From "Reports of the National Center For Science Education", Reports.NCSE.com, Issn 2159-9270, RNCSE 31.3, 1.1, May-June 2011
quote:The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology The ironic demonstration that there is no trace of the Genesis Flood in the geologic record.
According to the young-earth creationist (YEC) paradigm, the narratives recorded in the biblical book of Genesis are accurate historical records of actual events. Within that paradigm, the Flood of Noah is considered to have happened as described in chapters 7 and 8 of Genesis. According to the narrative, the rain of the Flood began in the second month of Noahâ€™s 600th year. The rain lasted 40 days, at the end of which the water level was more than 6 meters above the height of the highest mountains. All humans and non-aquatic animals perished, except those that were on the Ark with Noah. The earth remained flooded for 150 days, but by the end of that period the waters had receded enough for the Ark to rest on the â€œmountains of Araratâ€ (not a single Mt Ararat, as is commonly but incorrectly assumed). About two and a half months after the Ark came to rest, the waters had receded enough to expose the tops of mountains. By the end of the second month of Noahâ€™s 601st year, â€œthe earth was completely dryâ€ (Genesis 8:14, New International Version). The account therefore describes a flooding event in which water rose for 40 days and receded for the rest of a single year, during which recession the planet was completely submerged for 150 days.
In 1961 Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood. The authors presented the hypothesis that the Flood was responsible for the deposition of all Phanerozoic sedimentary strata stratigraphically below the Quaternary. They also questioned the validity of the stratigraphic principles upon which the geologic columnâ€”the sequence of time divisions to which geological deposits are assignedâ€”is based (see Figure 1). Their publication was not the first to espouse these views but its popularity precipitated a deluge of Flood-related research by young-earth creationists in an attempt to find support for the bookâ€™s conclusions. Ironically, that outpouring of research has ultimately led to the falsification of most of the bookâ€™s geological interpretations.
quote: ... The continued denial of the implications of their own findings is an example of what I call the gorilla mindset: the attitude that if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but religious dogma says it is a gorilla, then it is a gorilla.
It is noteworthy that the gorilla mindset is steadily diminishing within the ranks of the practitioners of Flood Geology. Fewer and fewer researchers in that field deny the accumulated evidence of subaerial deposition or of deposition for longer than one year for large portions of the Phanerozoic column. As mentioned above, some have already rejected the hypothesis of a Phanerozoic Flood in favor of the hypothesis of a Precambrian Flood, despite the fact that such a hypothesis necessitates acceptance of a lack of sedimentary deposition by a Flood in the geologic record. In the words of Flood geologist Max Hunter (2009:88), â€œIt is somewhat ironic...that, almost a half century after publication of The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris in 1961, the geologic record attributed to the Genesis Flood is currently being assailed on all sides by diluvialists...[and] there remains not one square kilometer of rock at the earthâ€™s surface that is indisputably Flood deposited.â€
Flood Geology began in order to find support for YEC doctrine but ironically it has now produced an impressive body of evidence against it. The defeat of Flood Geology by its own hand is a great example of how the practice of sound geology leads to correct geological conclusions.
The preponderance of contradictory evidence in layer after layer of sedimentary rocks shows that there was no flood.
We saw the same result from the RATE Group when they tried to disprove radiometric dating methods.
Their publication was not the first to espouse these views but its popularity precipitated a deluge of Flood-related research by young-earth creationists in an attempt to find support for the bookâ€™s conclusions. Ironically, that outpouring of research has ultimately led to the falsification of most of the bookâ€™s geological interpretations.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with what's in that article. Instead of actually replying to my message, you are trying to change the subject.
To remind you:
Could you explain just ONE view point in the paper?
I have no doubt that we could. So pick one already and ask us about it.
So why don't you just pick "ONE view point in the paper" (as you yourself requested) already? Just read the article -- or at the very least look at it -- and pick a point that you want us to explain to you. It's an article, not a technical paper, so it shouldn't be difficult for you to read. Are you afraid to even look at it? Do you believe that you will turn into a pillar of salt or something?
Why is always so impossible to expect any honesty from a creationist? Is honesty against your religion? Decades of experience with creationists have demonstrated to me that that is the case.
Just look at the article, pick a point to discuss, and present it.