Search This Blog

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Jonathan Sarfati's Biblical Flood Overview

Having discussed John Baumgardner's rapid subduction model, Walt Brown's hydroplate hypothesis, Tas Walker's Biblical Geology chart and several other scientist's with information that concerns the Biblical Flood,  it makes sense to present Dr. Sarfati's overview of the subject.  

When studying origins, there is no time machine sitting in the corner that can take us on a journey back to the Beginning.   You cannot run tests on the past.   You cannot therefore prove anything with absolute certainty about the past, you can only make observations of things in existence now and gather all the information available about the past you can get your hands on and then try to put a cohesive hypothesis together that can build a narrative about the past that could have provided the present that we now can observe and test.

Rod Taylor in the time machine from the 1960 adaption of the famed H.G. Wells novel

Today there is a myth that is commonly believed and deliberately spread by propagandists that evolution is an established scientific fact.   Actually the entire hypothesis cannot withstand scrutiny.   Nevertheless the true believers in the concept, a group I refer to as Darwinists, continue to believe in a failed hypothesis because of metaphysical reasons.   

All scientists study the evidence but they all begin with a point of view, a worldview, and those who are true believers in Naturalism cannot allow themselves to believe in God and therefore they refuse to even consider evidence that kneecaps their pet hypothesis.   But let's forget them and assume that you are willing to at least consider the idea that God is the Creator and therefore the Bible does help us come up with a reasonable explanation for the world we observe today.   Cue Dr. Jonathan Sarfati:

Flood models and biblical realism

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, ref. 61). 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.

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.

Pre-Flood paradise?


Many creationist works from a few decades ago portrayed the antediluvian world as a paradise, which was horribly spoiled at the Flood. But this is not taught in Scripture. Furthermore, it obscures the teaching that the big spoiling of paradise occurred at the Fall.5 This was the time that death, childbirth pain, and thorns and thistles were introduced, when Adam and Eve were tossed out of the Edenic paradise, and when the whole creation started groaning in pain.6
The only genuinely biblical evidence adduced for a pre-Flood paradise is that people before the Flood lived for over 900 years, while lifespans dropped exponentially after that. Yet Noah’s lifespan wasn’t shortened despite spending the last third of his life in the alleged ruined environment. Rather, in the 1990s, it was proposed that the decline in lifespans had genetic causes.7 Recent advanced computer programs vindicate this proposal, showing that an exponential decline of lifespans fits well with accumulating mutations after the catastrophic population bottleneck at the Flood.8-11

Runaway subduction
Figure 2. In the catastrophic plate tectonics model, runaway subduction into the earth’s mantle of the oceanic plates drives the motion of the rigid lithosphere at metres per second. 

The only remaining support for an environmental cause of the decreasing lifespan is Shem, born before the Flood bottleneck, but living only ⅔ as long as most of his ancestors. But here there is also a plausible genetic explanation: he was born when his father was 502,12 i.e. over half-way through his lifespan. His ancestors were much younger when they begot their named sons.

It has long been known that children born to aged mothers have a higher risk of developing non-hereditary genetic disorders such as Down’s Syndrome, and it is plausible that Mrs Noah was about the same age as Noah. But even if she were much younger, more recent research points to aged fathers as a major source of genetic disorders. This should not be surprising since men keep producing sperm throughout their lives, and older men have more mutations.13
So it is not surprising that Shem, while very fit by today’s standards, would have been considerably less fit than his parents, and carried extra heritable mutations.

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 covenantal 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 creation14) 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.

Higher atmospheric or oxygen partial pressure


One idea for the pre-Flood world, derived partly from the fallacious pre-Flood paradise assumption, is that oxygen concentration15 or atmospheric pressure was higher than today. This would supposedly have beneficial effects duplicated in today’s hyperbaric chambers. These increase the oxygen partial pressure16 as per Dalton’s Law.17
Yet would they be as beneficial as claimed, given the known health benefits of anti-oxidants? To be fair, evolutionists have also proposed higher oxygen concentration or higher atmospheric pressure in the past, for some of the reasons below.18
This is supported by some scientific evidence, yet this does not hold up:19
Higher oxygen levels in amber air bubbles: yet they are not a closed system—gases diffuse in and out. Furthermore, contraction under solidification would shrink bubbles, thus raising pressure according to the law named after the creationist ‘father of modern chemistry’, Sir Robert Boyle (1627–1691), that gas pressure is inversely proportional to volume. Also, even the formation of bubbles in itself must increase pressure, to counteract the resistance of surface tension to producing the new surface area of the inside of the bubble. This excess Laplace pressure is given by the equation:
ΔP = 2γ∕r
where ΔP is excess pressure, or difference between inside and outside; γ = surface tension; r is bubble radius. This extra pressure is considerable in tiny bubbles, so the partial pressures would also be increased, according to Dalton’s Law.

Pterosaurs need high pressure to generate enough lift to fly: but previous models of pterosaur flight overlooked the function of the tiny pteroid bone, that would have supported a controllable flap. This would greatly increase lift in both takeoff and landing.20,21
Gigantic insects could not have gained enough oxygen under normal pressure. The fossil record shows huge insects such as Meganeura, a dragonfly with a wingspan of 71 cm. For a long time, scientists thought that insects didn’t breathe, and oxygen diffused passively through holes (spiracles) through tiny tubes in the abdomen (tracheae). Since this could work only over very short distances, how could such a creature survive without extra oxygen?22 Yet recent synchrotron X-ray microscopy shows that insects really do ‘breathe’ by squeezing the tracheae, such that half the gas is exchanged every second.23,24
This doesn’t disprove a higher oxygen concentration and air pressure, but it shows that they were not needed scientifically. They are definitely not needed on biblical grounds.

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
But a meteorite as an initiator of the Flood seems unacceptable. This contradicts the clear teaching that the Flood began deep within the ocean and underground, not the sky. Furthermore, this is not an argument from silence, but an argument from conspicuous absence. If a meteorite really were the primary cause, then why does Genesis not mention such a dramatic event? Elsewhere in Scripture, we have the description of “stars falling from heaven”,30 and in both Hebrew and Greek, any bright heavenly object was called a ‘star’, including a ‘shooting star’. So one would expect Genesis 7:11 to read “a star fell from heaven, and all the fountains of the great deep burst forth … ”, or even “God cast a star down from heaven … ”.

In formal logical terms, an argument from conspicuous absence is a valid argument called denying the consequent (or modus tollens): if something as dramatic as a meteorite caused the Flood, then the Bible would have mentioned it. The Bible doesn’t mention it, therefore a meteorite didn’t cause the Flood. Conversely, an argument from silence is a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent: if the Bible had mentioned that Noah used nails to build the Ark, then Noah used nails; the Bible doesn’t mention nails, therefore Noah didn’t use them.31
One defence is that Noah didn’t see the meteorite, but only the resulting tsunamis, so the Bible recorded only the latter. But by the same token, would Noah have seen the happenings in the deep central ocean either? Even more serious, this is identical in principle to a major argument of local flood compromisers: the world was flooded as far as Noah could see, but it was still only regional. In any case, the Genesis Flood account was clearly a God’s-eye view, hence the revelation of the global character of the Flood by its repeated use of “all” (Hebrew כל kol), including the ‘double kol’ in Genesis 7:19.32

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.

Many of the arguments for the canopy were faulty on scientific grounds. For example, one argument is that the canopy would protect us from damaging radiation, and explain the extremely long lifespans. But water vapour is not a great shield for UV—you can be sunburned on a cloudy day and while swimming. When it comes to cosmic radiation, there is no evidence that this is involved in longevity, and as stated above, the cause of decreasing lifespans was genetic rather than environmental.

What water absorbs very well is infrared, as any vibrational spectroscopist knows.34 It is actually a far more important ‘greenhouse gas’ than CO2, accounting for about 66% of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or maybe even as much as 95%.35 This leads to the major scientific problem with the canopy theory—a water vapour canopy thick enough to provide more than about a metre’s worth of floodwater would cook the earth.36

Catastrophic plate tectonics


This is probably the most popular model among informed creationists today.37 This accepts much of the evidence adduced to support uniformitarian plate tectonics, but solves a number of problems. The CPT model begins with a pre-Flood super-continent (possibly indicated by Genesis 1:9). While uniformitarian models assume that the ocean plates have always had the temperature profile they display today, the CPT model starts with some additional cold rock in regions just offshore surrounding the supercontinent. Since this rock was colder, it was denser than the mantle below. At the start of the Flood year, this began to sink (figure 2).

One problem with this created instability is that it would be a ticking time bomb. This is not necessarily an insuperable difficulty, though, since it is akin to the issue of (and answer to) “why are some features designed to hurt other things, if God created a world without death and suffering?” While some things can be explained as an adaptation from plant-eating structures, such as some teeth, other things cannot. A good example is jellyfish’s stinging cells with a catapult mechanism. Here, it is not adequate to claim that they once stung plants. Rather, since God foreknew the Fall, He programmed latent genetic information that would be switched on at the Fall.38
In the catastrophic plate tectonics model
Figure 3. In the hydroplate model rupture of the crust allows steam and sediment to be ejected as a fountain into the atmosphere, returning to the earth as rain (from Brown, ref. 62). 

But how can it sink more rapidly than ocean plate subducts today? The answer lies in laboratory experiments that show that the silicate minerals that make up the mantle can weaken dramatically, by factors of a billion or more, at mantle temperatures and stresses. If a cold blob of rock is sufficiently large, it can enter a regime in which the stresses in the envelope surrounding it become large enough to weaken the rock in that envelope, which allows the blob to sink faster, resulting in the stresses becoming a bit larger still, and causing the rock inside the surrounding envelope to weaken even more. Moreover, as the blob sinks ever faster, the volume of the envelope of weakened rock grows ever larger. Rather quickly the sinking velocity of the blob of dense rock can reach values of several km/hour, on the order of a billion times faster than is happening today. This is called runaway subduction.

The sinking ocean floor would drag the rest of the ocean floor along, in conveyor belt fashion, and would displace mantle material, starting large-scale movement throughout the entire mantle. However, as the ocean floor sank and rapidly subducted adjacent to the pre-Flood super-continent’s margins, elsewhere the earth’s crust would be under such tensional stress that it would be torn apart (rifted), breaking up both the pre-Flood super-continent and the ocean floor.

Thus, ocean plates separated along some 60,000 km where seafloor spreading was occurring. Within these spreading zones hot mantle material was rising to the surface to fill the gap caused by the rapidly separating plates. Being at the ocean bottom, this hot mantle material vapourized copious amounts of ocean water, producing a linear chain of superheated steam jets along the whole length of the spreading ridge system. This is consistent with the biblical description of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Genesis 7:11; 8:2). This steam would disperse, condensing in the atmosphere to fall as intense global rain (“and the flood-gates of heaven were opened”, Genesis 7:11). This could account for the rain persisting for 40 days and 40 nights (Genesis 7:12).

Not only is CPT backed up by supercomputer modelling that even impresses uniformitarians,39 but it has also provided further fruitful research avenues for creationists, including a mechanism for Earth’s rapid magnetic field reversals40 and hydrothermal solutions to carve huge caves.41 All the same, weather experts have been modelling the weather for decades, yet there are still many flaws; some argue that we should not place too much faith in modelling for plate tectonics either. Defenders argue that there are fewer unknowns in a confined solid state modelling of CPT than in the fluid (liquid and gas) dynamics and variable solar activity modelled in weather simulations.

Thus I think it is still the most promising theory, explaining the data supporting uniformitarian plate tectonics, and solving a number of its problems. That is why I have promoted it in my two largest books, Refuting Compromise (2004) and The Greatest Hoax on Earth? (2010). Its strong points include explaining high-pressure minerals and simultaneous uplift of all of today’s high mountains. Furthermore, under Uniformitarian PT, plates are moving too slowly to penetrate past the upper layers of the mantle; rather, they should blend in long before they reach the lower mantle. Yet studies show that the subducted plates have penetrated much further, and are still relatively cool. This is consistent with the subduction being fast enough to penetrate the mantle, and recently enough so they haven’t had time to heat up.

But CPT is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so it is legitimate for creationists to question or reject it as a model, and a number of knowledgeable creationist geologists do.42,43 Opponents argue that it concedes too much to uniformitarianism, and that it doesn’t explain the whole of the Flood, but only the last half.

Another problem that seems unsolved is getting rid of the excess heat. It is hardly satisfactory to suggest that God miraculously removed the heat. If one is going to resort to “God of the Gaps” reasoning44 for a tiny part of the model, then why not just be done with a search for a mechanism and say, “God caused the Flood supernaturally”? After all, the Flood was a major disjunction in biblical history, and clearly a time of special intervention by God. Biblical creationists need not be closed to miraculous causes for such one-off, special events, rather than worry about ‘scientific’ rigour or ‘economy of miracles’. After all, we don’t need to find a quasi-naturalistic explanation for the Resurrection or feeding the 5,000. This is different from ordinary repeatable ‘operational’ science, where “God did it” is not acceptable.45 Since models like CPT are trying to make an operational-science cause of the Flood, an ad hoc appeal to the miraculous is likewise unacceptable, unlike saying that the whole thing was miraculous.



This model of Dr Walter Brown46 has many passionate supporters. Brown explains:
“Before the global flood, considerable water was under the earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates.”
Furthermore, water and rocks were hurled at speeds exceeding escape velocity, so this explains the origin of comets, asteroids and meteorites (figure 3).47
The origin of the Flood under the ocean is a biblical strength of the model. Furthermore, ‘the Flood caused meteors’ lacks the biblical weakness of ‘meteor caused the Flood’. Yet it has failed to attract the support of many creationist geologists and geophysicists, many of whom have no reason to reject a successful flood model.

Furthermore, few creationist astronomers would accept an Earth origin for comets, meteors and asteroids. The Bible doesn’t require it and it is scientifically suspect—reaching Earth’s escape velocity of 11.2 km/s would be hard enough, and such objects would burn in the atmosphere. Note that our spacecrafts are launched in stages: first, they are taken up to a low earth orbit, where the speed is about 8 km/s. Then another stage accelerates the craft to escape velocity, which is a little lower as it is further from Earth’s gravity—about 10.9 km/s. But to launch comets into orbits reaching beyond Pluto would require speeds just a little less than the escape velocity with respect to the sun’s gravity at the earth’s orbit, or 42.1 km/s—and that’s after overcoming atmospheric resistance. Note that the Voyager space probes were able to move past Pluto only by using “gravitational slingshots” of handily aligned planets to augment their speeds.

The Journal of Creation has published an article about various Flood models, including the hydroplate, which was treated neutrally.48 But for the creationist community to take it further, Dr Brown should publish it in a journal such as this, and respond to criticisms from creationist experts in geology, e.g. that there is more water still inside the mantle than in the oceans.49 A forum similar to a previous one on CPT50 would be most instructive.

‘Vanishing Flood’ models


The Bible doesn’t directly teach anything about the pre-Flood and post-Flood boundaries. It doesn’t even directly teach that fossils and rocks are the result of the Flood. Yet 2 Peter 3:3–6 is an important passage:
“Scoffers will … deliberately ignore this fact, … the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.”
This strongly implies that the Flood must have left some dramatic evidence, otherwise why would scoffers be held culpable for “deliberately ignoring” the fact of the Flood if there is no evidence? By similar reasoning, Romans 1:18–22 is a good argument against theistic evolution. Verse 20 says:
“Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
This passage clearly teaches that unbelievers won’t have the slightest excuse for unbelief, because God’s power and deity can be “clearly seen” from nature. This seems to be a strong support for the argument from design. However, according to Gould, one of Darwin’s main motivations was to counteract the argument from design.51 So if evolution were true, or that there was “gobs of evidence” for it as one professing creationist recently asserted,52 then where is the clear evidence for God’s power from what has been made? Far from being evidence for a divine hand, evolution, according to Gould, gives ‘evidence’ that “there’s nothing else going on out there—just organisms struggling to pass their genes on to the next generation. That’s it.” So once again, if evolution were true, there is no evidence for a God from what has been made, but evidence only for ruthless struggle for existence. So why would unbelievers be “without excuse” if evolution were true?

The same applies to the uniformitarianism of Flood scoffers, such as Darwin’s mentor Charles Lyell who tried to “free the science [of geology] from Moses”.53 Widespread fossils of soft-bodied creatures and huge animals, as well as wide and flat sedimentary layers certainly fit the bill. Thus this passage rules out certain extreme versions of the ‘Anglo-European’ or ‘Recolonization’ Flood Model, which become ‘vanishing Flood’ models, where most of the geology of the earth formed after the Flood.54,55 And of course, this would rule out the view of certain ‘progressive creationists’ such as Hugh Ross that the Flood was local and left no traces.56

Tas Walker’s ‘Biblical Geology’ model

The Biblical Geologic Model is a geologic classification scheme based on the biblical record of Earth history.
Figure 4. The Biblical Geologic Model is a geologic classification scheme based on the biblical record of Earth history. The model is useful for classifying geologic data, understanding geologic processes and guiding geologic research. It is a powerful tool for communicating biblical geologic concepts. 

So, given that the Flood left behind considerable evidence, as this passage teaches, what can be predicted? Walker has proposed a geological framework (although not an explanation of the Flood per se) by which to understand rock layers and fossils, not just for the Flood year, but for all of Earth history—from the Creation Week to the present time (figure 4). He did this by using the clear descriptions of Scripture, as well as more loosely holding inferences from what we think we know about sedimentology and hydrology.

Since the Bible clearly teaches that the waters rose to cover the whole earth, then retreated, Walker proposes two main stages of the Flood ‘year’ (really 370 days): ‘inundatory’ and ‘recessive’. There might be some minor deviations, since variations in topography, floodwater and chemistry, mean that the results of Flood processes might not be strictly synchronous, even though the rocks produced might be the same.
The former is subdivided further: the earliest is the ‘eruptive phase’, derived from the explosive implications of the “fountains of the great deep bursting forth”; second, ‘ascending phase’, derived from the waters “increasing” upon the Earth (Genesis 7:17–18); third, the ‘zenithic’, from the biblical teaching of the Flood waters “prevailing” for so long with the mountains all covered, as well as the common-sense observation that the waters must have peaked some time.

The latter (‘recessive’) stage is subdivided not according to Scripture per se, but according to hydrological observations (which is why it is called a model).57 First, large amounts of water moving off a surface that was wholly submerged would first start to flow in huge sheets. This phase is called ‘abative’. Then, as the water level dropped and land emerged, the flow would be divided into large channels, hence the ‘dispersive’ phase.

Where the Bible is truly silent, one is free to invoke known phenomena, but models involving these should be held loosely.

This makes good sense of many geological features hard to explain under uniformitarian models,58 of which I will mention two. First, planation surfaces, which look like someone had taken a giant plane over the surface and shaved it flat, regardless of orientation or hardness. This is just what a giant sheet of water would do in the abative phase.59 Second, water gaps: instead of rivers following the path of least resistance around mountains, many go through gaps in them. This is consistent with violent channelized flow of huge volumes of water overtopping perpendicular barriers and carving channels straight through them. Since water gaps were formed after much erosion had occurred, they are consistent with having been formed in a later stage of the recessive stage.60
Verified predictions are a strength of a model, but they cannot logically be considered a proof—that would be a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.1



The biblical global Flood is a vital teaching of Scripture, and essential for understanding Earth history. Yet we were not there, so trying to understand it has a number of difficulties. So it is not surprising that there are a number of different creationist proposals, and a few errors in some.

The starting point must be the explicit statements of Scripture, and propositions that logically follow from them. Since the Flood was a historical event, then our description of its details is at heart historical.
For finding out the details, science is useful as a forensic tool, but is not the driving discipline. This can show how known processes in hydrology and sedimentology would work under the constraints of the biblically-derived propositions. Where the Bible is truly silent, one is free to invoke known phenomena, but models involving these should be held loosely.

With so many unknowns, it is not surprising that there are a number of different models. But multiple models are a good thing in science, especially when it comes to trying to understand what happened in the unobservable past. What ultimately matters is what is true, not what fits a particular scientific model.

Readers’ comments


Susan W., United States, 20 February 2012
Thanks for another great article! You lift my eyes to the greatness of our Lord! Thank you for your service to Him. God Bless you!

Tracey B., South Africa, 24 February 2012
Thank you so much for your articles on the web. This one about the flood is so interesting. It is great to have scientific evidence to support the bible freely available to people who cannot afford the DVDs and books. I found your site through a magazine at church. God bless your ministry.

Darryl M., United States, 24 February 2012
As a practicing old-earth geologist I disagree with the models you metioned on geological grounds. But as an retired educator I applaud your effort to explain them, and the difference between a model and reality, to your readers. You did an excellent job. I have had many interesting and informative email conversations w/ both Dr. Baumgardner (about 15 years ago) and Dr. Walker and learned much from them. Perhaps someday we can exchange some emails and I can learn something from you.
Sincerly, Darryl M., Co-owner:Wellsite Geological Services and retired college teacher.

Hans G., Australia, 25 February 2012
It is always exciting to search out or try to follow God’s actions; I believe He expects us to do so (1 Cor. 2:10). But as this article shows, our knowledge can’t explain everything (1 Cor. 13:12)and it keeps us in contact with our creator. Does not every believer, even he doesn’t fully understand God’s ways, trust Him so much to want to spend eternity with Him?

Julie S., Australia, 28 February 2012
I love the comment of Hans G. Australia on this article. I especially appreciate what four of the Church Fathers had to say of the evidence of the global flood, apparent and there to see in their time as in what Theophilus, Patriarch of Antioch (c. 115–185) had to say: “and of the ark, the remains are to this day to be seen in the Arabian Mountains.”

Related articles


  1. Sarfati, J., Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation, J. Creation 12(2):142–151, 1998; Return to text.
  2. Schirrmacher, T., The Galileo Affair: history or heroic hagiography, Journal of Creation 14(1):91—100, 2000; Return to text.
  3. See Sarfati, J., The Galileo quadricentennial: myth vs fact, Creation 31(3):49–51, 2009; Return to text.
  4. Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, Master Books, AR, pp. 49–59, 2004. Return to text.
  5. Much the same error is made by illustrations or animatronics of Adam and Eve’s children playing with baby carnivorous dinosaurs. The Fall predated any children (cf. the murderer Cain, the first child ever born, and clearly fallen (Genesis 4)), and the Fall also marks the beginning of animals eating each other—tooth marks in dinosaur bones and coprolites with dinosaur remains show that carnivory was well established by the Flood. In any case, it would be dangerous to have kids with some herbivorous animals as well, e.g. elephants. Return to text.
  6. Smith, H., Cosmic and universal death from Adam’s Fall: an exegesis ofRomans 8:19–23a, J. Creation 21(1):75–85, 2007; Return to text.
  7. Wieland, C., Decreased lifespans: Have we been looking in the right place? J. Creation 8(2):138–141, 1994. Return to text.
  8. Sanford, J.C., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, Lima, NY, 2005; see review by Truman, R., J. Creation 21(1):43–47, 2007. Return to text.
  9. Sanford, J.C., Genetic Entropy (DVD), CMI, from presentation in Australia, 2009. Return to text.
  10. Sanford, J.C., Baumgardner, J.R., Brewer, W.H., Gibson, P. and ReMine, W.R., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, Scalable Computing: Practice and Experience 8(2):147–165, June 2007; Return to text.
  11. Sanford, J.C., Baumgardner, J.R., Brewer, W.H., Gibson, P. and ReMine, W.R., Using computer simulation to understand mutation accumulation dynamics and genetic load, in Y. Shi et al. (Eds.), Computational Science—ICCS 2007, Part II, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4488, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 386–392; Return to text.
  12. Noah was 500 when his first son (Japheth) was born (Genesis 5:32), and 600 when the Flood came. Shem had Arphaxad 2 years after the Flood, when he was 100 (Genesis 11:10), therefore Shem was only 98 when the Flood came. Return to text.
  13. Green, R.F., Association of paternal age and risk for major congenital anomalies from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study, 1997 to 2004, Ann Epidemiol. 20(3):241–249, March 2010. Return to text.
  14. See Sarfati, J., Miracles and science,, 1 September 2006. Return to text.
  15. That is, its volume fraction in a mixture, i.e. relative proportion. Return to text.
  16. The partial pressure of a gas is the pressure it would exert if it occupied the whole volume. The ability of oxygen to diffuse across lung membranes and dissolve in water, and its reactivity, depend on partial pressure, not concentration. But for a given total pressure, partial pressure is proportional to the concentration. Return to text.
  17. The sum of partial pressures of all gases in a mixture equals the total pressure of the gas mixture—at least for ideal gases (1801). Return to text.
  18. Dudley, R., Atmospheric oxygen, giant Paleozoic insects and the evolution of aerial locomotor performance, The Journal of Experimental Biology 201:1043–1050, 1998. Return to text.
  19. See also Wieland, C., Blame CMI? And what about the Canopy theory?, 17 April 2010. Return to text.
  20. Wilkinson, M.T., Unwin, D.M. and Ellington, C.P., High lift function of the pteroid bone and forewing of pterosaurs, Proc. R. Soc. 273(1582):119–126, 2006 | DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3278. Return to text.
  21. Sarfati, J., Pterosaurs flew like modern aeroplanes, Creation 28(3):53, 2006; Return to text.
  22. Graham, J.B., Dudley, R., Aguilar, N.M. and Gans, C., Implications of the late Palaeozoic oxygen pulse for physiology and evolution, Nature 375(6527):117–120, 1995 | doi:10.1038/375117a0. This proposes a maximum O2 concentration of 35%. Return to text.
  23. Westneat, M.W. et al., Tracheal respiration in insects visualized with synchrotron X–ray imaging, Science 299(5606):558–560, 2003 | doi:10.1126/science.1078008. Return to text.
  24. Catchpoole, D., Insect inspiration solves giant bug mystery, Creation 27(4):44–47, 2005. Return to text.
  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. Return to text.
  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. Return to text.
  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; Return to text.
  28. Faulkner, D., A biblically-based cratering theory, J. Creation 13(1):100–104, 1999;; Spencer, W.R., Response to Faulkner’s biblically-based cratering theory, J. Creation 14(1):46–49, 2000; 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. Return to text.
  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. Return to text.
  30. Even if some of the references are apocalyptic, this would be deduced from the literary genre of the passages as a whole, not merely because they mention stars falling. Return to text.
  31. See explanation of valid implications vs. logical fallacies in Sarfati, J., ref. 1. Return to text.
  32. Genesis 7:19: “all (kol) the high mountains under the entire (kol) heavens”. “ … the text disposes of the question of the universality of the Flood”, Leupold, H.C., Exposition of Genesis, 1:301–302, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 1942. Return to text.
  33. See Wieland, C., Hanging loose, Creation 11(2):4, 1989; Also, a number of creationists had criticized the model in CRSQ in the 1970s and 1980s. Return to text.
  34. Vibrational spectroscopy includes infrared and Raman spectroscopy, as per Sarfati, J., Olfactory design: smell and spectroscopy, J. Creation 12(2):137–138, 1998; Sarfati, J.D. and Burns, G.R.: The pressure, temperature and excitation frequency dependent Raman spectra; and infrared spectra of CuBrSe3 and CuISe3, Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular Spectroscopy 50(12):2125–2136, November 1994 | doi:10.1016/0584-8539(94)00176-6. Return to text.
  35. A molecular vibration absorbs infrared radiation only if is changes the molecule’s dipole moment. CO2 is a highly symmetric linear molecule O=C=O, and a symmetric stretch of the C=O bonds (i.e. in phase) cancels out the dipole change, so this vibration doesn’t absorb, while the other ones do. Water (H2O) is a bent polar molecule, and all its vibrational modes strongly absorb infrared. Return to text.
  36. Vardiman, L. and Bousselot, K., Sensitivity studies on vapor canopy temperature profiles, Proc. 4th Int’l. Conf. Creationism, 1998; Return to text.
  37. Baumgardner, J.R., Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: the physics behind the genesis flood, Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, August, 2003; Return to text.
  38. See for example Sarfati, ref. 4, ch. 6; Catchpoole, D., Skeptics challenge: a God of love created a killer jellyfish? Creation 25(4):34–35, 2003. Return to text.
  39. Beard, J,. How a supercontinent went to pieces, New Scientist 137:19, 16 January 1993. Return to text.
  40. Humphreys, D.R., Discussion of J. Baumgardner, Numerical simulation of the large-scale tectonic changes accompanying the Flood, Proc. First Int’l. Conf. Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, 2:29, 1986. Return to text.
  41. Silvestru, E., Caves for all seasons, Creation 25(3):44–49, 2003. Return to text.
  42. Reed, J.K. (Ed.), Plate Tectonics: A Different View, Creation Research Society Monograph 10, St Joseph, pp. 11–23, 2000. Return to text.
  43. Akridge, A.J., Bennett, C., Froede, C.R., Klevberg, P., Molèn, M., Oard, M.J., Reed, J.K., Tyler, D. and Walker, T., Creationism and Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, Creation Matters 12(3):1,6–8, 2007; Return to text.
  44. Creationists are not generally guilty of “God of the Gaps” arguments, despite dishonest caricatures by atheopaths and their churchian allies. See Weinberger, L., Whose god? The theological response to the god-of-the-gaps, J. Creation 22(1):120–127, 2008. Return to text.
  45. See Sarfati, J., Naturalism, Origins and Operational Science,, 2000. Return to text.
  46. Brown, W., In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for the Creation and the Flood, 6th (special) ed., Center for Scientific Creationism, Phoenix, AZ, 1996. Return to text.
  47. The origin of asteroids and meteoroids, Center for Scientific Creationism, Return to text.
  48. McIntosh, A.C., Edmondson, T. and Taylor, S.C., Flood models: the need for an integrated approach, J. Creation 14(1):52–59, 2000. Return to text.
  49. Silvestru, E., Water inside fire, J. Creation 22(1):4–5, 2008. Return to text.
  50. Baumgardner, J. and Oard, M., Forum on catastrophic plate tectonics, J. Creation 16(1):57–81, 2002; Return to text.
  51. Wieland, C., Darwin’s real message: Have you missed it? Creation 14(4):16–19, September—November 1992; Return to text.
  52. Wood, T.C., The truth about evolution,, 30 September; a confused fideistic tirade that a number of atheopathic evolutionists adored. Return to text.
  53. Bailey, E., British men of science: Charles Lyell, pp. 77–78, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, London, Great Britain, 1962. Return to text.
  54. McIntosh, A.C., Edmondson, T. and Taylor, S.C., Genesis and catastrophe: the Flood as the major biblical cataclysm, J. Creation 14(1):101–109, 2000. Return to text.
  55. Reed, J.K., Kulikovsky, A.S. and Oard, M.J., Can recolonization explain the rock record? Creation Research Soc. Quarterly 46(1):27–39, 2009. Return to text.
  56. Sarfati, ref. 2, pp. 264–5. Return to text.
  57. See also Oard, M., Flood by Design, Retreating Water Shapes the Earth’s Surface, Master Books, AR, 2008. Return to text.
  58. Oard, M., Defining the Flood/post-Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks, J. Creation 21(1):98–110, 2007. Return to text.
  59. Oard, M., It’s plain to see: Flat land surfaces are strong evidence for the Genesis Flood, Creation 28(2):34–37, 2006. Return to text.
  60. Oard, M., Do rivers erode through mountains? Water gaps are strong evidence for the Genesis Flood, Creation 29(3):18–23, 2007. Return to text.
  61. Rush, D.E. and Vardiman, L., Pre-Flood vapor canopy radiative temperature profiles; in: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Volume 2, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 231–245, 1990. Return to text.
  62. Brown, W.T., The fountains of the great deep; in: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Volume 1, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 23–38, 1986. Return to text.

Don't be misled.  Every hypothesis about the origin of the Universe, of the Solar System, of life, of time, of information, all of them begin with a worldview as a basis and continue on from there.  Darwinists smugly claim that Young Earth Creationists simply say that "God did it" but that is not true.  There are years of research into the scientific evidence that supports a created and designed Universe and Creation Science is all about HOW God did it and not whether He did.    Darwinism just says "Nothing did it" and depend upon random chance to create all things, in violation of several scientific laws and certainly contrary to logic.   Above the gate to Darwinism should hang a sign that says, "Abandon logic, all ye who enter here!" 

I am not simply making baseless assertions, I am happily presenting eight plus years of Darwinist commenters who have failed miserably to give a scientific basis for their assertions, and therefore I give them their god - *Poof* and publicize their failure to make coherent arguments to back up their claims.  Darwinists cannot explain where existence or life or information came from other than to say that, since they are here, they had to have happened!   Yes, we have a Universe and a Solar System and laws of nature and life and information.   But the evidence we find as we learn more about both organisms and the Universe supports creation ex nihilo by God rather than some kind of uncaused random series of events.   In order to have a Universe, you must have existence and that just doesn't hang on racks at the drugstore.    

The Bible is evidence, it is the history of early mankind and includes a narrative describing the creation of the Universe.   The descriptions are specific but also quite general, so that a logical man can begin with God created and then begin to determine what God has made and how to use it to benefit mankind as well as try to figure out as many specifics as possible that could fit the Biblical account and also match what we know now about scientific laws.   To create everything required miracles performed by God.   But miracles are rare events and God has assigned oversight of the planet and even the Universe to us under His command, if we are willing, and science is one way we can learn to use what God has created.   Modern science is built on the backs of giants, and the vast majority of those giants were Christians or at least Theists.   History tells us this is so.  

Now it is time for the world of science to give up their Darwin toy and cast it aside, just as they did when they gave up their stuffed animals and baby blanket as small children and began to grow up.  Darwinism is made up of make-believe stories and unscientific claptrap and no shortage of deliberate outright lies.   It still rules in the classrooms of most schoolrooms and secular scientific institutions and, do their shame, even some so-called "Christian Evolutionists" like the bunch at BioLogos.  Shame on them for straddling the fence, thus making everything they say and do of no worth at all.  At least Richard Dawkins has the courage of his convictions and stands on the idea of no God and nothing creating everything and he'll tell you this at the top of his lungs.   Not that he would dare debate Jonathan Sarfati.   But he doesn't try to take both sides.   Neither do I.

God created all things.   There was a literal Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, a literal Fall from grace and consequences that have continued from that day forward.  There was a worldwide Flood and all races and nations are descended from Noah and his family.   There was a Tower of Babel.  There was Abraham and his offspring who eventually became slaves in Egypt  There was a Moses and a Nation of Israel who were led out of Egypt and eventually back to the land given to Abraham's people by God Himself.  There was a Messiah, Jesus Christ, who came to be The Lamb of God, the Son of God Who lived a perfect life and suffered and died while taking all the sins of mankind upon Himself and becoming our Atonement and way back to relationship with God.

Christianity and Naturalism are both faith positions.  Creationism and Darwinism are both built on a foundation of faith.  Choose one.


Anonymous said...

The sequential nature of the fossil record blows any young Earth or global flood hypothesis out of the water. This has been discussed ad nauseam, and YECs have no reasonable comeback to this.

This is just one of many issues on which Radar had to beat a tactical retreat, only to return later to claim a victory that he never achieved.

What a sad little blog, where even Radar's supporters have abandoned him.

radar said...

My sad little blog is read by hundreds of people a day from all over the world.

There is not a sequential nature to the fossil rocks at all. That is a lie. You are just another Darwinist making unsupported assertions.

Meanwhile I have made numerous posts pointing out the various megabreccias, polystrate fossils, sedimentary rocks folded like taffy, interbedding and other aspects of the fossil rocks that point to a flood event that buried creatures that lived at the bottom of sea beds first, then tended to get those less able to escape flood waters and finally the waters overwhelmed even fast and strong dinosaurs.

Not only that, every single basic life form is actually found in the bottom "Cambrian" rock layers.

Some fossils have been demonstrated to support a flood model by their nature - Amber is now considered a product of floating masses of vegetation and polystrate tree "forests" are actually stripped of branches and roots and show all the signs of floating and then falling waterlogged down into sediment, just as the logs did observed at Spirit Lake after the Mt. St. Helens events.

As this post shows, there are features found on Earth now that must have come from flood waters, such as massive planation. In fact, every aspect of your ridiculous statement has already been falsified and very specifically so on this blog over the years. So you may be proud of your ignorance but don't expect regular readers to believe your empty statement.

Anonymous said...

"My sad little blog is read by hundreds of people a day from all over the world."

I wonder how many of them read it out of morbid curiosity, the way one slows down next to a car crash? You sure don't get any commenters backing you up when your claims are taken apart. Occasionally someone stops in and says something along the lines of "praise Jesus", but that's about it.

"Meanwhile I have made numerous posts pointing out the various megabreccias, polystrate fossils, sedimentary rocks folded like taffy, interbedding"

-- which Jon Woolf handily took apart at the time.

"a flood event that buried creatures that lived at the bottom of sea beds first, then tended to get those less able to escape flood waters and finally the waters overwhelmed even fast and strong dinosaurs"

-- which unfortunately is not borne out by the evidence. It is, as you put it, no more than an "unsupported assertion".

"There is not a sequential nature to the fossil rocks at all. That is a lie."

... followed by:

"Not only that, every single basic life form is actually found in the bottom "Cambrian" rock layers."

You see, that's what you would find if YEC were true. But there are no dogs, humans, snakes, cows etc. in the bottom Cambrian layers.

Not one.

So much for YEC...

But of course you can't admit that.

"every aspect of your ridiculous statement has already been falsified and very specifically so on this blog over the years. So you may be proud of your ignorance but don't expect regular readers to believe your empty statement"

I trust that regular readers are actually not fooled by your claim, because they would know that you routinely run away from losing arguments and then proclaim an unearned victory a few months later.

radar said...

Jon Woolf has never proved anything during the years he has commented other than a facility for thinking putting in the Latin names for organisms wins any arguments and for simply retreating to Darwinist talking points.

Anonymous, sadly, you are simply a liar. Rather than run from questions it is the commenters who fail to answer questions and dodge them on a continual basis.

I have already answered the question concerning why animals associated with mankind are not found in the fossil rocks - God stated that He would destroy the evil culture of mankind that existed before the Flood. It is therefore highly likely that the targeted areas for destruction were the areas in which mankind had settlements.

Woolf had no answers for any of the formations that make the fossil rocks obviously catastrophic and you, while making your false charges, have no evidence included in your comment, either.

You do realize that the vast majority of fossils are marine invertebrates, about 95 per cent? That would be expected in a flood scenario. Algae and plants comprise most of the remaining five per cent. Maybe .02 per cent of the fossils are "advanced" vertebrates. Also, since Darwinists use fossils to date rock layers, they use circular reasoning to advance their hypothesis. Finally, the features such as cross-bedding are simply killers to Darwinism and they just ignore such things.

The long list of problems with fossil rocks as a support for Darwinism includes megabreccias and polystrates and taffy-twisted layers and cross-bedding and out-of-order layers. But those are just a few. What about massive sedimentary layers that cross continents? What about massive planation? What about giant canyons like the Snake River Canyon which we can see was formed rapidly?

Have you ever wondered why huge canyons like the Grand Canyon have almost no rubble at the bottom? Sedimentary rock mesas and towers typical of the American West all appear to be created by post-flood runoffs.

Have you ever wondered why fossils found in one layer and then disappearing are actually creatures found alive today? Probably not. Darwinists tend to not question what they are told.

radar said...

Finally, those who agree with what I post rarely comment. This is because they have no argument with the articles.

So let's talk about "retreats", shall we?

Information - Darwinists lost the argument.

Biogenesis - Darwinists lost the argument.

Dating - Darwinists keep retreating to falsified dating methods, will not admit to the flaws.

2LOT - Darwinists are incoherent and simplistic but never actually argue the point.

Fossil rocks - Epic Darwinist fail! The Mt. St. Helens lessons learned are ignored. The faked fossil evidences are ignored. The carefully presented Delk track and Acambaro evidence is ignored. Anomalies in the fossil rocks which preclude any kind of uniformitarianism are simply ignored. Darwinists are the ones who run away from that subject.

In fact most of the information I post is ignored because commenters have no argument. I'm not running anywhere, I am right here. Waiting for better Darwinists with better arguments OR honest Darwinists who will admit to a few indisputable truths.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Finally, those who agree with what I post rarely comment."

Fact. And when they do comment, it's never to offer any factual support of your arguments.

"This is because they have no argument with the articles."

Complete speculation.

"So let's talk about "retreats", shall we?

Information - Darwinists lost the argument."

False. You didn't understand the various arguments on this issue.

"Biogenesis - Darwinists lost the argument."

False. The Law of Biogenesis is not questioned, but it is irrelevant to current abiogenesis research, since the LOB was never tested at the molecular level. The LOB refers to a simple and obvious point: that complex life forms don't generate spontaneously. But that hasn't been the scientific question on this subject for a long time.

Your most recent responses on this subject were simply incoherent, along the lines of "the molecular level" being hostile to DNA. Complete lunacy. And no, that's not how you win an argument.

"Dating - Darwinists keep retreating to falsified dating methods, will not admit to the flaws."

The dating methods that you so wish to be falsified have never been falsified. I notice you've actually changed your position without any basis. It used to be that you referred to them as not being calibrated sufficiently for your liking. Now you claim they're falsified. Interesting overreach. How about some facts to back that up?

And how about you show us a way in which the radiometric dating data (which of course blows a YEC scenario out of the water) can be "re-calibrated" in a way that's coherent with other dating methods. Mainstream science has this covered. YEC has no answers.

"2LOT - Darwinists are incoherent and simplistic but never actually argue the point."

It's really quite simple. The 2nd LOT doesn't claim that entropy increases universally everywhere. We see local decreases of entropy all the time. In fact, we couldn't live without them. There's nothing incoherent about this. And yet denying this is precisely what the YEC argument hinges on.

radar said...

The above laundry list is yet another attempt to argue without evidence.

Information is a subject the Darwinists lost by a landslide. They never could come up with a natural source for information and tried going down various rabbit trails or giving nonsense answers. I am not sure what the most ridiculous answer was, but probably accusing me of using a "narrow and artificial" among other descriptors for my definition of information was hilarous. I used Dictionary definitions and posted them. Regular old online dictionaries and Darwinists claimed my definition was unfair.

They then proceeded to give dumb answers easily defeated.

The next tactic was to pepper me with rabbit-trail questions that did not stay on topic. After answering two or three of them I quit and demanded an answer.

It isn't that I didn't understand, it IS that Darwinists have no natural source for information/

They cannot give us an experiment that breaks the Law of Biogenesis or the LOT, either.

You guys have nothing. You are totally defeated and you sound like Baghdad Bob, claiming victory over my evidence while actually knowing it clobbers you.

radar said...

As far as dating methods, do a search on this blog and you'll see that I have made a reasoned set of posts showing the ridiculously inaccurate nature of Darwinist dating methods. Partially because they do not calibrate properly and partially because they start with their ludicrous assumptions.

I do believe the ever-growing knowledge of the composition of the Solar System and the cell will force science to agree that both Solar System and organisms had to have been designed.

The world population supports a beginning point at about the time the family of Noah stepped off of the Ark. The collection of mutations in more complex organisms also gives us a time frame of less than 10,000 years.

If life had been on Earth for millions of years we would have all been standing on each others heads by now and the whole lot walking on piles of bones and remains.

If science was honest there would be truth told about the fossil rock layers and the Flood would be accepted as factual, just as it was before Darwinism became a virus infecting the science community with a terrible malignancy - closed minds for religious purposes. You Darwinists have taken science back to the time before Copernicus, back to the days before Aristotle.

Anonymous said...

"It isn't that I didn't understand, it IS that Darwinists have no natural source for information/"

For the sake of argument (and since you mention "closed minds for religious purposes"), let's say that you didn't actually understand the opposing arguments, due to, let's say, lack of intelligence or education/training on your part, or perhaps a pressing worldview to which you feel you have to adhere for some reason.

In that case, would you be in a position to judge whether you can or can't understand the subject in question?

If it makes it easier, pretend it's someone else. Someone you disagree with.

Seems pretty obvious to me that someone in such a position would have such built-in blinders that they quite naturally couldn't form a correct judgement on that question.

LogicalBible said...

I don't believe in evolution.

I should point out a fact, however. Evolution depends on time in order to work.

But time does not depend on evolution. We can have an old earth without evolution.

Since "the face of the whole earth" can be used of a local plague (Exo 10:5, 15), the Text does NOT make it Logically Conclusive that the flood was "global".

Furthermore, the Hebrew Text of Genesis 6:1 reads "the daughters of ha Adam = the man." That is the family of Agriculturists that God formed after He rested. Not the Sixth Day creation. That limits the flood to a particular area, a particular people, and a particular group of animals.

It is frequently assumed that Genesis Chapter 2 is merely re-telling the story of the Sixth Day. That is NOT Logically Conclusive.

Religious traditions are nonsensical in the Light of the Word of Truth and Fact.

This is Logically Conclusive:

Genesis 1:25-27. Genesis 2:5. Gen 2:18-19.

P: the "men and women" "created" on the Sixth Day were the first humans Gen 1:25-27.

Q: foragers

R: tillers of the ground (agriculture)

~R: NOT tillers of the ground Gen 2:5.

IF the "men and women" "created" on the sixth day were the first humans (P), THEN they were foragers (Q), OR they were tillers of the ground (R).

"and there was NOT a man to till the ground." (~R).

THEREFORE, IF the "men and women" "created" on the sixth day were the first humans (P), THEN they were foragers (Q).

P -> (Q ^ R) : (P -> Q) v (P -> R)
├ P -> Q


1. The first humans. Foragers. Genesis 1:25-27. (Origin Africa)

2. Eth ha Adam. Agriculturists. Gen 2:10-14, 18-19. Origin: the Fertile Crescent area.

Many will tell you that Gen 2:5 says "and there was not a man"

Read it again, "and there was not a man TO TILL the ground." Uh oh! A qualifier!

The Bible provides NO TIME between the creation of "the heavens and the earth" and the time it "became without form and void" (a cataclysm, geological science will back up multiple cataclysms).

The Bible provides NO TIME between the Seventh Day and the "form"ing of eth ha Adam.

We may not assume it was immediate.

We may not assume it was billions of years.

Let the facts tell us.