lucaspa
Legend
Everyone did hear about it. What we have now are a few people who refuse to listen.gillfrost said:
I suggest you start with Davis A. Young's The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence and then go to Genesis and Geology by CC Gillespie. You will get the history there.
Initially, the Flood was proposed as the source of all geological formations and rocks. Then it was realized that igneous rock could not be caused by a flood. Then it was realized that metamorphic rock could not be caused by a flood.
By 1800 only the most superficial layers of rock were said to be caused by the Flood. By 1831 even these had been falsified. It was in that year that Rev. Adam Sedgwick stepped down as President of the Royal Geological Society. In his farewell address he announced that the Flood was finally falsified.
"Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophical heresy ... I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation. ...
"We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of a former world entombed in these ancient deposits." Adam Sedgwick's presidential address to the Geological Society, 1831
That's part of the address.
If you want to get specific:
1. Mile thick salt deposits in Utah and under Lake Erie, formed by evaporation, could not have happened during a Flood. Since they are buried beneath "Flood" sediments, they cannot be evaporation of Flood waters. If they were there before the Flood, the Flood would have dissolved them.
2. Volcanic cones in Auvergne, France. These are very delicate cones whose bases are covered with sedimentary rock laid down after the volcanoes become dormant. If these sediments are from the Flood (as Flood Geology says), then the waters of the Flood would have collapsed the cones.
3. Varves in many places, including the Green River varves.
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/greenriver.htm
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/finalprogram/session_3276.htm
4. Yellowstone forests:
"In Yellowstone Park there is a stratigraphic section of 2000 feet exposed which shows 18 successive petrified forests. Each forest grew to maturity before it was wiped out with a lava flow. The lava had to be weathered into soil before the next forest could even start. Further this is only a small section of stratigraphic column in this area. It would be most difficult for flood geology to account for these facts."
JL Kulp, Flood geology, J. American Scientific Affiliation, 2: 1-15, 1950.
Kulp is being polite. It's impossible for Flood Geology to account for those facts. There is no way these deposits could be laid down by a Flood.
"I went on to criticize the flood geology of Whitcomb and Morris, introducing some still valid geological arguments that had not previously appeared in discussions of the deluge.
1. I argued that known rates of heat flow from bodies of crystallizing magma pose problems for those who contend that all fossil-bearing rocks were laid down during the single year of the biblical flood. On the New Jersey side of the Hudson River opposite Manhattan, there is a geological formation known as the Palisades sill, a thick sheet of rock of igneous origin that intruded into red sandstones and shales, Flood geologists of the Whitcomb-Morris school hold that the sand-stones and shales were laid down during the course of the flood, and hence they would logically have to assert that the magma was injected into this material during the course of the flood, cooled, hardened, tilted, and eroded before the other flood sediments settled atop it. But this would not have been possible. We know on the basis of heat flow considerations and the thickness of the sill that it would have taken several hundred years to cool and crystallize in the way it now appears. Indeed, many other much larger igneous rock bodies would have re-quired thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to lose their heat in order to crystallize. Flood geologists have made little attempt to refute this line of evidence.
2. Radiometric dating of igneous formations of the sort men-tioned above - formations that according to the Whitcomb-Morris theory must have been produced within the space of a single year -suggest that they are in fact millions of years old. These figures are consistent with ages predicted on the basis of stratigraphical relation-ships with the intruded rocks. Similar examples can be multiplied many times over
3. The phenomena of metamorphism also pose problems for flood geology. In some localities, fossils are found in rocks that also bear evidence of having undergone significant changes (metamorphism) as a result of having been exposed to very high temperatures and pressures. The problem for flood geologists is to show how a sedimen-tary rock, which they contend was formed at the surface of the earth during the course of the flood, could have been buried and heated fast enough to metamorphose. Both heat flow theory and known rates of chemical reactions indicate that such rocks could not possibly have undergone the observed metamorphism within a single year
4. A wealth of evidence associated with modern discoveries about continental drift and sea floor spreading indicate that various kinds of rocks - including varieties that the flood geologists maintain were formed during the course of the flood - must have been formed both before and after the separation of continents. If the flood geologists are right, this would imply that the continents must have been drifting apart substantially during the course of the flood. But thousands of miles of continental drift within the space of a few months is completely inconsistent with any known rates of drift.
I concluded the book with a look at Scripture, arguing that the biblical data (Gen. 2 in particular) suggest that pre-flood geography was fundamentally the same as post-flood geography which precludes the possibility of a global deluge involving a wholesale reorganization of terrestrial surface features. I also affirmed my belief that the biblical flood was in fact a historical event and not merely myth or legend. It was my intent to show how Christians could endorse the idea of a historical flood without having to commit themselves to a flood geology theory that is thoroughly in conflict with the data of creation." Davis A Young, The Biblical Flood, Pp 273-274.
Upvote
0
