|
Feedback archive →
Feedback 2011
Flood models and flat-earthers
Published: 4 December 2011(GMT+10)
This week, Dr
Tas Walker answers a question about different opinions in the creationist
community of the location of the boundaries of the Flood in the rocks, and
Dr Jonathan Sarfati points out to a skeptic that the world’s most
prominent flat-earther today is actually an evolutionist!
N.O. from Sweden writes
Hello CMI.
I recently read an extensive 1996 article from your Journal of Creation, which discussed
the fossil record and the flood.[1]
To me, Robinson seems to talk against many of your major claims of flood geology.
As an example, he seems to say that the suggestion that the Cretaceous/Tertiary
boundary represents where the end of the flood, is false (p. 64), and that we have
been trying to ‘reorder’ the data so it fit the creation model. Yet,
it seems like CMI is still using the argument that the cretaceous/tertiary boundary
represents the end of the flood.[2] Robinson also claims that some of
the leading creationists have been using argument straight from ‘Darwinian
apologetics’ when they say that the lack of human fossils are the result of
an incomplete fossil record, despite the fact that creationists often says that
the fossil record are fairly complete.
Robinson seems to say that none of the land animal fossils are from the flood. He
also seems to be sceptical many of the claims about rapid distribution of animals
after the flood. What do you say about that?
I haven’t found any papers arguing against Robinson on your homepage, and
wonder if we have to change the view of where the flood/post-flood boundary is?
If we are not careful, sceptics might use this debate to say that creationism is
a weak and vague worldview.
Thank you.
N.N.
- Robinson S, 1996, “Can
Flood Geology Explain the Fossil Record?”, CEN Tech. J, vol. 10
nr 1: p. 32–69.
- The Creation Answers Book (edition 3), p. 198.
CMI’s Dr Tas Walker responds:
Hi N.,
Thank you for your comment on the Flood/post-Flood boundary. This has been a contentious
issue among creationists and it continues to be so. The discussion in
CEN TJ 10(1) (Now
Journal of Creation), all those years ago, was an effort to
sort out the differences with papers on different views. Robinson’s view is
quite extreme in that he put the post-Flood boundary very low in the geologic column.
In fact, since that paper he has put his boundary even lower toward the bottom of
the Precambrian and that creates huge problems.
There were quite a number of people in the 1990s who put the boundary in the Paleozoic,
such as Garner, Tyler and Garton, Scheven, etc. Their view became known as the European
model or the Recolonization model. In that view they claim the Mesozoic and Cenozoic
provides a record of the recolonization of the earth since the Flood. We think that
this model presents huge problems for the plausibility of Flood geology because
it requires too much post-Flood catastrophe to explain the enormous volumes of sediment
deposited in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. We think that this model will lead to the
‘disappearing Flood’ because this model assigns the geologic evidence
for the Flood to Post-Flood period.
There are a number of articles on our site that argue for the Post-Flood boundary
being late in the Cenozoic, which is what CMI scientists hold. Creationist geologists
who make a good case for this are Holt, Oard, Froede and Woodmorappe. Do a search
for these authors as well as “post flood boundary” on creation.com and
you will find much discussion on it. Search also for “geologic column”
and you will find articles (by Oard in particular, one called
Is the geological column a global sequence?) that explain the late-Cenozoic
boundary.
It is worth noting that Paul Garner has since changed his mind on the location of
the boundary and holds to the boundary being much higher than he advocated in TJ
10(1). You can find using Google an article he wrote called “Time
for an Upgrade?”
This is a very important issue and the range of creationist ideas promoted in the
past has meant it can be confusing. You suggested that skeptics could use this against
the creationist worldview. But I don’t agree with those who say debate is
a bad thing and claim the creationist worldview is weak.
On the contrary, debate is a sign of progressive and energetic inquiry and research.
It is a good thing for scientists to debate different models because this exposes
the weakness in the poor models and helps strengthen the good models. Hold the models
loosely but hold the Word of God tightly.
Back to the boundary, in our view, the late post-Flood boundary makes very good
sense of the geologic data.
All the best,
Tas Walker
Kevin E. from the United States writes:
My science question is the following: The beliefs posted on this site in the about
us/ what we believe section state that the earth was made in “six 24 hour
periods.” How is this unique only to our solar system when observational evidence
from NASA and other scientific space programs shows that in all cases, extra solar
planets (planets orbiting another star other than our sun) form an accretion disk
and takes millions of years compared to days? Another question: Is the earth still
flat?
CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati
replies:
Hi Kevin
It’s interesting that you ask us about the flat earth, when the leader of
that movement is one of your fellow evolutionists:
“The Flat Earth Society is an active organization currently led by a Virginian
man named Daniel Shenton. Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming,
he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that
the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of.”1
If he had stuck to the Bible, he wouldn’t have made that error. See articles
under Does
the Bible really teach a flat earth?
If you demonstrate some seriousness in your questions (or at least try more informed
quips that aren’t so easily turned back on you ),
I’ll discuss how extrasolar planets pose a problem for nebular models of solar
system formation. See for example
Solar system origin: Nebular hypothesis,
Planets and migrating theories, and Solar system
formation by accretion has no observational evidence.
Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
A reader’s commentSteve B., New Zealand, 3 December 2011
Thank you very much for your reply to Kevin E. It deals with the points he raised in a simple but precise manner. Excellent example for us all! |
Further reading
Reference
- Wolchover, N.,
Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Theory Revealed In Old Map, Live Science, 23 June
2011. Return to text.
| The article you just read is free, but the staff time working on it … isn’t. Consider a small gift to keep this site going.  | | |
|
