Flood geology is an effort to explain the world's geological features with reference to the Flood in the Biblical account of Genesis. Flood geology is closely linked with Creationism.

Until the early 19th century, the dominant scientific idea was somewhat similar to what is now called Flood Geology. Following James Hutton's promotion of the idea of uniformitarianism, however, it soon lost favour. A few die-hards held on to the idea until it experienced something of a minor revival following publication of The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb in 1961.

Flood geology remains distinctly a minority view among geologists today. Most geologists do not consider Flood Geology to be a legitimate scientific theory and instead label it pseudo-science. They do so both because it interprets geology in light of what they consider to be a solely religious text instead of the evidence, and because they believe it is incompatible with almost all established geologic facts.

Flood geologists, however, do not base their belief in a global flood solely on the Bible, but on geological field work that they believe gives strong evidence of a universal flood in the recent past. They also argue that the flood story is not limited to the Bible, but is spread through many cultures, places and religions. They claim that the near-universality of the global flood story makes it very likely that the stories are grounded in some actual event in the recent past. They believe Genesis is the most accurate historical record of that global flood due to its high level of detail (including precise dates for all the important events of the flood, and the exact dimensions and the type of wood used in the ark), its objective, historical style, and the Genealogies of Genesis, which extend from Adam to Abraham.

Processes

If the global flood actually occurred, then it would have had a radical effect on geology, and traces of that flood would be observable today, making the theory at least somewhat falsifiable.

Eighty percent of the Earth's crust is covered by sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rocks are formed as particles of sediment are deposited out of air, ice, or water flows carrying the particles in suspension. As sediment deposition builds up, from overburden (or lithostatic) pressure squeezes the sediment into layered solids in a process known as lithification ("rock formation") and the original connate fluids are expelled.

Some flood geologists have proposed that a global flood is the most reasonable explanation for the means by which sediment came to precipitate in such depth over so much of the Earth's surface. They further argue that the liquefaction predicted by the flood can explain many geological formations they believe are left inadequately explained by mainstream geology grounded in uniformitarianism.

Liquefaction

Liquefaction, a phenomenon commonly seen in quicksand and earthquakes, is the process by which water pressing up from underneath sand or soil converts the sand into a suspension. Some creationist flood geologists have argued that during a global flood, liquefaction would have occurred on a massive scale. The argue that in a global flood scenario, the tides would be unhindered by continents, creating enormous tidal waves circling the globe. This, in concert with tsunamis and turbidity currents from earthquakes, would cause wave loading, or alternating periods of high and low downward pressure on subterranean water. The resulting periods of liquefaction and non-liquefaction would cause the sediments to layer into strata. Geological action while the sediments were still liquified would cause the strata to bend smoothly in places, while earthquakes would cause radical discontinuities in others.

Flood geologists argue that massive liquefaction can explain phenomena such as transported blocks, sand plumes, coal and limestone deposits, the near total purity of the 500,000 sq. mile St. Peter Sandstone, smooth bending rock strata, and aquifers. Creationists argue that the flood left massive amounts of unconsolidated sediment, which were sorted and shaped by rapid erosion and re-sedimentation, liquefaction, and earthquakes, during and after the Flood.

[1] (http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction6.html)

Canyon formation

As the continents divided and the seafloor dropped, the water would flow into the new low-lying areas, which would fill to become seas, leaving the sediments to dry out of their liquefied state. The runoff during this period predicts the creation of extensive submarine canyon extensions to rivers, as the level of the sea would be much lower during this time, so that the rivers would remain rivers far out into today's "seas." Such extensions are found in the Congo, Amazon, Ganges, and Hudson rivers. They extend for thousands of miles underwater, thousands of feet under the sea; they are as deep as the Grand Canyon in places, and although not well understood by the mainstream scientific community, they are generally understood to have developed when sea levels were significantly lower than today. Flood geologists argue that such submarine canyon extensions were formed as the floodwaters receded from the continents.

Fossilisation

Flood geologists also argue that existence of fossils is itself evidence of the flood. Fossilization requires that the remains be quickly buried by sediments, to prevent the remains from decomposing or being eating by other animals. Flood geologists argue that the flood provides a mechanism to explain fossilization.

Fossil fuels

Flood geologists point to the existence of large oil deposits as the result of the accumulation of large amounts of dead plant matter during the flood which were subsequently compressed below the surface. They argue that there is no evidence of fossil fuels being formed today, or any clear mechanism for how large amounts of organic matter came to be buried beneath 1000s of feet of sediment before it decayed without catastrophe. They argue that the Flood provides the necessary catastrophe.

Fossil layering

Flood geology proposes several mechanisms to explain the ordering of fossil layers, whereby dinosaurs never share the same layers as mammoths.

• The hydraulic sorting action of water during liquefaction would tend to sort out fossils according to their shape, density, size, and the gases released from the body after death. In exploring this hypothesis, Dr. Walt Brown writes:

"To understand liquefaction better, I built the apparatus shown in Figure 92. The 10-foot-long metal beam pivoted like a teeter-totter from the top of the 4-legged stand. Suspended from each end of the beam was a 5-gallon container, one containing water and one containing a mixture of different sediments. A 10-foot-long pipe connected the mouths of the two containers.

I lifted the water tank by gently inclining the metal beam. Water flowed down through the pipe and up through the bed of mixed sediments in the other tank. If the flow velocity exceeded a very low threshold,12 the sediments swelled slightly as liquefaction began. Buried bodies with the density of a dead animal or plant floated to the top of the tank. Once water started to overflow the sediment tank, the metal beam had to be tipped, so the water flowed back into the water tank. After repeating this cycle for 10 or 15 minutes, the mixture of sediments became visibly layered. The more cycles, the sharper the boundaries between sedimentary layers became."

He also reports:

"In an unpublished experiment at Loma Linda University, a dead bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian were placed in an open water tank. Their buoyancy in the days following death depended on their density while living, the build-up and leakage of gases from their decaying bodies, the absorption or loss of water by their bodies, and other factors. That experiment showed that the natural order of settling following death was amphibian, reptile, mammal, and finally bird.15 This order of relative buoyancy correlates closely with “the evolutionary order,” but, of course, evolution did not cause it. Other factors also influenced burial order at each geographical location, such as liquefaction lenses, which animals were living in the same region, and each animal’s mobility before the flood overtook it."[2] (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction4.html)

• Various ecological niches would be buried in order of their elevation. Thus creatures living on the floors of the oceans would be buried first, then creatures living higher in the oceans, then shore-dwellers, and so on.
• Some creatures—including man—could reach higher ground and/or survive floating on the surface for longer than other creatures before being overwhelmed in the flood waters.

Frozen mammoths

Over the past several hundred years, hundreds of mammoths have been discovered frozen in the ice of Siberia. Dr. Leopold von Schrenck, Chief of the Imperial Academy of Sciences at Petrograd (today’s St. Petersburg, Russia), published the following account in 1869: “The mammoth ... is a gigantic beast which lives in the depths of the earth, where it digs for itself dark pathways, and feeds on earth ... They account for its corpse being found so fresh and well preserved on the ground that the animal is still a living one.” (Howerth 76). The reason he believed mammoths to be subterranean beasts was that hundreds of them had been found throughout Siberia, with meat fresh enough to eat, and yet none had ever been seen alive. Indeed, there has yet to be a confirmed report of a living mammoth. Creationists assert that the existence of mammoths in Siberia's present climate is extremely unlikely, as they were covered in hair, not fur, which would have provided them very little protection against Siberia's extreme cold. One biologist, after conducting an extension study of the hair and skin of mammoths, wrote in the annual report of the Smithsonian Institution, "It appears to me impossible to find, in the anatomical examination of the skin and [hair], any argument in favor of adaptation to the cold." (Neuville 332).

Some mammoths, such as the one pictured, were found with grass still in their mouths. The grass had been so carefully preserved as to still have the imprints of the animal's molars on it. Many of the mammoths showed evidence of dying of suffocation, including erect penises. Tolmachoff, a biologist studying the remains of one such mammoth concluded that, “The death by suffocation is proved by the erected male genital, a condition inexplicable in any other way.” (Pfizenmayer 162).

A biologist studying the remains of another mammoth concluded: "The presence of so many varieties [of plants] that generally grow much to the south indicates that the climate of the region was milder than that of today. The discovery of the ripe fruits of sedges, grasses, and other plants suggests that the mammoth died during the second half of July or the beginning of August. The mammoth must have been overwhelmed suddenly with a rapid deep freeze and instant death. The sudden death is proved by the unchewed bean pods still containing the beans that were found between its teeth, and the deep freeze is suggested by the well-preserved state of the stomach contents and the presence of edible meat [for wolves and dogs]." (Hapgood 267)

Mainstream scientists assert that the mammoths went extinct 20,000 years ago. Flood geologists argue that this explanation is insufficient, because that would not provide enough time for continental motion to explain the warm climate exhibited by the type of grasses found in their mouths, and a warmer climate would make the quick freeze difficult to explain. They also point to the discovery of the remains of dwarf mammoths dating back only 2000 years.

Later research has indicated that a rapid freeze is not necessary to explain the contents of the stomach, as the majority of digestion in elephants takes place after the stomach. However, the question of the grasses found in their mouths, and the relatively milder climate indicated by those grasses, remains.

Creationists argue that the mammoths and the surrounding circumstances are best explained by radical climate change in the ice-age following the flood.

Some Creationists who hold to the Canopy theory argue that the quick freeze can be explained by the massive ammounts of super cold ice that used to form the canopy being dumped around the poles. The extraordinary temperatures needed to quick-freeze a mammoth are way below any temperature ever measured on earth.

[3] (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/mammoth.asp)

Interpretting the geologic record

Flood geologists have not reached consensus on many issues. In particular, there is ongoing debate about which sediments are flood sediments, which are pre-flood sediments, and which are post-flood sediments. There are also competing models for plate tectonics, plus some debate about whether plate tectonics actually occurred. Some models, such as the well-known Vapour Canopy model, are no longer accepted by most Flood geologists.

In general, however, the geological record of Earth is divided by Flood geologists into four main stages:

• The lowest levels of sediments would be rocks and sediments formed during creation week, when God caused the dry land to appear. These sediments should be devoid of all fossils.
• Next would be sediments formed in the time between Creation week and the Flood, a period of 1700 years according to Biblical chronology. These would comprise only a tiny part of the geological record.
• The bulk of the geological record would have been laid down during the year-long Flood. These should show evidence not of a calm flood leaving a layer of silt, but of large tectonic upheavals, massive erosion, deposition, and transport, and reworking of sediments more than one. It would also include the mass burial of many creatures.
• Above the flood sediments would be evidence of minor post-flood catastrophes, an ice age, and normal geological processes as we see occurring today.

Proposed models for the mechanism of the flood

The Genesis account does not give a scientific description of the mechanism of the flood: it states what happened in historical terms, and gives the dates for important events.

As to the cause of the flood, Genesis states only that God deliberately caused the flood, indicating that the cause of the flood was supernatural in origin. Beyond that, the account states that the "fountains of the great deep" broke open and the "windows of heaven" were opened, which brought the flood. It rained for 40 days, but the waters continued to rise for 110 more days, indicating that there was another water-source, probably the subterranean "fountains of the great deep." The waters then slowly began to recede amidst a "great wind," until the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (not necessarily Mount Ararat, but the mountains in that region). Beyond that scant account of the events, creationists have very little basis for determining exactly what caused the flood.

In the absence of a first-hand description of these unique events, a number of models have been proposed in an effort to describe the mechanism of the flood.

• The Hydroplate model, proposed by Walt Brown of the Center for Scientific Creation, holds that the Earth was originally created with a great deal of subterranean water, and that the flood was brought on when the crust of the Earth was cracked, allowing this water to escape violently to the surface, and broke the surface into "hydroplates" which quickly divided during and after the flood.

• The Runaway Subduction model, proposed by the Institute for Creation Research, holds that a fracture in the crust could have heated silicates to a temperature at which techtonic motion would have happened extremely quickly.

• In addition, a Canopy theory was proposed by Henry Morris in his book The Genesis Flood in the 1960s. It holds that a canopy of water vapor existed over the atmosphere prior to the flood, and that the floodwaters were brought on when this vapor canopy collapsed. This model has been rejected by many creationists, including the Institute for Creation research, founded by Henry Morris himself, but is still accepted by some.

Others propose that the continental motion occurred about 100 years after the Flood, when the Bible records that during the lifetime of Peleg, "the Earth was divided". Still others propose that this refers to the events surrounding the Tower of Babel.

Counterpoints

Water Source

If the flood were a global flood, a source of water would need to be found which could provide such a deluge. Flood Geologists have proposed several sources at different times: (1) a vapor canopy in the upper atmosphere; (2) a comet strike; (3) the Earth's crust was much flatter, allowing less water to cover the face of the planet; and (4), subterranean water sources. [4] (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood)

The Vapor Canopy

The Vapor Canopy theory suggested a layer of water vapor in the upper atmosphere which, triggered by a meteoroid, caused a giant rain shower and so contributed to the flood. However, such a volume of water held suspended in the atmosphere would give rise to an atmospheric pressure in the order of nine atmospheres. The atmosperic temperature would also have to be extremely high to prevent the saturated atmosphere from condensing. For a more thorough discussion, see: [5] (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood). The Vapor Canopy model has lost favour and is no longer accepted by most creationary scientists.

The Comet Strike

Had the Earth been struck by a comet providing enough water for a great deluge, gravitational heating would have boiled the water and nothing would have survived; any unprotected life on the surface would have been poached.

Subterranean Water Deposits

Water, mainstream scientists claim, is less dense than rock; therefore it would be forced to the surface long before the date of the flood. They add that at any significant depth beneath the surface of the Earth, the water would have been boiled, causing giant steam plumes which would be further heated by falling back to earth.

Crust Transformation

Some flood geologists have proposed that the Earth's surface was much flatter in the past, thus allowing a much smaller volume of water to cover the planet. However, in order for the Earth's crust to reach its present form from such a flat stage over the past four thousand years, geologists point out, a tremendous amount of work would be required. They claim that no life would have survived the work—heating caused by the raising of the mountains and the lowering of the sea.

Geological Evidence

The Rocky Mountains; mainstream geologists do not believe the Rockies share erosion traits consistent with a great flood - erosion would be expected equal to the Appalachian Mountains, shown at left.

The Appalachian Mountains show an immense level of erosion. Geologists assert that if a flood had occurred, similar erosion should be found in the Rocky Mountains, shown at right.

Geologists claim that the flood, had it occured, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly. [6] (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood)

Archaeological Evidence

Archaeology proves to be a potent source of evidence. Flood geology claims that the current sedimentary layers were produced by liquefaction, and that objects caught in the flood (including living creatures) were sorted by mass and location at the time when the flood engulfed them. However, archaeologists state that if this sorting actually took place, heavy, dense objects (such as human artifacts) would be expected to sink to the bottom. In actuality, man-made artifacts are very close to the top of the sedimentary layers.

Furthermore, mainstream archaeologists claim that a number of ancient civilisations (such as those of Egypt and Mesopotamia), are older that the alleged date of the Flood, and that the flood would have destroyed much of the evidence of these civilisations and deeply buried the rest. Creationists don't dispute the latter point - they reject the dates of those civilisations. Archaeologists claim that the methods of dating have been verified time and time again (see carbon dating). The carbon dating methods are also claimed to be independent of the detailed records kept by those civilizations. See Mesopotamia and History of Egypt.

Paleontological Evidence

If fossilization took place extremely quickly during the Flood, then - paleontologists claim - fossilized remains should be far more numerous and widespread than is actually seen. Furthermore, it is claimed that if creatures were differentiated by body size and density, then massive dinosaurs such as Diplodocus and Brachiosaurus should be found near the top sediments, rather than in sediments containing all the other Jurassic dinosaurs. Furthermore, paleontologists claim that if all the fossilized animals were killed in the flood, and the flood is responsible for fossilization, then the average density of vertebrates was close to 2100 creatures per acre, judging from fossil beds found worldwide.

Evolutionary Evidence

The evolutionary record is preserved largely in sedimentary rocks. If a flood had taken place, evolutionary biologists state, and all the creatures had lived together at one time, there would be no reason at all for the fossil record to be preserved thusly. See here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord/) for more.

Philosophical Objections

Mainstream scientists object to Flood Geology, and Creationism in general, on philosophical grounds as well as scientific ones. Perhaps the most fervent objection is grounded in Occam's Razor. Occam's razor is a principle of parsimony formulated so as to "slice out" scientific theories which contain redundant assumptions: "It is vain to do with more what can be done with less." Therefore, say scientists, because mainstream science can comprehensively describe the relevant data, flood geology, which inherently draws on God, is redundant because of its underlying assumption of divine intervention. See this internal link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_Razor#In_science/) for a more thorough discussion.

Mainstream scientists also object to Flood Geology on the methodological grounds: they point out that Flood geologists approach their work with the initial purpose of finding evidence for a worldwide flood, rather than looking at the evidence and then formulating a conclusion. To cement this point, they claim that Creationist geologists had looked at the evidence for a worldwide flood in the century before Darwin, and found it lacking, dismissing it in favor of uniformitarian worldviews. [7] (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#philosophy)

Sources

• Henry H. Howorth, The Mammoth and the Flood (London: Samson Low, Marston, Searle, and Rivington, 1887), pp. 2–4, 74–75.
• Valentina V. Ukraintseva, Vegetation Cover and Environment of the “Mammoth Epoch” in Siberia (Hot Springs, South Dakota: The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, 1993), pp. 12–13.
• N. A. Dubrovo et al., “Upper Quaternary Deposits and Paleogeography of the Region Inhabited by the Young Kirgilyakh Mammoth,” International Geology Review, Vol. 24, No. 6, June 1982, p. 630.
• Charles H. Hapgood, The Path of the Pole (Philadelphia: Chilton Book Company, 1970), p. 267.
• E. W. Pfizenmayer, Siberian Man and Mammoth, translated from German by Muriel D. Simpson (London: Black & Son Limited, 1939).
• Brown, Walt, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 2001.
• M. Huc, Recollections of a Journey through Tartary, Thibet [Tibet], and China, During the Years 1844, 1845, and 1846. Vol. 2 (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1852), pp. 130–131.
• H. Neuville, “On the Extinction of the Mammoth,” Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1919.

Links

Flood Geology Sites

• Answers in Genesis' Geology Questions and Answers Page (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Geology.asp)
• Tas Walker's Biblical Geology (http://www.uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/)
• Global Flood Geology from "Creation Science Prophecy" (http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/geology.htm)
• Hydroplate Theory (http://www.creationscience.com/)
• Biblical Evidence for the Universality of the Genesis Flood (http://www.grisda.org/origins/22058.htm) - Richard M. Davidson - John Nevin Andrews Professor of Old Testament Interpretation - Old Testament Department - Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan

Mainstream Science Sites Addressing Flood Geology

• talk.origins Flood Geology archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html)
• Fossils, Flood Geology and Creation Science (http://www.awitness.org/bible_commentary/genesis/flood_geology_fossils.html)
• Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense (http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/flood.html)
• Problems with a Global Flood (http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/evolution/Creationism/flood.html)