claim that massive liquefaction can explain phenomena such as transported blocks, sand plumes, coal and limestone deposits, and aquifers. Mainstream scientists offer their own explanations for each of these phenomena and also claim that the physical parameters required for liquefaction are not met in the proposed creationist explanations. Submarine canyon formation Proponents of Flood Geology argue that such submarine canyon extensions were formed as the floodwaters receded from the continents. Such extensions are found in the Congo, Amazon, Ganges, and Hudson rivers, they are generally understood to be geological formations which have developed when sea levels were significantly lower than today. These are explained in the mainstream model as being due to persistent water flow which creates over a period of thousands if not millions of years structural breaks in the continental shelf. Fossilization In counter to the mainstream version of fossilization, creationists claim that fossils are evidence of the flood, where the remains of many of the Earth's lifeforms were quickly buried by sediments in the short period of the flood. This mechanism is rejected by mainstream proponents for a number of reasons, one of which is fossil dating. Fossil fuels In counter to the mainstream version of the creation of fossil fuels creationists claim the existence of large oil deposits are the result of the flood's accumulation and subsequent subsurface compression of large amounts of dead plant matter. Fossil layering The ordering of fossil layers is often used as evidence for the mainstream explanation of geological features. Flood geology tries to explain that while dinosaurs never share the same layers as mammoths, such is not due to temporal separation of the organisms. Instead an unspecified and unmodeled "hydraulic sorting action" is claimed to be able to sort out fossils according to their shape, density, size, and the gases released from the body after death. This is claimed to account for the layering observed. However, the lack of any evidence to this effect, nor any physical mechanism presented by creationists is pointed out as a large flaw by opponents to creationism. Additionally, creationists claim that there is an order to the fossils relating to the elevation at which they lived (a claim disputed by mainstream proponents who point out ocean fossils found at the tops of mountains). Frozen mammoths Mainstream scientists assert that the mammoths went extinct about 11,000 years ago, although fossil remains of dwarf mammoths found off the coast of Siberia are dated to about 2000 BC. Some proponents of Flood Geology have claimed that this extinction is an evidence of catastrophism because certain mammoths have been found with grass in their mouths. Those who hold to the vapor canopy idea argue that the supposed quick freeze can be explained by the massive ammounts of super cold ice that used to form the canopy being dumped around the poles. Mainstream explanations for this is that individual instances of grass in the mouths of frozen mammoth caracasses are not evidence for global catastrophe, and that the global evidence for a sudden catastrophic end to the mammoths is absent. Moreoever, the extraordinary temperatures needed to quick-freeze a mammoth are way below any temperature ever measured on earth and the idea of a canopy itself is considered so unphysical as to cause the surface of the Earth to have the conditions of a pressure boiler before the flood. Other creationists, in particular those involved with Answers in Genesis, reject the snap freeze idea since they reject the vapor canopy. Rather, they claim that mammoths and the surrounding circumstances are best explained by radical climate change in a supposed ice-age following the flood. Opponents counter that there is no evidence for an Ice Age before 10,000 years ago. Mainstream science, however, recognises a large number of earlier Ice Ages, with the earliest so far identified occurring 2.3 billion years ago. Proposed models for the mechanism of the flood For the cause of the flood, Genesis states only that God deliberately caused the flood, indicating that the cause of the flood was supernatural in origin. Beyond that, the account states that the "fountains of the great deep" broke open and the "windows of heaven" were opened, which brought the flood. It rained for 40 days, but the waters continued to rise for 110 more days, indicating that there was another water-source, probably the subterranean "fountains of the great deep." The waters then slowly began to recede amidst a "great wind," until the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (not necessarily Mount Ararat, but the mountains in that region). Beyond that scant account of the events, creationists have very little basis for determining exactly what caused the flood. Creationists have proposed at least three separate explanations for the mechanism that caused the flood. - Some creationists propose that the water may have come from an ice comet that melted when it hit the Earth's atmosphere.
- The Hydroplate model, proposed by Walt Brown of the Center for Scientific Creation, holds that the Earth was originally created with a great deal of subterranean water, and that the flood was brought on when the crust of the Earth was cracked, allowing this water to escape violently to the surface, and broke the surface into "hydroplates" which quickly divided during and after the flood.
- The Runaway Subduction model, proposed by the Institute for Creation Research, holds that a fracture in the crust could have heated silicates to a temperature at which tectonic motion would have happened extremely quickly.
- In addition, a vapor canopy was proposed by Henry Morris in his book The Genesis Flood in the 1960s. It holds that a canopy of water vapor existed over the atmosphere prior to the flood, and that the floodwaters were brought on when this vapor canopy collapsed. This model has been rejected by many creationists, including the Institute for Creation research, founded by Henry Morris himself, but is still accepted by some.
Others propose that the continental motion occurred about 100 years after the Flood, when the Bible records that during the lifetime of Peleg, "the Earth was divided". Still others propose that this refers to the events surrounding the Tower of Babel. Counterpoints Water source If the flood were a global flood, a source of water would need to be found which could provide such a deluge. Flood Geologists have proposed several sources at different times: (1) a vapor canopy in the upper atmosphere; (2) a comet strike; (3) the Earth's crust was much flatter, allowing less water to cover the face of the planet; and (4), subterranean water sources. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood The vapor canopy The proposed vapor canopy suggested a layer of water vapor in the upper atmosphere which, triggered by a meteoroid, caused a giant rain shower and so contributed to the flood. However, such a volume of water held suspended in the atmosphere would give rise to an atmospheric pressure in the order of nine atmospheres. The atmosperic temperature would also have to be extremely high to prevent the saturated atmosphere from condensing. For a more thorough discussion, see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood. The vapor canopy model has lost favour and is no longer accepted by most creationary scientists. Comet strike Had the Earth been struck by a comet providing enough water for a great deluge, gravitational heating would have boiled the water and nothing would have survived; any unprotected life on the surface would have been poached. Subterranean water deposits Water is less dense than rock; therefore, mainstream scientists claim, it would be forced to the surface long before the date of the flood. They add that at any significant depth beneath the surface of the Earth, the water would have been boiled, causing giant steam plumes which would be further heated by falling back to earth. Crust transformation Some flood geologists have proposed that the Earth's surface was much flatter in the past, thus allowing a much smaller volume of water to cover the planet. However, in order for the Earth's crust to reach its present form from such a flat stage over the past four thousand years, geologists point out, a tremendous amount of work would be required by a mechanism unstated by creationists. They point out that heating caused by the raising of the mountains and the lowering of the sea would raise oceanic temperatures on the order of 10 degrees Celsius. Geological evidence Geologists claim that the flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood Archaeological evidence Archaeology proves to be a potent source of evidence. Flood geology claims that the current sedimentary layers were produced by liquefaction, and that objects caught in the flood (including living creatures) were sorted by mass and location at the time when the flood engulfed them. However, archaeologists state that if this sorting actually took place, heavy, dense objects (such as human artifacts) would be expected to sink to the bottom. In actuality, man-made artifacts are very close to the top of the sedimentary layers. Furthermore, mainstream archaeologists claim that a number of ancient civilisations (such as those of Egypt and Mesopotamia), are older that the alleged date of the Flood, and that the flood would have destroyed much of the evidence of these civilisations and deeply buried the rest. Creationists don't dispute the latter point - they reject the dates of those civilisations. Archaeologists claim that the methods of dating have been verified time and time again (see carbon dating). The carbon dating methods are also claimed to be independent of the detailed records kept by those civilizations. See Mesopotamia and History of Egypt. Paleontological evidence If fossilization took place extremely quickly during the Flood, then - paleontologists claim - fossilized remains should be far more numerous and widespread than is actually seen. Furthermore, it is claimed that if creatures were differentiated by body size and density, then massive dinosaurs such as Diplodocus and Brachiosaurus should be found near the top sediments, rather than in sediments containing all the other Jurassic dinosaurs. Furthermore, paleontologists claim that if all the fossilized animals were killed in the flood, and the flood is responsible for fossilization, then the average density of vertebrates was close to 2100 creatures per acre, judging from fossil beds found worldwide. Grass evidence One example of fossil distribution that is hard to explain for flood geology is the distribution of grass. Grass leaves, grass seeds and grass pollen are found only in the upper layers of the geological column. The conventional explanation is the relatively recent evolution of grasses. Since wet grass readily sinks, it is unlikely that natural sorting would lead to the observed distribution of plant fossils in the geological column. While this does not exclude supernatural influences ("God did it"), this observation is incompatible with plain flood geology unless further miracles are invoked. Evolutionary evidence The evolutionary record is preserved largely in sedimentary rocks. If a flood had taken place, evolutionary biologists state, and all the creatures had lived together at one time, there would be no reason at all for the fossil record to be preserved thusly. See here for more. Philosophical objections Mainstream scientists object to Flood Geology, and Creationism in general, on philosophical grounds as well as scientific ones. Perhaps the most fervent objection is grounded in Occam's Razor. Occam's razor is a principle of parsimony formulated so as to "slice out" scientific theories which contain redundant assumptions: "It is vain to do with more what can be done with less." Therefore, say scientists, because mainstream science can comprehensively describe the relevant data, flood geology, which inherently draws on God, is redundant because of its underlying assumption of divine intervention. See Occam's Razor#In science for a more thorough discussion. Mainstream scientists also object to Flood Geology on the methodological grounds: they point out that Flood geologists approach their work with the initial purpose of finding evidence for a worldwide flood, rather than looking at the evidence and then formulating a conclusion. To cement this point, they claim that Creationist geologists had looked at the evidence for a worldwide flood in the century before Darwin, and found it lacking, dismissing it in favor of uniformitarian worldviews. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#philosophy Sources - Henry H. Howorth, The Mammoth and the Flood (London: Samson Low, Marston, Searle, and Rivington, 1887), pp. 2–4, 74–75.
- Valentina V. Ukraintseva, Vegetation Cover and Environment of the “Mammoth Epoch” in Siberia (Hot Springs, South Dakota: The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, 1993), pp. 12–13.
- N. A. Dubrovo et al., “Upper Quaternary Deposits and Paleogeography of the Region Inhabited by the Young Kirgilyakh Mammoth,” International Geology Review, Vol. 24, No. 6, June 1982, p. 630.
- Charles H. Hapgood, The Path of the Pole (Philadelphia: Chilton Book Company, 1970), p. 267.
- E. W. Pfizenmayer, Siberian Man and Mammoth, translated from German by Muriel D. Simpson (London: Black & Son Limited, 1939).
- Brown, Walt, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 2001.
- M. Huc, Recollections of a Journey through Tartary, Thibet Tibet, and China, During the Years 1844, 1845, and 1846. Vol. 2 (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1852), pp. 130–131.
- H. Neuville, “On the Extinction of the Mammoth,” Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1919.
External links Flood geology sites Sites critical of Flood Geology
|
 |
|
| Copyright 2005-2009 OnPedia.com. All Rights Reserved |
|
|