Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth -- Part 2

Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth -- Part 2

Thomas Allen

    Strata.[10] Moreover, the orderliness of the sedimentary strata testifies against a violent global flood. The strata are not homogeneous. They consist of successive layers that differ widely in their contents and character. They are not a jumbled confusion. Land animals are not found in the same strata as fishes. Neither are extinct species found with present species. They lie methodically, each in its own successive sedimentary deposition. If the fossil record was caused by a global flood, one would expect to encounter a jumble of animals: Land animals mixed with fishes; freshwater creatures mixed with saltwater creatures. The orderliness of the fossil record does not support a global flood.
    The thickness of the sedimentary strata ranges up to 10 miles or more. They give the appearance of gradual accumulation over a long time. Each stratum contains organic remains that differ from the previous strata.
    Grand Canyon.[11] The Grand Canyon argues against the young-earth-global-flood theory. According to this theory all the layers above the crystalline basement, the Vishnu Schist, formed as a result of the Flood. This theory also contends that each layer formed rapidly and was followed rapidly by another layer. By explaining the formation of a single layer, many young-earth creationists assume that they have explained the deposit of all the layers.
    According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, the Tapeats Sandstone is the first layer of the Grand Canyon deposited by the Flood. This sandstone shows ripple marks. Thus, the water causing the ripples must have been less than 5.5 feet per second (3.75 miles per hour). According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, the minimum velocity of the flood waters was 131 feet per second (89 miles per hour). Therefore, the Noachian Flood could not have formed the Tapeats Sandstone.
    Just above the Tapeats Sandstone is the Bright Angel Shale. This layer consists of alternating layers of sandstone and sandy limestone. According to conventional geology, a fluctuating dispositional environment with changing current speeds is needed for this type of formation. It results from the low water currents of a changing shoreline. According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, flood waters grew deeper at the beginning of the Flood; therefore, at this point of the Flood, fluctuating shorelines would not have occurred. Thus, the Noachian Flood could not have formed the Bright Angel Shale.
    The Temple Butte Limestone also presents a problem for the young-earth-global-flood theory. The eastern part of the limestone is composed of freshwater limestone. It contains fossil remains that belong only to freshwater fish. If the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct, freshwater should not have existed at this point of the Flood.
    Moreover, the young-earth-global-flooding theory cannot account for the Redwall Limestone. Limestone needs calm waters to form. The global-flood theory calls for turbulent flood waters. Also, this layer is up to 535 feet thick, which suggests an extremely long period of calm water.
    The Hermit Shale resulted from a swampy environment. It is soft and easily eroded. The young-earth-global-flood theory fails to predict a swamp on top of 2000 feet of sediment in the middle of the Flood. Above the Hermit Shale is another 2000 plus feet of sediment.
    Most of the other formations in the Grand Canyon also present problems for the young-earth-global-flood theory. Many of these formations suggest a shoreline environment of advancing and retreating water. They do not suggest steadily increasing water depths as the young-earth-global-flooding theory predicts.
    Moreover, the fossil record in some of these formations contradicts the global-flood theory. Fossils of land animals are found in layers where they should not occur if the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct. (The Coconino Sandstone, Toroweap Formation, and Kaibab Limestone are discussed above.)
    If a single flood event had formed the Grand Canyon, one would expect to find the upper layers made of fine material and the lower layers made of coarse material. Yet layers of coarse material lie on top of layers of fine material.
    Also, the Grand Canyon contains layers of limestone. Limestone strata have never been found in flood deposits of any magnitude.
    Moreover, as the first deposited laid by the Flood, fossils of mammals and dinosaurs would be expected to be found in this sandstone. They are not. If the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct, then fossils of dinosaurs, mammals, and other land animals and plants should occur near the beginning of the Flood and be found in the lower layers. They are not. They occur above 2000 feet. Furthermore, fossils of dinosaurs and mammals have not been found in the Grand Canyon, although fossils of reptiles and plants have.
    Igneous Petrology.[12] Igneous petrology also argues against a global flood. Igneous petrology is the branch of geology that deals with the development, emplacement, and crystallization of molten rock material, magma, within or on the surface of the Earth.
    Many examples of magma intruding between layers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock and crystallizing into igneous rock can be cited. According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, all or nearly all fossil-bearing sedimentary rock was formed during the Flood. Thus, these intrusions occurred during or after the Flood. The massive granitic batholiths of California, Idaho, and British Columbia illustrate the fallacy of the young-earth-global-flood theory. These magma intrusions were so massive that they required hundreds of thousands or even a million years to cool. Such rocks rule out a global flood of a few thousand years of age. They also argue against a young earth of no more than 12,000 years old.
    Volcanoes.[13] The remains of many volcanoes argue against a global flood several thousand years ago. Volcanoes exist that are older than the Flood. They show no evidence of being subjected to a highly erosive flood a few thousand years ago.
    In Southern France, cones of ancient volcanoes remain. These cones are composed of loose, light material. They show no signs of ever being exposed to rushing or even moderate flood waters.
    Fossilized Record.[14] Dinosaur tracks have been found in lacustrine deposits. If the Flood accounts for the fossil-bearing sedimentary rock, how could dinosaurs have left their footprints? Were they walking around in the water so torrent that it could move blocks of material weighing thousands of tons? Why were not these tracks washed away by the highly turbulent flood waters?
    For example, dinosaur tracks have been found in the Kayenta Formation in Zion National Park, Utah. They were left in sand and silt deposited in slow-moving, intermittent stream beds. These tracks were not left by dinosaurs in the middle of the Noachian Flood.
    Likewise, fossil tracks of scorpions, millipedes, isopods, and spiders have been found in the sedimentary rock of the Grand Canyon. Young-earth-global-flood proponents claim that the Noachian Flood made all or nearly all fossil-bearing sedimentary sandstone deposits. However, studies have shown that many of these footprints could only have been made on dry sand.
    Furthermore, fossilized flowering plants argue against the young-earth-global-flood theory. The Cedar Mountain Formation in Utah contains fossilized flowering plants. This formation rests on top of more than 10,000 feet of sediment laid down by the Flood according to the young-earth-global-flood theory. How could such plants have survived so long in a turbulent global flood? How could they survive so much sediment? Why do fossils of flowering plants not appear in the Grand Canyon, where deposits predate the Cedar Mountain Formation? This formation also contains fossils of dinosaurs. According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, the Cedar Mountain Formation formed toward the end of the Flood.
    Moreover, the young-earth-global-flood theory predicts that both plant spores and pollen should be dispersed throughout the geological strata. They are not. They are found in distinct layers in succession. Pollen only appears in the upper, younger, layers of rock. Pollen from nonflowering plants, like pines, appears before pollen from flowering plants, like oaks. Only spores of ferns, mosses, and similar plants appear in the lower, older, layers of rock. Thus, the lower strata contain only spores. The higher strata contain spores and pollen from both flowering and nonflowering (gymnosperm) plants. In between, the strata contain spores and gymnosperm pollen. Furthermore, spores of many extinct plants appear only in the lower layers of the fossil record. If the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct, they should also be found in the higher levels. Spores of similar size and shapes as those of these extinct species are found in the upper layers.
    Young earth creationists claim that the Noachian Flood created most, if not all, of the fossil record. The  Karoo Supergroup in South Africa is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrates. The fossilized animals range in size from a small lizard to a cow with an average size being about the size of a fox. If all these animals were alive at once, an average of 21 of them would inhabit every acre of land on earth. If the Karoo Supergroup contains 1 percent of the fossilized land vertebrates, then at least 2100 living vertebrates must have inhabited each acre on earth on the eve of the Flood.
    Moreover, the quantity of shellfish on earth just before the Flood would have conservatively covered the earth to a depth of at least one to five feet. Chalk is mostly made of fossilized shellfish. High quantities of shellfish fossils are also found in many limestones. Chalk, limestone, and similar rock account for about 20 percent of the sedimentary rock.
    Also, fossils arrange themselves in well-defined zones. They are sorted by type instead of size and density as the global flood theory predicts. That is, trilobites, both small and large, are found in one layer. Nautiloids and ammonoids are found in another layer. Their shells have buoyancy chambers, which makes them very light. However, they are never found in the upper layers of the strata as the global-flood theory would predict. Conversely, turtles, which are large and dense, are found only in the middle and upper layers; they are never found in the lower layers as the global-flood theory predicts.
    Another argument against the young-earth-global-flood theory is fossilized charcoal or fusain. They could not have been formed during the Flood because fire cannot burn under water.
    Yellowstone Fossil Forests.[15] A stratum in Yellowstone Park disproves the global flood theory. The stratum at Specimen Ridge contains 27 successive forests destroyed by lava and ash. Enough time was needed for each forest to mature and then be covered by lava and ash. Time was needed for the lava and ash to weather into soil before the next forest could grow. Moreover, the deposit containing these trees is 3400 feet thick. At least 20,000 years are needed for these events to occur. At most only one of these forests could have been destroyed during the Flood. Even this is doubtful. Trees uprooted by a flood are usually stripped of their roots and buried on their sides. The trees in these fossilized forests stand upright and have complete root systems. Furthermore, these forests are set on top of several thousand feet of fossil-bearing rock.
    Ice Core.[16] Ice cores argue against the young-earth-global-flood theory. By counting annual layers, scientists have dated ice cores from Greenland to be more than 40,000 years old. If a global flood occurred a few thousand years ago, one would expect to find signs of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, and other evidence of a catastrophic global flood. Such evidence is not found.
    The young-earth-global-flood theory fails to provide a satisfactory answer for fossil coral reefs, evaporite deposits, lacustrine deposits, fossilized eolian deserts, chalk beds, conglomerates, ancient volcanoes, igneous intrusions, and the fossil record. These geological facts are difficult for the advocates of a global flood to explain away. Other geological facts are impossible to explain away. These geological facts also argue against a young earth, and many of them could not have taken place within the time allocated by the young earth theory.
    The above discussion is not intended to preclude catastrophic events that have global effects. Ample evidence exists that shows the occurrence of such catastrophic events. Many, perhaps most, large fossil deposits may have resulted from such catastrophes. Catastrophes may also explain many geological anomalies. Such an event probably occurred around 3200 B.C. although it was not a global flood like the one described by the young earth creationists. The geological record shows that such a flood could not have occurred so recently. Moreover, much of this evidence shows that the earth must be much older than 12,000 years.
    A major problem that many young-earth creationists seem to have is difficulty in distinguishing geology from biology. They seem to believe that if the earth is more than 10,000 or 12,000 years old, evolution is proven. (Ironically, when describing the origin of human races, many creationists resort to Darwinism. Also, many young-earth creationists support the “created-kind” theory. That is, for example, God created a cat kind from which all members of the cat family, Felidae, evolved. Unlike conventional evolutionists, who believe that many generations are required for one kind to become another kind, these creationists believe that only a few generations are needed. Thus the primary disagreement between the two is not one of the basic principles so much as it is about starting point and the time required for a new species to evolve.) Evolution can be disproved biologically independent of geology.
    If the reader wants more detailed discussions of the above geological evidence against a young earth and a global flood a few thousand years ago, he should consult the references in the endnotes.

Endnotes
10. Smith, pp. 211-212.

11. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 2,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy2.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Senter.

12. Hayward. Isaak. David A. Young, Creation and the Flood: An Alternative to Flood Geology and Theistic Evolution (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1977), pp. 177-185.

 13. Smith, p. 265.

14. Burky. Hayward. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 1,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Rebuttals – Creation Magazine, The Coconino Sands (Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood),” Jan. 24, 2003, http://www.oldearth.org/coconino.htm, Dec. 18, 2014. Senter. Smith, pp. 211-212. Weber. Young, Christianity, p. 88.

15. Hayward. Weber. Greg Neyman, “Yellowstone Petrified Forests,” March 6, 2003, www.answersincreation.org/yellowstone.htm.

16. Isaak.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1.

More religious articles.

Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth -- Part 1

Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth -- Part 1

Thomas Allen

    The most popular creationist theory maintains that God created the earth and universe about 6000 to 12000 years ago. This theory is commonly called the young-earth or young-earth-global-flood theory. Also, this theory claims that a global flood, the Noachian Flood, occurred about 2100 to 8000 B.C.[1] with an average of about 3200 B.C. According to this theory, all, or at least most, fossil-bearing sedimentary rock resulted from this Flood.
    Below some geological evidence is examined to see if it is compatible with the young-earth-global-flood theory.
    Coral Reefs.[2] Coral reefs argue against a global flood. Coral reefs are structures that are built up slowly. Slow growth rates would be incompatible with reef formation during a brief period of the Flood year. Reefs generally grow only a few centimeters per year under ideal conditions.
    Advocates of a global flood claim that the fossil reefs were antediluvian reefs that were eroded and redeposited during the Flood. They claim that enough time has elapsed since the Flood to allow the formation of the currently existing reefs. However, this position is untenable.
    Could a reef that is almost 1000 feet thick and several miles in diameter be a redeposited antediluvian reef? Could any kind of flood dislodge and transport such a large structure without smashing it to pieces? Hardly. Yet the cataclysmic global-flood theory demands such action, for all ancient fossil-containing rock is, according to this theory, the result of a global flood.
    Furthermore, in the Midwest, these gigantic reefs lie on top of other carbonate rocks, which in turn lie on top of sandstone that is 300 feet thick. These reefs would have had either to remain suspended while the carbonate rocks and sandstone were deposited, or else to be transported to and deposited on top of these rocks by a force powerful enough to move these gigantic reefs, but gentle enough not to disturb the sediment, which would not have had enough time to solidify within a few weeks or months of continuous violent rushing water. A flood powerful enough to move these reefs would certainly have disturbed the sediment. Moreover, could a flood violent enough to keep such a gigantic reef suspended allow material that was of much finer grain and of a lower density to be deposited under it? Floods generally deposit larger objects before they deposit smaller ones. Smaller objects tend to remain suspended longer.
    Another piece of evidence that these reefs were not redeposited is that none are upside down. If a violent flood had transported these reefs, surely at least one of them would have been deposited upside down. All the evidence shows that these reefs grew in place over an already deposited carbonate sediment.
    Reefs grow only in lightly agitated warm water. They do not grow under turbulent conditions such as floods. Violent conditions, such as hurricanes, destroy them. The flood described by advocates of a cataclysmic global flood would have been much more violent than any hurricane and would have utterly destroyed these reefs.
    Furthermore, cemented coral reefs grow only a few millimeters per year. Coral atolls, e.g., Eniwetok atoll, and barrier reefs, e.g., the fossil Rainbow Lake reef in western Canada, are formed from cemented coral and require tens of thousands of years to reach their present size. Conventional geologists estimate that the Rainbow Lake reef required 160,000 years to grow to its present size.
    Evaporite Deposits.[3] Evaporite deposits argue against a global flood that occurred a few thousand years ago. Evaporite deposits contain minerals that are soluble in water, such as halite (sodium chloride or table salt), sylvite (potassium chloride), calcite (calcium carbonate), limestone (calcium carbonate), gypsum (hydrated calcium sulfate), potash (potassium carbonate), borax (sodium tetracarbonate) and Epsom salt (magnesium sulfate). According to the generally accepted theory, these deposits are formed slowly by gradual and repeated evaporation of salt water. Such deposits can occur when an arm of a sea is cut off from the ocean.  The water evaporates, and then the depression refills with water from the ocean. This cycle is repeated several times.  The typical deposit of evaporites requires the evaporation of thousands of cubic miles of seawater.
    Some examples of evaporite deposits that required thousands of years to form are the Castilian evaporites (8000 sq. mi.) in Texas, the Zectstein evaporites in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, and the Gulf of Mexico evaporites. According to conventional geology, the Castilian and Zectstein required hundreds of thousands of years to form. For the Castilian evaporites to form during the year of the Flood would have required the varves of calcite and anhydride to be deposited 260.000 times in one year. Most likely, about 260,000 years were needed to form the Castilian evaporates.
    Another example of a large evaporite is the Mediterranean basin. In the distant past (six to eight million years ago, according to conventional geology), the Mediterranean dried up several times. As it dried, it formed evaporites — calcite at the rim and rock salt at the deepest points. Successive drying produced evaporite deposits a thousand feet or more thick. Sediment now covers much of the evaporites. However, the weight of the sediment has forced the evaporites up in places to form salt domes. Some of these domes are a few miles across and thousands of feet deep. A global flood a few thousand years ago cannot account for this phenomenon.    
    If a violent global flood happened, it most likely would have dissolved these most soluble salts. A turbulent flood should have mixed these soluble minerals with clastic sediments. Unfortunately for the young-earth-global-flood theory, clastic minerals are usually not found in evaporites. Further, pieces of evaporites are not found in clastic sedimentary deposits above or below evaporite deposits. If the global-flood theory were valid, evaporite fragments should be found in these sedimentary layers.
    Moreover, evaporite deposits could not have been formed as a result of the flood waters evaporating and leaving behind a precipitate of salts. Evaporites are found buried under thick clastic sediments not on the surface. Evaporites simply cannot be accounted for by a rapid, one-year process. The great thicknesses involved suggest slow deposition over considerable time.
    Sedimentary Rock.[4] The sedimentary rock record argues against a global flood. Although many examples of sedimentary rock formations show evidence of having been formed by moving water, many examples of deposits also show that they could not have formed at all in surging flood waters.  These include sedimentary deposits that were evidently formed in lacustrine (lake) and desert environments.
    Moreover, the volume of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock argues against a recent global flood. According to the young-earth-global-flood theory, all or nearly all fossil-bearing rock resulted from the Noachian Flood. The volume of fossil-bearing rock is 157 cubic miles as compared with 336 cubic miles of water on Earth. Such a mixture would result in a thick, creamy mixture of mud in which no fish could survive.
    An example of a sedimentary rock formation that could not have formed during the Noachian Flood is the Raymond Formation. It is less than a mile thick, but it contains more than 30,000 alternating layers of sandstone and shale. (Shale is formed from clay, and sandstone, from sand.) Turbulent flood waters keep clay suspended, yet it had to deposit clay during the Flood to form this formation. (Clay only settles in very calm water.) During the Flood, alternating layers of sand and clay had to be deposited within minutes. This process had to be repeated 15,000 times. Such action is an impossibility under the conditions of the Noachian Flood.
    Limestone.[5] Limestone argues against a young earth and a recent global flood. Limestone is made of the skeletons of microscopic sea animals. About 1.5 pentagrams (1.7 billion tons) of limestone are deposited annually in the oceans. If ten times this amount were deposited for 5000 years, it would account for less than 0.02 percent of the limestone deposits.
    Chalk Beds.[6] Chalk beds like the 1329 feet of chalk at the cliffs of Dover, England, argue against the young-earth-global-flood theory. Chalk is a calcium carbonate formed from residues of amorphous shell deposited from ocean oozes. It is a soft powdery limestone consisting mostly of fossil shells of Foraminifera.
    Conventional geologists claim that millions of years are needed for the formation of deep chalk beds like the one at Dover. However, according to some geologists, chalk deposits generally form at a rate of one to ten centimeters per year. Thus, at least 4050 to 40,500 years are needed to form the Dover chalk bed. Even at this rate, much more time than the 371 days of the Noachian Flood is needed. Using the most rapid formation calculations and assumptions, young earth creationists have lowered this time to 75 years — still more than 371 days.
    Whatever the time required for chalk beds to form, they could not form during the Noachian Flood. According to the young earth creationists, the flood current ranged between 89 and 179 miles per hour. Chalk forms in calm, shallow water. It cannot form under flood conditions. The particles are too small to settle at the speeds estimated for the Noachian Flood and would remain suspended and would eventually dissolve. Thus, if the young-earth-global-flood theory is correct, chalk beds should not exist.
    For example, the Niobrara Chalk of North America contains more than 100 bentonite beds. Thus, 100 periods of deposition during calm periods are needed to form these beds. Such calm periods could not have occurred under the catastrophic conditions of the Noachian Flood.
    Conglomerates.[7] Conglomerates argue against a global flood a few thousand years ago. Conglomerate is a sedimentary rock containing rounded pebbles of various sizes up to the size of boulders cemented with fine-grain rocks like sand.
    Large deposits of conglomerate are found on top of sandstone and other fine-grain sedimentary rock of thicknesses up to several miles. An example of such a conglomerate is the sea cliffs near Marseilles, which contain boulders more than a foot in diameter. Under flood conditions, conglomerates are deposited before sand and other fine-grain material.
    Moreover, a sharp boundary is often found between a conglomerate and the underlying sandstone. Thus, the sand must have hardened into sandstone before the conglomerate deposited on top of it. How could a flood deposit both layers in quick succession?
    Lacustrine Deposits.[8] Supporters of a global flood claim that lacustrine deposits occurred during the waning stage of the Flood. The gradual upheaval of the surrounding terrain formed vast sedimentary basins. Shallow turbidity currents carried soft sediment and organic slime into basins to form laminated sediments. This explanation may explain some lacustrine deposits, but not all. Some lacustrine deposits are covered by thick unconsolidated sediments, which would suggest that the Flood was still active in these areas long after it ceased to be active in others.
    An example of a lacustrine deposit is the Green River Formation at Flaming Gorge, Utah. A million thin layers of varves make up this formation. Deposits from several different contemporary lakes make up the Green River Formation. If the varves at Green River formed at the same rate as that of the Swiss lake example used by young earth creationists, 1.2 million years are needed to form the Green River Formation.
    Fossilized Eolian Deserts.[9] Fossilized eolian deserts argue against a recent global flood. Eolian deserts are sand dune deserts. They are composed predominately of quartz sand. The sand is well-rounded with a frosted surface. Clay and mica are usually absent. A good deal of time is required to erode bedrock to sand and to blow it into dunes. Moreover, desert deposits require dry land to form. Thus, the Flood could not have formed them.
    Examples of ancient fossilized deserts are the Old Red Sandstone that stretches from the British Isle to the White Sea in Russia and parts of the Grand Canyon (the Coconino Sandstone, see below). These sandy deserts could not have formed during a global flood. Also, some of these sites contain evaporites.
    A fossil desert in southern Utah, the Navajo Sandstone, which is between 1600 and 2000 feet thick, was formed from windblown sand. It is not mixed with the mud that lies beneath it. Thus, the Flood could not have formed it; a desert could not have formed in the middle of a global flood.
    Furthermore, the Navajo Sandstone and the strata above it contain fossils. According to young earth creationists, the Navajo Sandstone formed during the middle of the Noachian Flood. Unfortunately for them, dinosaur footprints have been found in the sandstone — at a time when all dinosaurs and all other land animals that were not on the ark should have been drowned.
    Also, above the Navajo Sandstone are the Entrada Sandstone, which contains desert dune sandstone, and the Dewey Bridge Member, which is a marine deposit about 200 feet deep. Next comes the thin Summerville Formation, a siltstone formed in a lake or lagoon environment. Then comes the Morrison Formation followed by the Dakota Sandstone, which resulted from a beach environment, and the Mancoa, which formed from a shallow marine environment. As all these deposits are above the Navajo Sandstone, they were deposited after the Navajo. Moreover, the Navajo Sandstone is above all the layers of the Grand Canyon.
    The Morrison Formation is known for its dinosaur fossils and footprints. This formation sits above 11,000 feet of sediment laid down by the Flood according to the young-earth-global-flood theory. That is, it is 11,000 feet above the first horizontal layer of the Grand Canyon, which according to the young earth creationists, was the first layer laid down by the Flood. At the time that this formation was formed, no dinosaurs should have been alive according to young earth creationists.
    Another desert-created sandstone is the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon. The Coconino is 315 feet thick and was created in a desert environment from wind-blown sand dunes. This sandstone contains fossils. According to the young earth theory, the Noachian Flood formed the Coconino Sandstone. Above the Coconino Sandstone are two fossil-bearing rock layers, the Toroweap Limestone and Kaibab Limestone.
    For these three strata to occur according to the young-earth-global-flood theory, the waters would have had to recede to form the sandstone. Then it would have had to return to form the layers of limestone. However, according to the Biblical account, the waters rose and then receded. The account does not suggest cycles of water rising and then receding. The desert formation of the Coconino Sandstone argues against its formation during a flood and against a young earth.
    In Mongolia, dinosaur fossils are found in eolian sandstone. Thus, those dinosaurs died in a sandstorm instead of drowning in a flood. The young-earth-global-flood theory would predict them to have died of drowning.

Endnotes
1. Thomas Coley Allen, Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man (Franklinton, N.C.: TC Allen Co., 1988), pp. 171-174.

2. Christopher Gregory Weber, “The Fatal Flaws of Rood Geology," Creation Evolution Journal, 1, no. 1 (1980) http://ncse.eom/cej/l/l/fatal-flaws-flood-geology, Dec. 18, 2015. Davis A. Young, Christianity & the Age of the Earth (Thousand Oaks, California: Artisan Sales, 1988), pp. 84-86.

3. Richard Burky, “Are Geologic Strata the Result of the Biblical Flood?” Grace Communion International, 1990, https://www.gci.org/science/burkyl, Dec. 18, 2016. Mark Isaak, “Problems with a Global Flood” (2nd ed., 1998), http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord, Dec. 18, 2015. Weber. Young, Christianity, pp. 86-87.

4. Alan Hayward, “Flood Geology and Related Fallacies,” https://www.gci.org/science/hayward8, Dec. 18, 2015. Isaak. John Pye Smith, The Relation Between the Holy Scriptures and Some Parts of Geological Science (London: Henry G. Bolin, 1854), p. 77. Young, Christianity, pp. 87.

5.  Isaak.

6. Isaac. Greg Neyman “Creation Science Rebuttals – Can Noah’s Flood Make Any Chalk Beds?,” Jan. 28, 2003, http://www.oldearth.org/nochalk.htm. Dec. 18, 2015. Phil Senter, “The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology: The Ironic Demonstration That There Is No Trace of the Genesis Flood in the Geologic Record,” Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 31.3 (May-June 2011), 1.1-1.14.

7. Hayward.

8.  Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 5,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy5.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Senter. Young, Christianity, p. 88-89.

9. Burky. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – The Desert Problem,” Feb. 2, 2003  http://www.oldearth.org/desertproblem.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Rebuttals Technical Journal (TJ) – The Navajo Sandstone,” Dec. 29, 2005,    http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/magazines/TJ/vl8/TJ18_navajo_san..., Dec. 18, 2015. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 3,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy3.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Greg Neyman, “Creation Science Exposed – Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model – Part 4,” Jan. 2003, Feb. 2006, http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy4.htm, Dec. 18, 2015. Senter. Weber. Young, Christianity, p. 91.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More religious articles