Some Basic Problems
with Flood Geology
(Hill Roberts, 2003 )
It is very
understandable why so many people think the flood of Noah is responsible for
the geological features observed in the earth’s surface layers. (1) Such
features are global, so a global flood could well be the cause; (2) the surface
layers are usually sedimentary rock (sediments that settled out of water and
hardened into rock as a layer), and floods are known to leave big sediment
deposits; (3) many of the sedimentary layers also contain fossils (the remains
of dead plants and animals buried in sediments and eventually mineralized), and
Noah’s flood was intended to kill
both mankind and the animals in a relatively quick flood event; and (4) many
fossils are found in areas now well above sea-level, including mountains, which
seems consistent with a flood deep enough to cover the mountains. So “flood
geology” argues that the major geological features are better explained as
simply the result of the biggest flood that ever occurred within human history,
rather than naturalistic explanations of slow processes operating over the eons
of time geologists now posit for the pre-human history of the earth.
The fact of Noah’s flood is taken as a given
by this writer. However, the view that “flood geology is credible as a valid geological
explanation” is at issue. The main
problem with a global flood causing all (or even a significant part) of the geological features of the earth's
surface is that Flood Geologists (FGs) want it to be “just a flood doing what
floods do” without invoking miracles. For example, once God miraculously causes
the flood to occur, it doesn’t take a further miracle for the animals to drown.
That is just the natural consequence of being caught in the rising flood
waters. So FGs understand the bulk of the fossil record to be a rapid flood effect
caused within the timescale of human history. Similarly, FGs claim many of the other
geological features observed today were just the natural results of this huge
flood once it happened, instead of the slow work of time as understood in
geology.[1] This
writer understands the appeal of such arguments. If the geological features are
simply the observable consequences of the flood, then the rocks become physical
validation for the flood, so that faith in the whole Genesis account has a
firmer footing on empirical evidence. Arguments for the origin of the universe are
appealing for the same reason. The difference is that there is standard scientific evidence for a beginning of the universe.
The FG approach
has a huge problem with the matter of evidence because we know what floods do,
and floods do not cause the type of geological features requiring
explanation. It doesn’t take complicated science to understand these problems,
just common experience and common sense. Four basic problems will be addressed
herein, but problem areas could easily be multiplied a hundred-fold.
1) Sediment
The average
depth of fossil bearing sediment layers on the continental crust is one mile,
such as seen at the
This is how
deep the sedimentary rock is today. When
it was still wet muck, the deposited sediments would have been even thicker.)
It must be assumed by FGs that this sediment material came from the erosion of
non-sedimentary rock during the flood:
i.e., from erosion of igneous rock
like granite and basalt. Otherwise, the flood didn't produce the sediments, and then its existence must be explained
without the flood doing it. But the sediments themselves are the primary feature that must be explained
by any geological explanation, be it FG or standard geology. FG cannot make the sediment; it must already exist
before a flood can move it around.
So why
couldn't the flood make that much
sediment, since it was such a big
flood?
For the
most part floods do not make new sediment material from rock at all, they
simply redistribute existing soils. A large volume of water directed at hard
rock will not erode it at any appreciable rate unless the water is moving at
hyper-velocity pressures from precision water-jet cutting nozzles (20,000 to
60,000 psi required to cut rock). This is much
more powerful than pressure washers produce ( ~ 5000 psi). There is no natural
physical process to accelerate water even close to such velocities/pressures
during the flood. Ergo, no large scale massive erosion to speak of, and hence
no appreciable volumes of sediments produced, and hence no sedimentary rock
formations can be accounted for by the flood because there isn’t enough loose
sediment on the earth to form all the sedimentary rock.[2]
Just doesn't work.
Erosion of
rock into sediment is primarily a surface weathering effect, as every grade
school kid knows, caused by freeze-thaw cycles, wind erosion, chemical
reactions in ground layers eating away the rocks, and wave action at seashores.
Very fast moving water, as in mountain streams, causes some erosion by banging
large rocks together, slowly producing sand particles which are carried
downstream. Primarily this is the work of gravity, not water; more water
actually impedes this process. Similarly wind driven waves at the seashore
produce sand, but once the water gets a few meters deep that process halts. As
water gets deeper, it moves more slowly, so less erosion occurs. Since the
flood waters rose very rapidly (~40 days) to cover the whole earth, most of the
land was under deep water very quickly, all of it in just over a month. A fast,
deep inundation actually PREVENTS
large scale erosion of the area under water, rather than causing it. Hence little
erosion at all is going on during most of the flood period. The area under the water is where sediments can get
deposited by flood waters, but not manufactured.
If such an
amount of unhardened sediment already existed prior to the flood, the surface
of the earth would be uninhabitable. The average thickness of soil above
continental rock is about 10m now. Even that thickness of soil can become very
unstable with just a little bit of moisture content. That is why buildings etc. have to be footed on bedrock, not
surface soil. That is why mudslides happen so easily with just normal rain
cycles: even thin soils are very unstable on slopes. Soil over a mile thick
would be so unstable that it could not support its own weight. This is why
sediment layers are always flat when formed (see layers in above
Remember, the Bible
does not say or imply that the flood made all the world’s sediments.
2) Stratigraphic Sequences
Now assume the
sediment was produced by the flood – somehow.
Then it has to settle out into the observed layering as the flood recedes. What would happen (what does happen in a flood) is that two factors control the deposition of sediment from a moving water suspension: (1) the velocity of the water carrying the sediment load; and (2), the mass of the sediment particulates. Sediment settles out into strata as a function of mass for any given water velocity. Faster flow rates will hold heavier particulates in suspension. As the flow rate slows, the heaviest particulates settle out first, then the next heaviest, etc., as the flow slows down. What this means is that water-borne sediments will be sorted bottom to top, as a function of size at any given locale, and also laterally sorted. For example, at the mouth of rivers, deltas form in a very predicable, observable manner in this way. Upstream, where water is moving fastest, only heavy rock loads drop out. As water spreads out at the mouth, hence slowing, lighter materials drop out, like gravels, then sands, then silts, etc. So the order from bottom to top and moving out from the mouth are overlapping layers of rocks, gravel, sands, muds. These then harden into conglomerates, sandstones, mudstones (shales, etc) by a chemical cementing process that occurs as the layers dewater under pressure over time.
Why is such
stratigraphy a problem for the "flood did it" explanation?
Well, simply put, such size sorting
is simply not a characteristic of the actual sediment layers in general. As
often as not, gravel and sandstone layers will be on top of muds and limestones,
instead of underneath where water deposition would put it . A single flood
can't produce the type of distinct layer sequencing actually found worldwide in
the sedimentary layers. Fine grained particulates (like lime, chalk, clay) will
never settle out of water until the
water completely stops moving, allowing the CaCO3 particles that
form lime mud layers (forming limestone and chalks) to settle out. Such layers can
only form under completely still water conditions, not flood conditions, nor
during flood water runoffs. In general
the more turbulent a water stream, the more it mixes all the suspended elements
together, so that if the water suddenly stopped, it would just deposit a continuous
mess with heaviest stuff on the bottom graduating smoothly to the most finely
divided particulates on the top, not in distinct layers. This does not remotely
resemble the observed diverse and distinct layers such as seen in the
Now, assume the flood did produce the
sediments – somehow.
Then, the
fossil sequences found in the sediments must be accounted for. Some FG attempts
have been made, but all fail even cursory inspection. The main FG attempt to explain
the fossil sequences is that the animals fled the rising waters so the fastest,
smartest were killed and buried last. So fish are in the bottom layers, other
animals in between, and humans on top. Of course the problem is that often marine
sediment layers with marine fossils are found on top of mountains! And since
that is the case, there should be cases of human fossils, or whales, being
intermingled with marine fossils such as trilobites. Why? Well not all humans are
fast or smart. Ditto for all the other animals. So different types of fossil
environments should routinely be co-mingled in the FG fossil record, but they
never are in the real fossil layers. Whales, bass and clams are never found with trilobites, but in FG
they should all be mixed together, since all are in the marine environment
first buried according to the FG model. The FG model simply doesn’t match the
facts.
Finally assume the sediments with the fossil
sequences in them resulted from the flood a few thousand years ago – somehow.
Any guess
as to how long it would take a mile thickness of wet sediment to turn into
rock? Answer: there would still be nothing but a world-wide layer of wet muck covering
the world. And last but not least, explain the presence in some locales of up
to seven miles thickness of delta sediment layers, such as under the
Remember, the Bible
does not say or imply that the flood deposited any of the strata.
3) Uplifted Strata
Floods
don't cause mountain uplift, but many sediment layers (strata) are found on top
of mountains. For example the
Remember, the Bible
does not say or imply that the flood uplifted the mountains.
4) Plate Tectonics
Geological evidence
indicates the continents spread apart very slowly over time due to the
convective processes of plate tectonics. FGs must offer an alternative.
One such FG
idea is that when the flood started, a crack opened up all around the
circumference of the earth releasing a torrent of subterranean water, and
flipping the edges of the rock layers up extremely high at the crack regions.
So high that they slide “downhill” at the crack driving the whole rock layer (not
just the flipped up part) away from the crack at high speeds. Then the rock
layers slowed down and, voilá, spread
continents. (In this idea the
mid-Atlantic ridge is taken as a remnant of that crack.)
Rapid
separation of the continental crusts during the flood would be silly, if some
folks didn’t take it so seriously. Continental-sized masses moving that fast
(1000s km/yr) liberate so much heat due to the kinetic energy (1/2mv^2) and
potential energy (mgh) being converted to heat as the continents slow down and
settle, that the rocks would melt, the water boil away, and the atmosphere would
be saturated with superheated steam. Wouldn’t one wonder how even Noah survived
that?
If all this
happened only a few thousand years ago, the earth's surface would still be
reverberating with devastating world-wide earthquakes, and the seas and
atmosphere would still be boiling cauldrons. This idea is just silly at even a
superficial level of inspection. Flood geologist Walt Brown[3],
with a PhD in physics, came up with this “hydroplate”
idea[4]. Another
FG, John Baumgartner - who does computer simulations for Los Alamos Labs - once showed that if completely non-physical
properties for geological materials were used in the professional geological
simulations he developed, he could get what he calls "runaway
subduction" where the continents move rapidly due to some of the crust
being rapidly swallowed down into the earth’s mantle.[5]
But if he uses REAL values for the physical properties (mantle viscosity[6], temperatures,
thermal capacity, material strengths, densities, etc.) then nothing unusual happens at all. No fast continental motions.
No runaway subduction. No hydroplate motion.
But there
is a simple problem with Brown’s idea much bigger than all the aforementioned. In
Brown’s idea the whole pre-flood planet is covered by a single integrated crust supported by a large layer of trapped
subterranean water. He has to have the crust completely connected to sustain the internal water pressure he needs
to hold the heavier crust up before the flood. He maintains that all the crust was
suspended on top of that water sort of like a water bed. If there were any
fractures, it would deflate like a water bed with a hole in it. He believes the
subterranean trapped water was the primary source of flood water. According to Brown only after the flood did
that released water fill the current ocean basins, and only in regions where
the crust sank when it slowed down.
So one can
envision Brown’s model as two hemispherical bowls representing the two halves
of the ruptured planet crust. All around the circumference where the bowls meet,
the crust ruptures and gets flipped up. He supposes that then the crust slides
downhill all along the ruptured region. But as can be easily seen from the bowl
picture, there is nowhere for the continuous crust to slide. For it to slide
“down” on one side of the bowl, it must slide up on the other side. But that doesn’t produce the requisite
continent separation. As can be easily seen, in Brown’s model the earth’s crust wouldn’t go anywhere at all. It
would just settle back down along the cracks, but now be covered by all the
released water. Big flood maybe, but no continents, no separations.
It is
interesting that Brown never draws a 3D world-view perspective of his idea. His
only illustrations of the rupture and sliding show his rupturing crust as flat,
never spherical. A spherical illustration completely destroys his concept. I’m
sure Brown doesn’t believe in a flat earth, but his model would require a flat
earth to work the way he illustrates it.
Remember, the Bible
does not say or imply that the flood spread the continents apart.
Flood Geologists are "Nice enough folks, they just hadn't
thought it through."[7]
Predictions
1) Unless one accepts FG as an article
of Biblical Christian faith, one’s faith will be immediately suspect by FGs. It
will be suggested that you do not really believe the Bible, nor in God’s creation,
and probably have no depth to your faith whatsoever. You are just a closet
evolutionist, or at the very best a theistic evolutionist. Such erroneous
reports are likely to spread like wildfire.
Answer: The Bible account of the
flood contains none of the basic elements of flood geology.
2) As soon as one points out that a
single flood doesn't naturally produce the required effects at all, the answer
will be "Well THIS flood could have done it somehow, since it was so big. And if you just had more faith in
God’s word you would see that.”
Answer: “Bigger” still doesn't cause the required effects
naturally. Water still behaves like water, sediments still behave like
sediments. (And it isn’t a matter of
faith in God’s word, see #1 above.)
3) "Well this was a miracle flood, so how do you know it was
like other natural little floods? God could have miraculously caused a flood in
which all these problems didn’t happen."
“Okay, now we’re getting some help here. Now they’re getting it!”
I agree entirely! The flood was a miracle performed by God. That is exactly my point always: any global flood must have been a miracle just
as much in the going as it was in the coming. If it was a miracle, it is not
legitimate to claim the miraculous flood must have caused all the geological
features as a rapid consequence of natural
flood processes. Being a miracle, it could have; but also by being a miracle,
it could just as easily not have done much permanent geological damage at all. Why
did God choose to eliminate mankind with a flood, instead of just causing them
all to die? I don’t know. I would suppose because that best served His purposes
for reasons that are inscrutable to us. Once we step into the realm of
miraculous interventions, we really have very little basis for the naturalistic
cause and effect analysis that underpins all of Flood Geology. (Whereas, natural
explanations are entirely appropriate for standard geology’s interpretations of
post-creation pre-flood natural events.)
There is no indication in the Bible that the world Noah
stepped back onto from the ark was much different than the world he lived in
before the flood, other than the missing people and animals. Whereas, the FG
world would have been NOTHING like
the world Noah previously knew. Huge layers of wet sediment are completely
covering everything previously familiar, everywhere the denuded landscape is
wiped slick, mountains have been uplifted, sliding continents are still quivering
and steaming in the aftermath. Noah might
as well have gotten off on a different planet. Strange for him to say
nothing about such cataclysmic geological changes which the FGs say must have occurred to produce the
observed features resulting from this catastrophe. Instead he builds an altar.
In the FG scenario there wouldn’t be any rocks on the surface for him to build
an altar with.
Nor is it credible to claim that properly conducted science
supports the ideas of FG. Not even common sense supports FG, much less science.
Indeed, the natural physical
properties of water and sediments are easily understood to see that a single
flood does not cause such effects. And since it was a miracle, don’t expect to find the physical evidence,
as if it were just a natural result of cause and effects. One can’t have it
both ways. If someone wants to believe that God miraculously created the
sediment, the strata, the fossils, the continents, and the mountains at the time of the flood, so be it. But
once again the Bible says nothing about it. And science certainly says
nothing for it, and everything against it. So three strikes – FG
is out! The large-scale geological features must be explained by some other
processes than a single global flood. Such pre-flood geological processes are
not a matter the Bible addresses in connection with Noah’s flood.[8]
“I, Hill Roberts, by faith in God’s
word believe in a miraculous world flood in the days of Noah which killed
everyone in that world except Noah, his three sons, and their four wives.”
The Bible does say that.