Search This Blog

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Bucking the Anti-Flood Consensus

Generally speaking, most evolutionists base their dogma on Lyell (a lawyer) and Darwin (a failed clergy student). Uniformitarianism (slow and gradual processes seen today are what always happened, even way back yonder) is the rule, since evolutionary doctrine requires long ages. Catastrophic flood geology is unacceptable because it brings old earth geologists uncomfortably close to considering the Genesis Flood. 


Dry Falls image credit: NASA / Goddard / Harrison Smith
Image usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
Every once in a while, geologists have no choice but to occasionally admit to catastrophic floods as probable causes for features observed by geomorphologists. J Harlen "Harley" Bretz wanted to figure out what went on in an area he called the Channeled Scablands over in the state of Washington, USA. Uniformitarian geologists were puzzled, and he proposed that huge floods were responsible. Took a long time for consensus-minded fundamentalist evolutionists to come around, but that is now the prevailing view. No, the Channeled Scablands area was not directly caused by the Genesis Flood, but the Flood did have a part to play. The real culprit was the Lake Missoula Flood — which some refer to in the plural. (For more about this, take a look at "Geology, Floods, and Fear of the Bible" and "Lake Missoula and the Genesis Flood".) So, what happened with Bretz and the consensus, anyhow?
National Geographic retells the lonely battle of J Harlen Bretz against the scientific establishment, and what made them so pig-headed.

Glenn Hodges tells in bold narrative how one man, not even trained in geology, figured out the Channeled Scablands in eastern Washington state. It’s a story we’ve told before, but this article in National Geographic, with Michael Melford’s stunning photographs, is a keeper. The headline and subtitle give a flavor of what’s below:
To keep reading, click on "The Lone Ranger vs the Big Science Consensus".

Bretz studied the odd landforms in Washington state and said they were caused by catastrophic flooding. The consensus of the science establishment rejected his ideas. How did his views emerge victorious?