It Needs An Answer and I Have An Ansswer for It

Yes I know creationists have gone a long way to proving the Flood but I still like my own proof best because I think it's simpler and more direct. So here's that cross section again:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grand_Staircase-big.jpg

See all those nice parallel layers that make up the body of the image, aren't they just so neat and parallel and undisturbed looking? I mean there's a lot of disturbance on that diagram, both at the top and the bottom of it, and the whole area has been lifted as a block, up over a rise in the Grand Canyon area, and abruptly at the far left, at the north end of the Grand Staircase.

But it's quite clear that all those strata stacked from the bottom of the canyon to the topof the staircasze were laid down horizontally and then disturbed only as a block, not separately.

But wouldn't time periods of tens of millions of yeares have encountered something to disturbe their neat sedimentary deposition? Which isn't even to mention that it's absurd that they are characterized by a neat sedimentary deposition at all. And if you try to figure out how that sedimentary layer could have sxpanned the vast areas they do without killing everything in its path you'll turn your mind into a pretzel and get a severe headache.

But there is plenty of disturbance to the block of strata as a whole. The uplifted area of the Grand Canyon, the Great Unconformity at its base, the magma dike that pushed its way from the very bottom to the very top of the Grand Staircase on the far left, the carving of the cliffs that make up the Grand Staircase and of course the cutting of the Grand Canyon.

Lots and lots of disturbance to the stack as a whole after it was all laid down. Iisn't it a bit odd that if all those layers represent time periods the only time period in which any of the supposedly normal activities and violences that happen on this earth only happened after they were all laid down serenly one after another? Ove their supposedly hundreds of millions of years? Huh? Huh?

Well, the Flood is the best explanation. for the strata. And then after the Flood there had to have been all that violcene that must have occurrred in relation to it, probably during its draining phase. The tectonic plate movement that started the continents seaparating, a movement that would have been quite a jolt and pushed around a lot of land on all the continents, the sway we see it tilted and broken and cut into on this cross section. Volcanoes were released by the tectonic plate movement, all sorts of interesting formation s were carved by the draining water and probably also by the draining of the glacial dammed lakes that broke up some time later. The Southwesxt USA is a great tesimony to the Floo9d, all those shapes carved by the retreating waters of the Flood, all that land pushed around, uplifted etc. by the tectonic jolt etc etc etc. And yes I explain the angular unconformities all over the world and under the Grand Canyon as caused by the tectonic jolt which pushed a lower section of horizontal strata up against another stack of the same stack of strata after they were all laid down. but I have to end this post.

You Can't Verify of Falsify Historical Sciencces

So James Hutton pondered the angular unconformity at Siccar Point and concluded that the earth must be very ancient to account for it. He As he interpreted it, the lower section was laid down horizontally and then at some point titlted vertically, after which the upper section was deposited horizontally on top of it. I forget his reasoning but to his thinking that must have taken a very long time. And that concludion overturned the biblical time frame that had more or less prevailed until then. It took a while for his interpretation to be accepted but when it was it became as dogmatically fixed as any religious doctrine3. And then along came radiometric dating to clinch it.

The only way to argue against an interpretation is with other interpretations. There is no empirical scientific way to challenge it. It can't be falsified although that is supposed to be a tenet of science. And neithedr can radiometric dating. It has its logic for sure but since we can't go back in time to test it, just as we can't test Hutton's interpretation of the angular unconformity, it gets established as dogma and that is that.

that's how eveolution got established too. It's all a mental fabrication, a house of cards, but since you can't test it, verify it or falsify it, even if it's a great bamboozle, which it is, we can't prove it. We can only try to establish another explanation that fits the facts better.

Save the Planet? Think Flood for Your Explanatory Framework.

At the end of his talk David Montgomery says he thinks we should all be focused on the many problems of the earth itself, such as problems with water, air, soil, atmosphere, etc. I agree. He also thinks "religion" or "religions" need to deal with our conflicts with science. Well, it's got nothing to do with religions in the plural because the only true religion is Christianity and the only dealing I think we need to do is to be very clear about the fact that the Bible is not to be contradicted, that even if we can't reconcile it with what science thinks it knows, it is always science that is wrong and we should never give in to it.

However, I think we know enough now to say that the Flood is definitely the explanation for all kinds of things science has attributed to their ridiculous Old Earth and Evolution. I think my own two very simple arguments alonblow tall that to smithereens. And when I say they are MY arguments I'm aware that God has guided me to them so they are His arguments. ,
The problems Montgomery mentions need the Flood perspective to deal with them but the problem is the fallen mind. They like their Old Earth and Evolution too much and are determined to punish us all for their erroneous views, or at least the political part of the world has that in mind. But if we started thinking in terms of the Flood we'd have a much better chance of coming up with truly rational ways of approaching these problems.

. For instance, I rthink the ice age was the result of the Flood and that any global warming we are now seeing is just the result of the retreat of the icea age which was inevitable.

The Flood explanation of course means the God of the Bible must be recogniz3ed. For some time we were a Chridstian culture but now we're so far from it how likely is it we could revive it? Well, maybe if the fact, yes fact, that evolution is a big fat fraud got re cocognirzed we could have that revival.

A Couple More Objections to the Flood Given by Montgomery

The evaporation and rapid exit from the planet of so much heated water would also have brought on the ice age. the many huge lakes dammed up by glaciers that then broke later, such as the Missoula and others in the US and one Montgomery mentions in Tibet, would have been water left standing after the Flood. The channeled scablands of eastern Wasthington are the dramatic result of the Missoula flood. Geology according to Montgomery uses some of these events as explanation for all the Flood myuths around the world, but of course they are ridiculously inadequate. The Bibleical Flood was worldwide.

Another objection to the Flood he mentions is Da Vinci's idea that if the globe was completely covered with water it would t still water that wouldn't have done all the things ascribed to it. But doesn't that itnore the moon which causes tides and therefore would keep the water moving? Also, it would have been while the water was rising over the land, especially condsidering the enormous tides that would have been part of that, that would account for changes in the landscape, also the action of the drainaing Flood water whichI think carved out the Grand Canyon and the Grand Staircase. Again google Grand Staircase Escalante Cross Section.

The third objectgion Montgomery mentions is the extinction of some 99 percent of the animals in the fossil record. I don't know enough about what animals are involved, but first of all sea life wouldn't have been on the ark and at least the trilobites are mong the exinct and they are sea life. The other condsideration is that what are called "species" are not at all a clear category andmost of that 99 percent are probably variations built into the genome of Kinde. The extinction of a variation is not the same thing as the extinction of a species. It's like losing great danes but having all the other breeds alive. I'm guessing that most of thoxse extinctions are of variations so that the genome of their Kind contined to live and vary after the Flood.

The Objection of Not Enought Water for the Flood

Montgomery mentions visiting the Creation Museum in Kentucky and being surprised at an attack on Reason as the enemy of the Bible, even the argument that scientists had conspired to discredit the Biblical accounts. I'd respond that reason is fallen in this fallen world and there is no reason to think our own minds can be trusted to arrive at the truth about anything, especially something historical where we don't have independent evidence to support the theories. So I'm with those who distrust Reason, but I don't accept the sonspiracy idea. The problem is that iwherever reason can't affirm the Bible it is wrong to conclude arguments against the Bible. We should always distrust our own minds and suppose that we simply havven't solved the problem yet, because yes, Nature does definitely have to conform to the Bible in the end. The problem is that we put our falln minds above the Bible rather than the other way around. Scei Science keeps changing its mind, thew Bible doesn't and if we know the Bible is God's word it has to stand no matter what our fallen minds think we've disccovered No conspiracy, just misplaced trust which is to be expected in this fallen world. ,br>


He gives three reasons to doubt the Biblical Flood. The first is that there was not enough wawter to cover the high mountains such as the Himalyas. part of the answer to that is that the Himalayas and other high mountains weren't there before the Flood. How high the pre=Flood mountains wree I guess we can't know but certainly they would have been a lot lower than the current highest.

That's about tectonic plate movement, which he points out wasn't yet established when Morris and Whitcomb wrote The Genesis Flood. It does help put things together to have that fact available. It explains why there are now so much hnigher mountains than before the Flood, and I made use of it to account for angular unconformities, which changies the timing of Siccar Point and the Great Unconformity at the based of the Grand Canyon. Both occurred after all the strata were in place.

And that matters because it dramatically demonstrates that the strata could not possibly be time periods but sediments laid down in a much more rapid fashion. Just looking at the strata really ought to be enough to make that point, however. The idea that time sorted itself into straight flat rocks of separated sediments is absurd on the face of it, but apparently science got all carried away with the idea of the Old Earth and its allotmnet of enough time for evolution to have occurred. Especially once they got all carried away with the idea that there is an evolutionary order in the fossil record.

The cross section of the Grand Staircase to Grand Canyuon area is still my favorite way of demonstrating this fact of the lack of any disturbance ot the strata during their entire laying down. There they aare, all laid one on top of another straight and flat. Those are not time periods. Google Greand Staircase Escalant cross section.
Back to the Montgomery's objection that there isn't enough water on the Earth for such a Flood to have occurred. I don't know if I saw this anywhere else but I don't think so, I thin God showed it to me, that if there was so much rain at the beginning of the Flood, forty days and forty nights of it over the entire globe, that means there had to have been an extremely thick atmosphere of moisture overhead that broke up and fell as rain. Whatever the foundtains of the deep were that also broke up and added water to the Flood they don't seem to be there any more because at the bottom of the oceans we have thed Atlantic Ridge which demonstrates that molten magma is right underneath it.

Anyway, with the collapse of the moisture layer over the Earth the planet would have been exposed to the coldness of outer space,, and if any great heat was generated by the Flood and tectonic movement, it would have rapidly evacuated into that space, and that would include a huge amount of evaporating water. Whihere that is enough to account for the water that covered the eearth I don't know but I'm guessing it may very well bee.

The Geology of the Flood Discussed by a Respectful Nonreligious Scientist

In God's Providence a lecture in Geology came across my path at You tube and stirred me up again about the evidence for the Flood of Noah which recently got me to sit down and write 15000 words over one week off the top of my head. It needs three times that number of words to get the whole thing worked out but I have to believe that the Lord inspired me to do that much, just out of the blue.

This talk was given by a Geomorphologist named David Montgomery, who wrot4e a book about the history of Geology's dance with the Biblical Flood, which he doesn't just dismiss out of hand as so many sceintiests to. He eve3n appreciates Morris and Whitcomb's 1961 book on the Flood as serious science. I like his tone and his whole approach to the subject. I wish I could read one of his books, "the Rocks Don't Lie." ,br>


I've got thoughts galore about his comments but as usual my computer isn't up to a long dissertaion so maybe I'll try writing some of them in bits and pieces. over a number of pots.