
By: Sue Armstrong
To: Jerry Gilbreath
Re: Genesis problems

What follows is Wolfie's Challenge.

This is a  collection  of  files  I  keep  around  as a challenge to
Flood-believing fundies like yourself.   Please read  these,   under
the  heading  "Genesis  problems"  and "Noah's Impossible Ark" very,
very carefully and attempt to answer all points to the best of your
ability.   So far,  no fundy  has  been  able to do this,  resorting
instead to "God can do anything",  making themselves  appear  to  be
like children,  mutliplying miracle upon miracle in order to explain
just  how  their  invisible  playmate is responsible for setting the
cat on fire.

Is your faith strong enough  to  answer  the challenge?   Is it even
strong enough to allow you to read the following posts?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
---

I have forwarded your latest comments back to Mark Isaak.   Also, he
sent me an updated verson of that article,  which I'll post  in  the
next few messages here.   A great deal will be the same as the older
one, but it has some new stuff in it:

                  Problems With a Global Flood
                    (last modified 7/27/94)
                Mark Isaak      isaak@aurora.com

(Email comments and contributions to this collection are welcome.  
I would
especially like to add more references.)

Creationist  models are often criticized for being too vague to have
any predictive value.   A literal  interpretation of the Flood story
in Genesis,  however, does imply certain physical consequences which
can be tested against what we actually observe.   Most,  if not all,
observations,  discredit the flood hypothesis,  as you can see  from
what  follows.    (Most  the the arguments below are based only on a
literal reading of Genesis, but some specifically refer to the flood
model of Whitcomb  &  Morris  [1961].)  Can any Creationists address
even half of the points in this list? 

Before the flood:

  How did animals travel from all over the world?
        * Some, like the sloths, can't travel overland very well at 
all.
        * Some, like koalas, require a special diet.  How did they 
bring it
          along?
        * Some, like the dodo, must have lived on islands.  (If 
they didn't,
          they would have been easy prey for other animals.)
        If animals all lived fairly close to Noah before the flood 
(as
        Whitcomb & Morris suggest), how were they all able to 
survive the
        predation and competition pressures from all the others, 
and why
        doesn't evidence of their living together show up in fossil
        distributions?

  How was the ark loaded?  The Bible says all the animals were all 
loaded in
        seven days [Gen. 7:4].  Even if there were only 9 million 
species to
        be loaded, there would have to be an average of 30 animals 
per
        second going through the ark's one door.

  How was the ark made seaworthy?  The longest wooden ships in 
modern seas
        are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron 
straps
        and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped.  The ark 
was 450
        feet long [Gen. 6:15].

Life on the ark:

  How did all the different species fit on the ark?  10 million 
species is a
        reasonable estimate of species presently alive (though 
estimates
        vary widely; see May, 1992).  They all would have had to 
fit in
        about 100,000 square feet of deck space [Gen. 6:15-16].  
Since most
        animals are small, they probably could have all fit, but 
only if you
        allow very little room around them.  Caged animals probably 
wouldn't
        all fit, nor would the animals have any room to exercise.  
The
        dinosaurs, mastodons, and other now-extinct animals would 
have been
        aboard the ark as well [Gen. 7:15; Morris, 1993], and they 
would
        take up a _lot_ of room.  Bracings, corridors, bilges, etc. 
would
        have taken up a lot of room, too.  If you hypothesize 
significantly
        fewer species on the ark than now exist, you must explain 
evolution
        rates faster than any evolutionists propose to account for 
all the
        present species.

  How did Noah supply food and water for all the animals for a 
year? [Gen.
        6:21] Food for a year would have taken up many times the 
space of
        the animals themselves.  (I know of no animals, except some 
desert
        amphibians, that hibernate for anywhere close to a year.)
        
  How was the food kept fresh for a year?  (Aphids, e.g., can't eat 
wilted
        plants.)
        
  What did the carnivorous animals eat, especially those which 
require fresh
        meat?
  How did creatures needing  special  environments  survive  on  the
        ark? 

  How do you explain how all host-specific parasites/diseases made 
do with
        only one pair of hosts (and if they did OK, how the hosts 
survived!)

  How was the ark kept livable?  Shoveling the manure of the 
ungulates alone
        must have been a full time job for eight people.

  How well ventilated was the ark?  The body heat from millions of 
closely
        packed animals must have been very intense.

The flood:

  Where did the water come from?  (It would take 4.4 billion cubic
        kilometers to cover Mt. Everest.)

  Where did it go?

  If you accept the vapor canopy model of some Creationists, you 
must answer
        some equally difficult questions, such as: What kept the 
water up
        before the Flood?  What happened to the heat of 
condensation of all
        that water?  Why didn't ultraviolet light from the sun 
break all the
        water into hydrogen and oxygen atoms and blow them away?

Geological effects of the flood:

  How were mountains formed?  Many very tall mountains are composed 
of
        sedimentary rocks.  (The summit of Everest is composed of
        deep-marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling
        crinoids [Gansser, 1964].)  If these were laid down during 
the
        flood, how did they reach their present height, and when 
were the
        valleys between them eroded away?  Keep in mind that many 
valleys
        were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a slow 
process.

  How does a global flood explain angular unconformities, where one 
set of
        layers of sediments have been extensively modified (e.g., 
tilted)
        and eroded before a second set of layers were deposited on 
top?
        They thus seem to require at least two periods of 
deposition (more,
        where there is more than one unconformity) with long 
periods of time
        in between to account for the deformation, erosion, and 
weathering
        observed.

  When did granite batholiths form?  Some of these are intruded 
into older
        sediments and have younger sediments on their eroded top 
surfaces.
        It takes a long time for magma to cool into granite, nor does
        granite erode very quickly.  [For example, see Donohoe & 
Grantham,
        1989, for locations of contact between the South Mountain 
Batholith
        and the Meugma Group of sediments, as well as some angular
        unconformities.]

  How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for 
evolution?
        Ecological zonation and hydrodynamic sorting fail to explain:
          (1) the extremely good sorting observed.  Why didn't at 
least one
        dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
          (2) the relative positions of plants and other non-motile 
life.
        (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late
        Precambrian sediments.  Why don't any modern-looking plants 
appear
        that low in the geological column?)
          (3) why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are 
found in
        many geologic strata.
          (4) why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very 
similar
        hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and 
weight) are
        still perfectly sorted.
          (5) why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as 
present
        animals didn't survive as well.  Why did no pterodons make 
it to
        high ground?
          (6) how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long 
were
        preserved intact with other fossils below them.
          (7) why small organisms dominate the lower strata, 
whereas fluid
        mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in 
upper
        strata.

  How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed
        layering?  One formation is six kilometers thick.  If we 
grant 400
        days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction 
since the
        flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling *per 
day*.  And
        yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are 
neatly
        layered, with great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate 
occurring
        within a few centimeters in the vertical direction.  How 
does such a
        neat sorting process occur in the violent context of a 
universal
        flood dropping 15 meters of sediment per day?  How can you 
explain a
        thin layer of high carbonate sediment being deposited over 
an area
        of ten thousand square kilometers for some thirty minutes, 
followed
        by thirty minutes of low carbonate deposition, followed by 
thirty
        minutes more of .... well, I think you get the picture. 
[From: Bill
        Hyde; see also Kent & Olsen, 1992]

  How do you explain the formation of varves?  The Green River 
formation in
        Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves, 
identical to
        those being laid down today in certain lakes.  The 
sediments are so
        fine that each layer would have required over a month to 
settle.
        [From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)]

  How do you explain worldwide agreement between "apparent" 
geological eras
        and several different (independent) radiometric and 
nonradiometric
        dating methods?  [Short et. al., 1991]

  Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series?  A 
worldwide flood
        would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable 
changes
        in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from 
buoyancy and
        thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and 
probably
        other evidence.  All such evidence is lacking in annual 
layers
        dating back 40,000 years.

  How were limestone deposits formed?  Limestone is made of the 
skeletons of

        zillions of microscopic sea animals.  Some deposits are 
thousands of
        meters thick.  Were all those animals alive when the flood 
started?
        If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of 
fossils in
        the deposits?

  How could a flood have deposited chalk?  Chalk is largely made up 
of the
        bodies of planktonic animals 700 to 1000 angstroms in 
diameter
        [Bignot, 1985].  Objects this small settle at a rate of 
.0000154
        mm/sec. [Twenhofel, 1961]  In a year of the flood, they 
could have
        settled about half a meter.  [From xdegrm@oryx.com (glenn r 
morton)]

  Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have
        originated only on the surface, such as:
        * rain drops;
        * river channels;
        * wind-blown dunes [Kocurek & Dott, 1981; Clemmenson & 
Abrahamsen,
          1983; Hubert & Mertz, 1984];
        * beaches;
        * glacial deposits [Eyles & Miall, 1984];
        * burrows;
        * in-place trees [Cristie & McMillan, 1991];
        * soil [Reinhardt & Sigleo, 1989];
        * dessication cracks;
        * footprints.  [Gore, 1993, has a photograph (p. 16-17) 
showing
          dinosaur footprints in one layer with water ripples in 
layers
          above and below it.  Gilette & Lockley, 1989, have 
several more
          examples, including dinosaur footprints on top of a coal 
seam (p.
          361-366).]
        How could these have appeared in the midst of a 
catastrophic flood?

  How could a one-year flood deposit explain stratigraphic sections 
showing
        a dozen or more mature forests layered atop each other, all 
with
        upright trunks, in-place roots, and well-developed soil?  
Such
        layers of forests appear in many locations. [See Dawson, 
1868;
        Cristie & McMillan, 1991; Yuretich, 1994, for examples.]
        Creationists point to logs sinking in a lake below Mt. St. 
Helens as
        an example of how a flood can deposit vertical trunks, but
        deposition by flood fails to explain the roots, the soil, 
and the
        layering.

  How do you explain the relative ages of mountains?  Why weren't 
the Sierra
        Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalacians during the flood?

  How do you explain fossil mineralization - the replacement of the 
original
        material with a different mineral?
        * Buried skeletal remains of modern fauna are negligibly
          mineralized, including some that biblical archaeology 
says are
          quite old - a substantial fraction of the age of the 
earth in this
          diluvian geology.  For example, remains of Egyptian 
commoners
          buried near the time of Moses aren't extensively 
mineralized.
        * Buried skeletal remains of extinct mammalian fauna show 
quite
          variable mineralization.
        * Dinosaur remains are often extensively mineralized.
        * Trilobite remains are usually mineralized - and in 
different
          sites, fossils of the same species are composed of 
different
          materials.
        How are these observations explained by a sorted deposition 
of
        remains in a single episode of global flooding?
        [From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)]

  How could the flood deposit layers of solid salt, sometimes 
meters in
        width, interbedded with sediments containing marine 
fossils?  This
        apparently occurs when a body of salt water has its 
fresh-water
        intake cut off, and then evaporates.  These layers can 
occur more or
        less at random times in the geological history, and have
        characteristic fossils on either side.  Therefore, if the 
fossils
        were themselves laid down during a catastrophic flood, 
there are, it
        seems, only two choices:
        (1) the salt layers were themselves laid down at the same 
time,
        during the heavy rains that began the flooding, or
        (2) the salt is a later intrusion.
        I suspect that both will prove insuperable difficulties for 
a theory
        of flood deposition of the geologic column and its fossils. 
 [From:
        marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe).  See also 
Jackson et al.,
        1990]

  How were sedimentary deposits recrystalized and plastically 
deformed in
        the short time since the flood?  The stretched pepple 
conglomerate
        in Death Valley National Monument (Wildrose Canyon Rd., 15 
mi. south
        of Hwy. 190), for example, contains streambed pebbles 
metamorphosed
        to quartzite and stretched to 3 or more times their 
original length.
        Plastically deformed stone is also common around salt diapirs
        [Jackson et. al., 1990].

  How were hematite layers laid down?  Standard theory is that they 
were
        laid down before Earth's atmosphere contained much oxygen.  
In an
        oxygen-rich regime, they would almost certainly be 
impossible.

  How are the polar ice caps possible?  Such a mass of water as the 
flood
        would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar 
caps off
        their beds.  No way to drop them _exactly_ back onto their 
original
        location, _or_ to regrow them.  (In fact, the Greenland ice 
cap
        would _not_ regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic 
conditions.)
        [From: Bob Grumbine rmg3@psuvm.psu.edu]

  A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by 
(1) an
        uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) 
different grain
        size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen 
isotope
        ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from 
seawater),
        (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters.  Why do 
none of
        these show up?

  When did impact craters on the earth occur?  Geological evidence 
indicates
        that they would have formed in sediments early enough for 
erosion
        and crustal movements to partially erase them.  Creationists
        Whitcomb and DeYoung suggest they occurred during the year 
of Noah's
        flood.  But the heat from all those impacts concentrated in 
one year
        would have vaporized the flood waters. [Fezer, pp 45-46]

  And before you argue that fossil evidence was dated and 
interpreted to
        meet evolutionary assumptions, remember that the geological 
column
        and the relative dates therein were laid out by 
_creationists_
        before Darwin even formulated his theory.  (See, for 
example, the
        closing pages of Dawson [1868], who was cited above.)

Biological effects of the flood:

  How did _all_ the fish survive?  Some require cool clear water, 
some need
        brackish water, some need ocean water, some need water even 
saltier.
        A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.

  How did short-lived species survive?  Adult mayflies on the ark 
would have
        died in a few days, and the larvae of many mayflies require 
shallow
        fresh running water.  Many other insects would face similar
        problems.

  How did all the modern plant species survive?  Many plants (seeds 
and all)
        would be killed by being submerged for a few months.  Most 
plants
        require established soils to grow--soils which would have 
been
        stripped by the Flood.  Some plants germinate only after 
being
        exposed to fire or after being ingested by animals; these 
conditions
        would be rare (to put it mildly) after the Flood.

  How do you explain the survival of any sensitive marine life (e.g.,
        coral)?  Since most coral are found in shallow water, the 
turbidity
        created by the runoff from the land would effectively cut 
them off
        from the sun.  The silt would cover the reef after the 
rains were
        over, and the coral would ALL DIE.  By the way, the rates 
at which
        coral deposits calcium are well known, and some highly 
mature reefs
        (such a the great barrier) have been around for MILLIONS of 
years to
        be deposited to their observed thickness.  [From: 
bmb@bluemoon.rn.com]

  Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating?

  How does the flood explain the geological sorting of pollen?  
Fossil
        pollen is one of the more important indicators of different 
levels
        of strata.  Each plant has different and distinct pollen, 
and, by
        telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy 
to see
        what the climate was like in different strata.  Was the 
pollen
        hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic
        evidence is different for each layer?  Furthermore, pollen 
and
        spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, 
branches,
        and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].  How 
could a
        flood sort all of them together perfectly?

  How does a flood explain the accuracy of "coral clocks"?  The 
moon is
        slowly sapping the earth's rotational energy.  The earth 
should have
        rotated more quickly in the distant past, meaning that a 
day would
        have been less than 24 hours, and there would have been 
more days
        per year.  Corals can be dated by the number of "daily" 
growth
        layers per "annual" growth layer.  Devonian corals, for 
example,
        show nearly 400 days per year.  There is an exceedingly 
strong
        correlation between the "supposed age" of a wide range of 
fossils
        (corals, stromatolites, and a few others -- collected from 
geologic
        formations throughout the column and from locations all 
over the
        world) and the number of days per year that their growth 
pattern
        shows.  The agreement between these clocks, and radiometric 
dating,
        and the theory of superposition... is a little hard to 
explain away
        as the result of a number of unlucky coincidences in a 
300-day-long
        flood.  [From: stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)]

  If a single flood is responsible for all fossils, where were all 
those
        animals when they were alive?  From "Six 'Flood' Arguments
        Creationists Can't Answer" by Robert Schadewald,
        _Creation/Evolution_ IV (Summer 1982), pp. 12-13:
          "Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in 
the earth's
        rocks as the remains of animals that perished in the Noachian
        Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of 
fossils in
        "fossil graveyards" as evidence for the Flood. In particular,
        creationists seem enamored by the Karroo Formation in 
Africa, which
        is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate
        animals (see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As
        pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major 
hypothesis
        that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood.
          "Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of 
Minnesota,
        has studied the Karroo Formation. He asserts that the animals
        fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to 
the size
        of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a 
fox. A
        minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 
billion
        animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there 
would be
        twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth.  
Suppose we
        assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation 
contains
        1 percent of the vertebrate fossils on earth [land fossils
        only--whj]. Then when the Flood began, there must have been 
at least
        2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to 
immense
        dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind, that seems a bit 
crowded."

          A thousand kilometers' length of arctic coastal plain, 
according
        to experts in Leningrad [N. Newell, _Creation and 
Evolution_; 1982,
        Columbia U. Press, p. 62], contains about 500,000 *tons* of 
tusks.
        Even assuming that the entire population was preserved, you 
seem to
        be saying that Russia had wall-to-wall mammoths before this 
"event."

  How do you explain the relative commonness of aquatic fossils?  A 
flood
        would have washed over everything equally, so terrestrial 
organisms
        should be roughly as abundant as aquatic ones (or more 
abundant,
        since Creationists hypothesize greater land area before the 
Flood)
        in the fossil record.  Yet shallow marine environments 
account for
        by far the most fossils.

  Even if there were room physically for all the large animals 
which now
        exist only as fossils, how could they have all coexisted in 
a stable
        ecology before the flood?  Montana alone would have had to 
support a
        diversity of herbivores orders of magnitude larger than 
anything now
        observed.

Historical effects of the flood:

  Why is there no mention of the flood in the records of Egyptian 
or Chinese
        civilizations which existed at the time?
        Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation 
lengths
        given in Genesis) place the flood 1300 years before Solomon 
began
        the first temple.  We can construct reliable chronologies 
for near
        Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of 
records
        from the literate cultures in the near East.  These records 
are
        independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as
        dendrochronology and carbon-14.  The building of the first 
temple
        can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the 
Flood
        around 2250 B.C.  Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among 
others) have
        written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great
        Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 
years
        before the Biblical date for the Flood).  No sign in Egyptian
        inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.

  How did the human population rebound so fast?  Geneologies in 
Genesis put
        the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood 
[Gen
        10:25, 11:10-19].  How did the world population regrow so 
fast to
        make its construction (and the city around it) possible?  
Similarly,
        there would have been very few people around to build 
Stonehenge and
        the Pyramids, found the Sumarian and Indus Valley 
civilizations,
        populate the Americas, etc.

Aftermath of the flood:

  How did koalas get from Ararat to Australia, polar bears to the 
Arctic,
        etc., when the kinds of environment they require to live 
doesn't
        exist between the two points.

  How were ecological interdependencies preserved as animals 
migrated from
        Ararat?  Did the yucca an the yucca moth migrate together 
across the
        Atlantic?  Were there, a few thousand years ago, unbroken 
giant
        sequoia forests between Ararat and California to allow 
indigenous
        bark and cone beetles to migrate?

  Why are so many marsupials limited to Australia; why are there no
        wallabies in Indonesia?  The same argument applies to any 
number of
        groups of plants and animals.

  How could more than a handful of species survive in a devastated 
habitat?

  How could more than a handful of the predator species on the ark 
have
        survived, with only two individuals of their prey to eat?  
All of
        the predators at the top of the food pyramid require larger 
numbers
        of food animals beneath them on the pyramid, which in turn 
require
        large numbers of the animals they prey on, and so on, down 
to the
        primary producers (plants...etc.) at the bottom.  And if the
        predators survived, how did the other animals survive being 
preyed
        on?

  How could more than a handful of species survive random 
influences that
        affect populations?  Isolated populations with fewer than 
20 members
        are usually doomed even when extraordinary measures are 
taken to
        protect them. [Simberloff, 1988]

  How could more than a handful of species survive the inbreeding 
depression
        that comes with establishing a population from a single 
mating pair?

  How do you explain the genetic variation in all populations today?

  The Bible states that seven pairs of all "clean" animals, but 
only one
        pair each of other animals, were taken aboard the ark.  
Thus, after
        the flood, clean animals should have started with seven 
times the
        genetic variation.  (Clean animals could have had up to 28 
alleles
        of any gene, while non-clean animals would have been 
limited to 4
        alleles.)  Why do we not observe a correlation between 
genetic
        variation and Hebrew dietary restrictions?

Is the flood model consistent with the Bible?

  The model seems to say that large numbers of kinds of land 
animals became
        extinct because of the flood [e.g., Whitcomb and Morris, 
1961, p.
        69n], while Genesis repeatedly says that Noah was ordered 
to take a
        representative sample of all kinds of land animals on the 
Ark to
        save them from extinction, and that Noah did as ordered.  
Which is
        right?

  Genesis 6:20 and 7:14-15 say there were two of each kind of fowl 
and clean
        beasts, yet Genesis 7:2-3,5 says they came in sevens.  How 
can a
        literal interpretation be appropriate if the text is
        self-contradictory?

  If your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the flood
        literally, then shouldn't you also believe in a flat and 
stationary
        earth?  [Dan. 4:10-11, Matt. 4:8, 1 Chron. 16:30, Psalms 
93:1, ...]

  In fact, is there any reason at all why the flood story should be 
taken
        literally?  Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?

  How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind [Gen. 
7:15-16]
        when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and 
have
        only females, and others (such as earthworms) are 
hermaphrodites?
        And what about social animals like ants and termites which 
need the
        whole nest to survive?

  What was used to waterproof the ark?  We are told that God 
instructed Noah
        to coat the ark with pitch inside and out with the naturally-
        occurring hydrocarbon pitch, which causes a bit of a 
problem since,
        according to Whitcomb and Morris, all oil, tar and coal 
deposits
        were formed when organic matter was buried DURING the flood.

  Does the flood story make the whole Bible less credible?
        Davis Young is a working geologist who also is an Evangelical
        Christian. He has personal doubts about some aspects of 
evolution,
        but he makes a devastating case against "Flood Geology." He 
writes
        (_Christianity and the Age of the Earth_, p. 163):
          "The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology 
not only
        is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is
        harmful.  Although many who have no scientific training 
have been
        swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist 
will
        reason that a Christianity that believes in such nonsense 
must be a
        religion not worthy of his interest...Modern creationism in 
this
        sense is apologetically and evangelistically ineffective. 
It could
        even be a hindrance to the gospel.
          "Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel 
to the
        lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to 
be
        false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that 
the defense
        of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is 
simply not
        truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that 
God has
        given.  Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before 
harm is
        done...."
        [From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)  See 
also
        Young, 1988]

  If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed 
directly?  Why
        resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable 
additional
        miracles?

  The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world.  Did 
it work?

  Finally, even if the flood model weren't riddled by all these 
problems,
        why should we accept it?  What it does attempt to explain 
is already
        explained more accurately, consistently, and thoroughly by
        conventional geology and biology, and the flood model 
leaves many
        other things unexplained, even unexplainable.  How is flood 
geology
        useful?

References:
(My thanks to R. Andrew MacRae for supplying most of these 
references.)

Bignot, G., 1985.  _Micropaleontology_ Boston: IHRDC, p. 75
Clemmenson, L.B. and Abrahamsen, K., 1983.  Aeolian stratification 
in desert
        sediments, Arran basin (Permian), Scotland.  Sedimentology, 
v.30,
        p.311-339.
Cristie, R.L., and McMillan, N.J. (eds.), 1991.  Tertiary fossil 
forests of
        the Geodetic Hills, Axel Heiberg Island, Arctic Archipelago,
        Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 403., 227pp.
Dawson, J.W., 1868.  Acadian Geology.  The Geological Structure, 
Organic
        Remains, and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New 
Brunswick, and
        Prince Edward Island, 2nd edition.  MacMillan and Co.: 
London,
        694pp.
Donohoe, H.V. Jr. and Grantham, R.G. (eds.), 1989.  Geological 
Highway Map
        of Nova Scotia, 2nd edition.  Atlantic Geoscience Society, 
Halifax,
        Nova Scotia.  AGS Special Publication no. 1, 1:640 000.
Eyles, N. and Miall, A.D., 1984, Glacial Facies IN: Walker, R.G., 
Facies
        Models, Second Edition.  Geoscience Canada, Reprint Series 1,
        p.15-38.
Fezer, Karl D., 1993.  "Creationism: Please Don't Call It Science"
        Creation/Evolution, 13:1 (Summer 1993), 45-49.
Gansser, A., 1964.  Geology of the Himalayas, John Wiley and Sons, 
Ltd., New
        York, 289pp.
Genesis 6:9-8:22.
Gilette, D.D. and Lockley, M.G. (eds.), 1989. _Dinosaur Tracks and 
Traces_,
        Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 454pp.
Gore, Rick, 1993.  "Dinosaurs" National Geographic, 183:1 (Jan. 
1993), 2-54.
Hubert, J.F., and Mertz, K.A., Jr., 1984.  Eolian sandstones in Upper
        Triassic-Lower Jurassic red beds of the Fundy Basin, Nova 
Scotia.
        Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v.54, p.798-810.
Jackson, M.P.A., et al., 1990.  Salt diapirs of the Great Kavir, 
Central
        Iran.  Geological Society of America, Memoir 177, 139pp.
Kent and Olsen, 1992.  (Columbia University Lamont-Doherty Geological
        Observatory) Discover, Jan. 1992
Kocurek, G., and Dott, R.H., 1981.  Distinctions and uses of 
stratification
        types in the interpretation of eolian sand.  Journal of 
Sedimentary

        Petrology, v.51, no.2, p.579-595.
May, Robert M., 1992.  "How Many Species Inhabit the Earth?" 
Scientific
        American, 267:4 (Oct. 1992), 42-49.
Moore, Robert A., 1983.  "The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark"
        Creation/Evolution, #11 (Winter 1983), 1-43.  The entire 
issue is
        about the ark.  Moore lists over one hundred references.
Morris, John D., 1993.  "Did dinosaurs survive the flood?" Back to 
Genesis,
        #53 (May 1993), d.
Reinhardt, J., and Sigleo, W.R. (eds.), 1989.  Paleosols and 
weathering
        through geologic time: principles and applications.  
Geological
        Society of America Special Paper 216, 181pp.
Short, D. A., J. G. Mengel, T. J. Crowley, W. T. Hyde and G. R. 
North, 1991.
        Filtering of Milankovitch Cycles by Earth's Geography.  
Quaternary
        Research. 35, 157-173.  (Re an independent method of dating 
the
        Green River formation)
Simberloff, David, 1988.  "The Contribution of Population and 
Community
        Biology to Conservation Science" Annual Review of Ecology and
        Systematics, #19, 473-511.
Stewart, W.N., 1983.  _Paleontology and the Evolution of Plants_. 
Cambridge
        Univ. Press, Cambridge, 405pp.
Tarnocai, C. and Smith, C.A.S., 1991.  Paleosols of the Fossil 
Forest area,
        Axel Heiberg Island.  IN: Cristie & McMillan [see above], 
p.171-187.
Twenhofel, William H., 1961.  _Treatise on Sedimentation_, Dover, 
p. 50-52.
Whitcomb, John C. and Morris, Henry M., 1961.  _The Genesis Flood_,
        Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia.
Young, Davis, 1988.  _Christianity and the Age of the Earth_.  
Artisan
        Sales, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yun, Zhang, 1989.  "Multicellular thallophytes with differentiated 
tissues
        from Late Proterozoic phosphate rocks of South China" 
Lethaia, #22,
        113-132.
Yuretich, Richard F., 1984. "Yellowstone fossil forests: New 
evidence for
        burial in place," _Geology_ 12, 159-162.

Re frozen mammoths as evidence of a catastrophe:
Farrand, Wm. R.;_Science_, 133:729-735, March 17, 1961


--Wolfie


"In the higher animals the ability and inclination to do damage 
is, unfortunately, in direct proportion to the degree of their 
intelligence."   -- Konrad Lorenz, "King Solomon's Ring"


... Oh no!  The creationists are mutating!
--- GEcho 1.00
 * Origin: [Windsor Download BBS] USR/V.Everything (519)-973-9330 
(1:246/15)

