I started writing this, oh, months ago, and never really finished it. But I figured I'd post what I had written for the sake of discussion. Also, I hardly take credit for these ideas, as I've seen them before.
That said, I would like to put forth that,
The Bible disproves YEC flood geology
Many YEC advocates propose that the flood of Noah (which supposedly took place about 4500 years ago, give or take a few centuries) churned up the Earth, laid down tons of sediment, carved canyons, raised mountains, split the continents, etc.
John Baumgardner says so as much (1):
Likewise Henry Morris describes the geological strata as being laid down quickly, in a catastrophic event (2):
Answers in Genesis even includes such ideas in their statement of faith (3):
In fact, the flood is cornerstone of YEC and a catch-all explanation for various geological features of the Earth, including the fossil record. It is obvious why most disproofs of such an event typically focus on the geology of the Earth and relative impossibility of such an event occuring in its recent history.
But the real area of disproof comes from the one set of documents that YECs supposedly adhere to as strictly as possible: the Bible itself. In a nutshell, the idea of catastrophic flood geology, with the flood laying down sediments, ripping apart continents, raising mountains, carving valleys, etc, is completely un-Biblical. And I am going to show why.
Part 1: The Flood
First of all, there's the flood itself as described in Genesis.
Genesis 7:
10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
...
17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
No where does it describe the monumental geological changes the creationists are advocating. At best, you have the passage "the fountains of the great deep broken up". But there's nothing about reshaping the entire geological face of the planet. From the account in Genesis, the flood seems rather benign.
Part 2: Pre-Flood Geography
The actual description of the flood event itself would probably not be enough to dissuade YECs from their ideas. After all, YECs routinely make up extra-Biblical ideas for their theories, no matter how tenuously supported by the Bible. But in the case of catastrophic flood geology, they blatantly contradict several passages that describe the pre-Flood geography of the Middle East:
Genesis 2:
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
The above passages are taken from the King James Version of the Bible. But there are some translation differences in different versions. In the New International Version, for example, Ethiopia becomes Cush, Hiddekel becomes Tigris, and Assyria becomes Asshur. After cross-referencing a few sources, I noted that Hiddekel is the Hebrew version for the Tigris, and Asshur is Hebrew for Assyria.
Let's examine this further by looking at these landmarks individually.
The first landmark is the Pison river that "compasseth the whole land of Havilah". The problem is, there is no current river named Pison nor a land named Havilah. So where could this river have been? There is a clue a little later in Genesis 25:18, And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria: and he died in the presence of all his brethren.. This places Havilah in between Assyria and Egypt, which would put it somewhere in Northern Arabia (see map * note: my original map reference for this is now 404, so I'm using a new one).
But what about Pison? There is no river currently in the area, but there may have been at one time. In fact, the Wadi al Batin is a probable location for a once active river.
Next is Gihon that "compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia". As mentioned, the original Hebrew was Cush and there is evidence of more than one Cush in the Bible. It is possible, then, that it does not necessarily refer to modern day Ethiopia. Placing the land of Cush thus becomes is difficult. (more here)
Third is Hiddekel (Tigris). This is a relatively easy landmark to identify, since it is described as going "toward the east of Assyria". One need but look at a map of the historical Assyrian empire to verify this (see map).
The last river is the Euphrates, yet there can be little doubt in the absence of any geological markers that this refers to the modern day Euphrates, especially with respect to the other rivers named.
The significance of this is that it describes a pre-flood world with landmarks that still exist in the current world. How could a flood, apparently responsible for changing the global geology of the world, leave such landmarks relatively untouched?
Part 3: Criticisms and Conclusions
There's an article on Answers in Genesis in which they attempt to address the location of Eden claiming it could have been anywhere. In the article, they claim that the post-flood Tigris and Euphrates rivers were merely named after the pre-Flood rivers, and aren't the same rivers at all. But in doing so, they completely ignore the other geographical clues that suggest such rivers are the same now as they were then (references to Havilah and Assyria, for example).
There's also the fact that no where in the Bible does it suggest there is a difference between the locations in Genesis 2 and when the rivers appear later in the Bible. Considering that the rivers in Genesis 2 only exist to describe the location of Eden itself, it seems pretty strange not to note that the post-Flood rivers are in completely different locations.
In the end, the Bible is clear. Not only does the flood is not described as doing the things YECs claim it did, but Genesis 2:10-14 describes pre-Flood geology, that for all intents and purposes, still exists today. For a flood that supposedly razed the world and changed the landscape, it seems very odd that it left the middle East region so relatively untouched.
References:
1) Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood (John R. Baumgardner)
2) Geology and the Flood (IMPACT No. 6 July/August 1973 by Henry M. Morris)
3) About AiG: Statement of Faith (Answers in Genesis)
That said, I would like to put forth that,
The Bible disproves YEC flood geology
Many YEC advocates propose that the flood of Noah (which supposedly took place about 4500 years ago, give or take a few centuries) churned up the Earth, laid down tons of sediment, carved canyons, raised mountains, split the continents, etc.
John Baumgardner says so as much (1):
Likewise Henry Morris describes the geological strata as being laid down quickly, in a catastrophic event (2):
Answers in Genesis even includes such ideas in their statement of faith (3):
In fact, the flood is cornerstone of YEC and a catch-all explanation for various geological features of the Earth, including the fossil record. It is obvious why most disproofs of such an event typically focus on the geology of the Earth and relative impossibility of such an event occuring in its recent history.
But the real area of disproof comes from the one set of documents that YECs supposedly adhere to as strictly as possible: the Bible itself. In a nutshell, the idea of catastrophic flood geology, with the flood laying down sediments, ripping apart continents, raising mountains, carving valleys, etc, is completely un-Biblical. And I am going to show why.
Part 1: The Flood
First of all, there's the flood itself as described in Genesis.
Genesis 7:
10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
...
17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
No where does it describe the monumental geological changes the creationists are advocating. At best, you have the passage "the fountains of the great deep broken up". But there's nothing about reshaping the entire geological face of the planet. From the account in Genesis, the flood seems rather benign.
Part 2: Pre-Flood Geography
The actual description of the flood event itself would probably not be enough to dissuade YECs from their ideas. After all, YECs routinely make up extra-Biblical ideas for their theories, no matter how tenuously supported by the Bible. But in the case of catastrophic flood geology, they blatantly contradict several passages that describe the pre-Flood geography of the Middle East:
Genesis 2:
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
The above passages are taken from the King James Version of the Bible. But there are some translation differences in different versions. In the New International Version, for example, Ethiopia becomes Cush, Hiddekel becomes Tigris, and Assyria becomes Asshur. After cross-referencing a few sources, I noted that Hiddekel is the Hebrew version for the Tigris, and Asshur is Hebrew for Assyria.
Let's examine this further by looking at these landmarks individually.
The first landmark is the Pison river that "compasseth the whole land of Havilah". The problem is, there is no current river named Pison nor a land named Havilah. So where could this river have been? There is a clue a little later in Genesis 25:18, And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria: and he died in the presence of all his brethren.. This places Havilah in between Assyria and Egypt, which would put it somewhere in Northern Arabia (see map * note: my original map reference for this is now 404, so I'm using a new one).
But what about Pison? There is no river currently in the area, but there may have been at one time. In fact, the Wadi al Batin is a probable location for a once active river.
Next is Gihon that "compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia". As mentioned, the original Hebrew was Cush and there is evidence of more than one Cush in the Bible. It is possible, then, that it does not necessarily refer to modern day Ethiopia. Placing the land of Cush thus becomes is difficult. (more here)
Third is Hiddekel (Tigris). This is a relatively easy landmark to identify, since it is described as going "toward the east of Assyria". One need but look at a map of the historical Assyrian empire to verify this (see map).
The last river is the Euphrates, yet there can be little doubt in the absence of any geological markers that this refers to the modern day Euphrates, especially with respect to the other rivers named.
The significance of this is that it describes a pre-flood world with landmarks that still exist in the current world. How could a flood, apparently responsible for changing the global geology of the world, leave such landmarks relatively untouched?
Part 3: Criticisms and Conclusions
There's an article on Answers in Genesis in which they attempt to address the location of Eden claiming it could have been anywhere. In the article, they claim that the post-flood Tigris and Euphrates rivers were merely named after the pre-Flood rivers, and aren't the same rivers at all. But in doing so, they completely ignore the other geographical clues that suggest such rivers are the same now as they were then (references to Havilah and Assyria, for example).
There's also the fact that no where in the Bible does it suggest there is a difference between the locations in Genesis 2 and when the rivers appear later in the Bible. Considering that the rivers in Genesis 2 only exist to describe the location of Eden itself, it seems pretty strange not to note that the post-Flood rivers are in completely different locations.
In the end, the Bible is clear. Not only does the flood is not described as doing the things YECs claim it did, but Genesis 2:10-14 describes pre-Flood geology, that for all intents and purposes, still exists today. For a flood that supposedly razed the world and changed the landscape, it seems very odd that it left the middle East region so relatively untouched.
References:
1) Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood (John R. Baumgardner)
2) Geology and the Flood (IMPACT No. 6 July/August 1973 by Henry M. Morris)
3) About AiG: Statement of Faith (Answers in Genesis)
