Does Adventist Flood Geology Make Sense? Part 2: Can a flood explain the geological results?
by Rich Hannon | 19 July 2024 |
In the first part of this essay, I explained the problem with keeping all kinds of life alive for a year in a relatively small wooden ship: Noah’s ark. Now let’s study the effects of the flood itself. Can a flood—a relatively short one—explain what we see in earth’s geology?
Here are two additional constraints on the flood hypothesis.
The second constraint: flooding is the singular process to produce the result.
Young Earth Creationism (YEC) has some evidence-free postulates about where the flooding could have come from: a water canopy above (per The Genesis Flood) and an extensive layer of water below (per Walter Brown’s model). But if that canopy held enough water to produce a 40-foot depth on the surface, it would have dramatically raised the pre-flood atmospheric pressure, pushing oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxicity. It would also have blocked a lot of sunlight and, if suspended as water vapor, would be superheated when released. Below the surface, if there were deep and massive “wells” available to flood the planet, that water would also be too hot for life on the surface to tolerate.
A flood produces consequences consistent with its mechanism. That ought to result generally in randomness of deposited strata. But we find just the opposite. There are many, many layers of diverse types, mostly inconsistent with being flood-generated. Notably there are:
- Aeolian: a dry deposition, using wind to create distinctive dunes. While dunes can be produced under water, aeolian cross-bedding is different, and aqueous formation needs comparatively calm water. Yet there are massive “frozen dunes” found in the geologic column, notably the Navajo sandstone (max of 2,300 ft. deep).
- Varves: are a thinly stacked multiplicity of layers, in locations like lake bottoms, usually produced via annual processes. Such a composition is radically inconsistent with a flood mechanism.
- Evaporites: As inferred by the name, deposition results when evaporation leaves a residue. Some of these formations are immense, notably the Paradox Basin of Southeast Utah, extending 12,000 sq. miles, often to a depth of 5,000 ft.
- Karst formations are drainage systems producing caves and sinkholes. This doesn’t happen in a flood, and the post-flood timeframe is insufficient to explain the evidence. I wrote about this for Adventist Today here.
Randomness should also produce relative uniformity in the distribution of fossils. But the fossil record found, like the strata, is essentially the opposite. There is an ordering that has been so extensively mapped, and is so consistent, that a non-quantitative dating methodology—index fossils—has resulted and proven to be invaluable.
Finally, flood water quality is an overwhelming and generally unrecognized problem. Fresh-water creatures would be killed when all the water mixes, and salinity results. But far more significantly, creating the geologic column means huge amounts of sediment have to be in suspension during the flood. One estimate is ~2:1 ratio of water to rock material. This degree of “muddiness” would kill almost all marine life.
The third constraint: The short duration of the flood
The flood lasted for about a year. Most of the geologic column had to be formed then.
As noted above, diverse types of strata in the geologic column are not consistent with a flood mechanism. But these (and others) are also incompatible with the premise that they were formed during a brief timeframe. Notably, evaporite creation involves a many-sequence process entailing ingress and egress of salt-laden water, usually in a playa-like environment. Varves are typically the consequence of repeated silting processes for many years. A notable example is Lake Suigetsu, in Japan, where at least 60,000 years of deposition is recorded.
Then there is lava and more lava. If you are going to postulate that the geologic column was essentially formed in a year, you have to collapse almost all major geologic events into that year. And there have been multiple, massive, lava flows throughout geologic time, known as Large Igneous Provinces (LIP). Most notable are the Siberian and Deccan Traps.
Conventional geology identifies the Siberian Traps as a main cause of the Permian Extinction. Why? It is huge—about 720,000 cubic miles in size, formed over a million years. It would have produced a constant stream of ash, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and methane. Resultant rain would be highly acidic, and its effect on ocean life would have been catastrophic. But now, place this and all other Large Igneous Province formation, during one flood year. The recognized consequences of such massive vulcanism would have destroyed almost all life, and it would not have settled down by the time Noah exited the ark. The effects would have held the planet in captivity for far more time than 6,000 years.
I could go on. And on. And on.
This survey barely scratches the surface of problems associated with a physical model mandating an ark, a year, and a flood to create most of the geologic column. The YEC hypothesis, on purely scientific grounds, is almost a non-starter due to the constraints discussed here. And I haven’t even mentioned radiometric dating, or various other chronology tools.
The more research that’s done, the more strongly conventional understanding is confirmed. Don’t believe it? Please study for yourself! The Rocks Don’t Lie.
Adventist thought leaders, such as General Conference president Ted Wilson, give no evidence of geologic literacy. Their argument supporting Adventism’s YEC position is purely grounded on a particular understanding of revelation, buttressed by explicit Ellen White statements. But while the revelatory texts can be considered God-derived, and science isn’t, both sources are interpreted by fallible humans.
And that reality ought to force this conclusion: the stronger the case for one authority, the more the other should be reconsidered. Human intransigence is at play here, as is the Adventist historic view that we already have “the truth.”
However unaware our leaders may be about the strength of the scientific positions, their resistance, even to inquiry, is harming the church. More and more members—notably younger generations—are gaining scientific literacy and seeing the evidence without YEC-colored glasses. Confidence in historic Adventist positions generally is being correspondingly weakened.
Church leaders need to fairly examine the evidence and argumentation, or forfeit their self-identity of being truth-seekers.
But what about role of miracles? Let’s discuss that next.
Additional References
- Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition (talkorigins.org)
- The Impossible Voyage of Noah’s Ark
- Six “Flood” Arguments Creationists Can’t Answer
- Why Noah’s flood may not have been global
Rich Hannon is a retired software engineer. His long-standing avocations include philosophy, geology, and medieval history.
To comment, click/tap here.