I thought I had them at the flood, but...

[Valetic]

I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.

I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.

I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.

 

[joshua 1 9]

the creation story is really just a myth.

The Story of Noah and the Ark is what we call a shadow and a type. Noah was a real person and there was a real ark. But the story is given for us to learn a lesson from. For example Jesus teaches "as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be". The story of Noah tells about when the world of Pangaea was destroyed hundreds of thousands of years ago. Also the story of Noah shows us what life was like in the days of Noah and how civilization spread to the world at that time.

The flood and Noah takes place on day two. If you look at day two in Genesis chapter one you see that this deals with the water on the earth: "6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day." In the story of Noah we read: "fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." So we see a change in the situation with both the waters above and the waters below.

There is a spiritual aspect also. Isaiah 11:9 tells us: "the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." As the earth is covered with water so shall the knowledge of the Lord cover the earth. So these are a few of the ways the story of Noah can be understood and applied to our lives.

 

[ewq1938]

I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.

I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.

I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.

I'm an old Earth type...it doesn't harm any of my beliefs or anything...no struggle at all. The creation story isn't a myth but the interpretation of it is what is important here. I believe that God has placed evidence of such things in the Earth and we are meant to find it. So, when you speak of the geologic column supporting an old Earth it is a good thing. What issues would that cause you? I am happy to discuss and share my opinions on these matters...perhaps it would help settle your concerns?

 

[Valetic]

The Story of Noah and the Ark is what we call a shadow and a type. Noah was a real person and there was a real ark. But the story is given for us to learn a lesson from. For example Jesus teaches "as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be". The story of Noah tells about when the world of Pangaea was destroyed hundreds of thousands of years ago. Also the story of Noah shows us what life was like in the days of Noah and how civilization spread to the world at that time.

The flood and Noah takes place on day two. If you look at day two in Genesis chapter one you see that this deals with the water on the earth: "6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day." In the story of Noah we read: "fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." So we see a change in the situation with both the waters above and the waters below.

There is a spiritual aspect also. Isaiah 11:9 tells us: "the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." As the earth is covered with water so shall the knowledge of the Lord cover the earth. So these are a few of the ways the story of Noah can be understood and applied to our lives.

I'm sorry I just don't interpret the bible as saying anything about the earth being more than 10k years old. My point to the OP is that if there is any evidence to refute the geologic column refuting the flood in any way for YECers I would like to see it (fossil record).

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.

I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.

I find it hard to believe you ever were a YEC if you believe that the fossil records we have could have eventuated through time, chance, and thousands/millions of years. Sudden and catastrophic burial is the only way to explain what is found.

There are a number of examples where plants or animals are found in the "wrong" layer of the fossil record, if one assumes the fossil records were generated over long ages. These examples disprove this assumption, leaving only the Great Flood to explain them.

 

[Valetic]

I find it hard to believe you ever were a YEC if you believe that the fossil records we have could have eventuated through time, chance, and thousands/millions of years. Sudden and catastrophic burial is the only way to explain what is found.

There are a number of examples where plants or animals are found in the "wrong" layer of the fossil record, if one assumes the fossil records were generated over long ages. These examples disprove this assumption, leaving only the Great Flood to explain them.

Wouldn't you say those inconsistencies in the fossil record are rare and possibly fluke and probably were tampered with by nature? Overall the fossil record is very consistent all around the world. I would think something as catastrophic as a Global flood would have scattered all earth's specimens dramatically throughout all of the sedimentary layers but for the most part both plants and animals are consistent within each layer around the world.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Wouldn't you say those inconsistencies in the fossil record are rare and possibly fluke and probably were tampered with by nature?

Fossils themselves are rare. To have even a handful that counteract the uniformitarian view demonstrates just how wrong this view is.

We have historical accounts of a worldwide flood. To me, the evidence all adds up to support the bible.

Overall the fossil record is very consistent all around the world. I would think something as catastrophic as a Global flood would have scattered is specimens dramatically throughout all of the sedimentary layers but for the most part both plants and animals are consistent within each layer around the world.

The "fossil record" itself is tampered with by scientists to give different ages/depths for different areas, dependent on the fossils found there - kind of like circular reasoning. The out-of-place fossils are the only way of disproving this uniformitarian view.

 

[Valetic]

Fossils themselves are rare. To have even a handful that counteract the uniformitarian view demonstrates just how wrong this view is.

We have historical accounts of a worldwide flood. To me, the evidence all adds up to support the bible.

The "fossil record" itself is tampered with by scientists to give different ages/depths for different areas, dependent on the fossils found there - kind of like circular reasoning. The out-of-place fossils are the only way of disproving this uniformitarian view.

So you're telling me all the documentation out there that supports the fossil record being consistent all the way across the world is a hoax? Even creationist scientists have encountered this issue and come up with theories themselves to counter argue an old Earth. But they all fall short of anything that disproves an old Earth. So for me to continue being a young Earth creationist as of this moment I would need evidence to support the idea that the fossil record is not consistent across the world. And you're telling me it's not even though all the documentation I have seen out there says that it is.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

So you're telling me all the documentation out there that supports the fossil record being consistent all the way across the world is a hoax?

It's defined/described in such ways as to be consistent. It's more a self-fulfilling theory than a hoax, although, in my mind, deception was the initial intention.

For example, if you have a depth of x that equates to y million years ago in location A, the same should apply in location B. However, instead, they take what is found at each of the locations and depths, and assign dates to depths correspondingly. Of course you're mostly going to get consistency with such a method, and the out-of-place fossils, which exist, are the only means left by which the theory can be falsified.

 

[Valetic]

It's defined/described in such ways as to be consistent. It's more a self-fulfilling theory than a hoax, although, in my mind, deception was the initial intention.

For example, if you have a depth of x that equates to y million years ago in location A, the same should apply in location B. However, instead, they take what is found at each of the locations and depths, and assign dates to depths correspondingly. Of course you're mostly going to get consistency with such a method, and the out-of-place fossils, which exist, are the only means left by which the theory can be falsified.

The fossil record is open for everyone to see. How it is interpreted may be different between young Earth creationist, old Earth creationist, and evolutionist theories. However, in my mind, I'm not concerned about the dating of the fossils or dating in general but more along the lines of if there was a flood does the fossil record give us evidence for that to refute evolutionary theories concerning the fossil record as well? So again, if the fossils are consistent upon the layers in which the fossils were deposited it would make sense that the Earth is old. But if the fossils are inconsistent among the many layers of the geologic column it would be more evidence for a global flood in my book. Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

The fossil record is open for everyone to see. How it is interpreted may be different between young Earth creationist, old Earth creationist, and evolutionist theories. However, in my mind, I'm not concerned about the dating of the fossils or dating in general but more along the lines of if there was a flood does the fossil record give us evidence for that to refute evolutionary theories concerning the fossil record as well? So again, if the fossils are consistent upon the layers in which the fossils were deposited it would make sense that the Earth is old. But if the fossils are inconsistent among the many layers of the geologic column it would be more evidence for a global flood in my book. Do you see where I'm going with this?

I think you're conceding the fossil record, presuming it's consistent within itself according to an objective set of criteria. The fossil record is only (somewhat) consistent within itself, as the the criteria by how it has been defined was subjective.

 

[Valetic]

I think you're conceding the fossil record, presuming it's consistent within itself according to an objective set of criteria. The fossil record is only (somewhat) consistent within itself, as the the criteria by how it has been defined was subjective.

Is there a source where we can see where a lot of the fossils were in each of the layers where they were discovered? And with more than one specimen in a different part of the world that was in a different layer more than once? This is what you were telling me is the case of the fossil record but pretty much everything I learned about the geological column since I was a kid told me that we find these dinosaur fossils in this layer of dirt and this dinosaur fossil in the next layer and so on and so forth. I can see why they would lie in the textbooks but that's just it I want to know if they're lying and I want to see the truth not necessarily to expose them unless necessary but then I may have a defense when people question the authority of the Bible because of evolution or an old Earth worldview. The main goal I have is to defend the Bible and to plant the seed of Christ. But I can't do that with knowledge and or theories with loopholes such as this.

 

[Serving Zion]

The main goal I have is to defend the Bible and to plant the seed of Christ. But I can't do that with knowledge and or theories with loopholes such as this.

If you are really serious, I have an article that can help you with this, but it will challenge your existing position here:

I'm sorry I just don't interpret the bible as saying anything about the earth being more than 10k years old.

I don't know what impact it will have on the flood, but you could let me know how the article adds to your thoughts and then I will see

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Is there a source where we can see where a lot of the fossils were in each of the layers where they were discovered?

This is the problem. They don't specify fossil and depth, which would be objective. They give the fossil and an alleged layer, based on the fossils found within it. If the exercise were truly objective (i.e. fossil type vs depth found), I'm sure there would be little correlation at all.

 

[Chinchilla]

I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.

I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.

I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.

You can prove the flood not being local by Scriptures only.

Assumptions : Bible is correct


Genesis 9:11
“And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.”

1) God said there should be not any more flood to destroy earth
2) There are multiple big floods each year to destroy earth locally
3) Therefore the flood which God spoke must have been global as he said because the convenant is everlasting which he made . If he lied there is no God , if he broke the promise he is not God .

 

[Valetic]

This is the problem. They don't specify fossil and depth, which would be objective. They give the fossil and an alleged layer, based on the fossils found within it. If the exercise were truly objective (i.e. fossil type vs depth found), I'm sure there would be little correlation at all.

I guess I will remain undetermined for now until I find these answers.

 

[Tolworth John]

I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.

I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.

I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.

Are you doing this by your self or are you using the resources of sites like Creation.com or Answersingenesis?

 

[bcbsr]

I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.

I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.

I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.

Not a myth but a local phenomenon. Back then the term "earth" didn't referred to a globe but to the ground. Even just a couple of millenia ago consider this rhetoric "Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven." Acts 2:5 Really? Jews from China, Australia, Brazil? Obviously the phrase meant something different back then than what one would take a face value today.

A literal interpretation of the Bible would seem to indicate that:

• The flood occurred about 2500 bc
• It covered even the highest mountains
• It killed all of mankind except for 8 people
• It killed most animals except for the few on Noah's ark and those that could survive in water.

There are a number of problems with this interpretation from an historic and scientific point of view

• We have a continuous record of Egyptian history throughout the period when the flood supposedly occurred, the pyramids themselves having been built about 3000 bc.
• There is no evidence of mass extinction on the order of magnitude demanded in Genesis in the recent past.
• Where did the water come from and where did it go? You need about 8 times as much water as there is presently on the earth to cover the highest mountains. There was no hidden source of water. Gavimetric surveys indicate that there are not huge caverns under the earth to keep the water in and neither could you have a sort of water canopy around the earth of that magnitude (if at all), if for no other reason but that life would be crushed to death by the increased atmospheric pressure.
• The divergence of the DNA within species is much too large if they were all a product only of those on the ark.
• Neither the geological column nor the fossil record indicate such a flood at any time.

An Alternative Interpretation:

Is is possible to have an interpretation that is consistent both with science and a literal interpretation of scripture? What about the following:

• The flood was a local event. The ancient terminology only makes it appear global.
  • 
    Consider other places in the Bible where global terms really only had a local application:
    Acts 2:5 "Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven."
    1Ki 10:24 "The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart."
    Ac 17:6 "But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other brothers before the city officials, shouting: "These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here,"
    Ac 19:35 "The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: "Men of Ephesus, doesn't all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven?"
• In the case of the flood, "world" in terms of people is referring to Adam's descendants.
• "World" in terms of geography is "line of sight" or simply the local region that Adam's descendants inhabited.
• This probably occurred in the region known as the fertile crescent. But how could it have "covered the mountains"? A possibility is that by "mountains" the ancient language was referring to "mounds". Ge 7:20 "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet." May simply have meant that the water was 20 feet deep covering the highest mounds.
• The flood killed all of Adam's descendants, except for those on the ark. It might be inferred from the the Tower of Babel account that Adam's descendants were not given to splitting up and traveling far away. They may have been living between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and when the rains came, these rivers flooded first cutting off their escape.
• All of the animals that they owned and were on their land were killed but for those on the ark.

 

[Valetic]

Not a myth but a local phenomenon. Back then the term "earth" didn't referred to a globe but to the ground. Even just a couple of millenia ago consider this rhetoric "Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven." Acts 2:5 Really? Jews from China, Australia, Brazil? Obviously the phrase meant something different back then than what one would take a face value today.

A literal interpretation of the Bible would seem to indicate that:

• The flood occurred about 2500 bc
• It covered even the highest mountains
• It killed all of mankind except for 8 people
• It killed most animals except for the few on Noah's ark and those that could survive in water.

There are a number of problems with this interpretation from an historic and scientific point of view

• We have a continuous record of Egyptian history throughout the period when the flood supposedly occurred, the pyramids themselves having been built about 3000 bc.
• There is no evidence of mass extinction on the order of magnitude demanded in Genesis in the recent past.
• Where did the water come from and where did it go? You need about 8 times as much water as there is presently on the earth to cover the highest mountains. There was no hidden source of water. Gavimetric surveys indicate that there are not huge caverns under the earth to keep the water in and neither could you have a sort of water canopy around the earth of that magnitude (if at all), if for no other reason but that life would be crushed to death by the increased atmospheric pressure.
• The divergence of the DNA within species is much too large if they were all a product only of those on the ark.
• Neither the geological column nor the fossil record indicate such a flood at any time.

An Alternative Interpretation:

Is is possible to have an interpretation that is consistent both with science and a literal interpretation of scripture? What about the following:

• The flood was a local event. The ancient terminology only makes it appear global.
  • 
    Consider other places in the Bible where global terms really only had a local application:
    Acts 2:5 "Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven."
    1Ki 10:24 "The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart."
    Ac 17:6 "But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other brothers before the city officials, shouting: "These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here,"
    Ac 19:35 "The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: "Men of Ephesus, doesn't all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven?"
• In the case of the flood, "world" in terms of people is referring to Adam's descendants.
• "World" in terms of geography is "line of sight" or simply the local region that Adam's descendants inhabited.
• This probably occurred in the region known as the fertile crescent. But how could it have "covered the mountains"? A possibility is that by "mountains" the ancient language was referring to "mounds". Ge 7:20 "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet." May simply have meant that the water was 20 feet deep covering the highest mounds.
• The flood killed all of Adam's descendants, except for those on the ark. It might be inferred from the the Tower of Babel account that Adam's descendants were not given to splitting up and traveling far away. They may have been living between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and when the rains came, these rivers flooded first cutting off their escape.
• All of the animals that they owned and were on their land were killed but for those on the ark.

What about the hundreds of global flood legends found in almost every ancient culture around the world? What about how the sedimentary layering is consistent across the world in typing of sediments and where it is on the column? What about extraordinary findings of certain out of the box fossilized discoveries in strange places like sea shells at the great pyramids of Egypt?

 

[dqhall]

I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.

I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.

I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." It is better to stick with the truth; wherever it may lead.

There was an ancient Babylonian story about a man and his family who were saved from a coming flood by advance warning from God. It was based on earlier versions of the story dating back to about 2000 years BC. The hero was not named Noah in these stories but Ziusudra, Atrahasis and Gilgemesh. In the Sumerian flood legend, Ziusudra heard a voice through the wall of his house telling him that a huge flood was coming. He was instructed to build a boat. Ziusudra built the boat. When the flood came he escaped with his family and some farm animals. The important thing to learn is that an omnipotent God may warn people in advance of coming disaster and give them ways to escape.

Jesus' referred to the Bible story:
Matthew 24:37-39 (KJV - Copyright Expired)
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

While researching ancient flood legends, I learned that the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers used to flood every year; sometimes severe enough to kill people and livestock. The flooding coincided with spring snow melt in the high mountains near the sources of the rivers. Modern dam building has reduced the incidence of catastrophic spring flooding.