Identifying the flood / post flood boundary

[laptoppop]

There has been various discussion around here about how one might identify which strata were deposited by a global flood. I just ran across an interesting article discussing the flood/post flood boundary. I think it is enlightening in terms of starting to grapple with the complexities involved.

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6117/

 

[RobertByers]

This creationist would insist it is the k-t line. The clue is the fauna.
The creatures above the line are 'mammals' and below dinosaurs etc.
this was not pointed out by the author.
The author is a great creationist who's stuff i love.
yet he is wrong to not see post flood earth movements as possible in duplicating flood year coal creation and so on.
a thing is made about the arctic alligator. Yet this is simply signs of the posr flood migrations. To get monkeys into S america one must travel through the arctic.. back then it simply was warm everywhere.
Anyways many creatures traveled that way who are now extinct.
the k-t line shows cleanly a general planet covered by sedimentary rock and above the line a partial covering.
The fauna is the final vote.

 

[shernren]

I have to say it seems a well-thought-out article to me. I'm not a geologist so I doubt I would be able to authoritatively say if anything was wrong with it or not ... However, just a few comments.

It seems strange (to put it kindly) that the authors would refer to books published in the '70s to make their (side) points that uniformitarianism doesn't have any answers for some phenomena. Surely a reference to more recent textbooks would be more convincing?

And personally, if I were a creationist, I wouldn't really be able to see what the fuss is with the Flood/post-Flood boundary. It would be pretty obvious to me that sedimentary rock has got to come from either the Flood or before, whatever supposed layer it is from. I would have thought the bigger issue is the Flood / pre-Flood boundary, and in particular how pre-Flood rocks were lithified.

 

[RobertByers]

I have to say it seems a well-thought-out article to me. I'm not a geologist so I doubt I would be able to authoritatively say if anything was wrong with it or not ... However, just a few comments.

It seems strange (to put it kindly) that the authors would refer to books published in the '70s to make their (side) points that uniformitarianism doesn't have any answers for some phenomena. Surely a reference to more recent textbooks would be more convincing?

And personally, if I were a creationist, I wouldn't really be able to see what the fuss is with the Flood/post-Flood boundary. It would be pretty obvious to me that sedimentary rock has got to come from either the Flood or before, whatever supposed layer it is from. I would have thought the bigger issue is the Flood / pre-Flood boundary, and in particular how pre-Flood rocks were lithified.

There was no pre-flood action in regards to sediment/rock.
The flood/post flood boundary is the big issue. i'm sure but others are not.
sed rock came from the flood year or after by way of like forces. Not before the flood.
The fauna is the way to determine.

 

[juvenissun]

There has been various discussion around here about how one might identify which strata were deposited by a global flood. I just ran across an interesting article discussing the flood/post flood boundary. I think it is enlightening in terms of starting to grapple with the complexities involved.

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6117/

Thanks for bringing up this article. In general, I overlooked this website, and the list of references are interesting.

One thing I like to remind everyone before reviewing any of such geological argument: We had only ONE global flood. It never happened before, and it will not happen again. This should be a very critical guideline in identifying any of so-called evidence of global flood. God gives this restriction very clearly. If we neglect this restriction, we may as well forget the whole literal interpretation of the global flood.

A caution is that this apparently a once-a-life-time event could also be the abrupt beginning of a continuous process. For example, if the earth had no flood before the global one, then after the global flood, there would be many local or regional floods happened again and again. From the present understanding of the earth history, there indeed could be several such possibilities that the process suddenly started at a certain time in the past, and repeated at a smaller scale ever since.

Because of this bottom line reason, any geological feature which is not original (the first one) and it appeared in a repetitive manner through geological time, can be ruled out as the evidence of the global flood. Unfortunately, most, if not all, of the evidences mentioned in this article belong to this category. They could be used as arguments related to local or regional flood, but are certainly not enough for the global flood.

So, what should the evidence look like for a global flood? I wish I could give an satisfactory answer to this question. I am working on it. Please pray for me.

In fact, in order to solve this problem in a slightly complete manner, arguments from many fields other than sedimentary geology need to be put together. For example, 1) the source and the amount of water? 2) the depth of flood (the relief of the earth)? 3) the origin of the oceanic basin? And, inevitably, 4) the tectonic history of the earth. The problem is certainly one of multidisciplinary nature rather than just involving sediments or sedimentary geology.

Needless to say that we also need to consider the biological aspects such as human activity and animal population etc. So far, this is the most difficult part for me, and I have to put them aside at this stage.

------

In case anyone have question related to any of the evidence mentioned in this article (too many were brought up), I would be happy to elaborate the details. I am not looking down the arguments in this article. I am simply saying, any mentioned evidence is more complicate than it was presented.