Re: a simple test of Flood geology

John P. McKiness (
Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:20:11 -0500

At 01:52 PM 9/3/97 -0500, Paul wrote:
>On 8/30/97, Glenn Morton wrote:
>>Allen, could you take a look at the essay on my web page, "Entire Geologic
>>Column in North Dakota" and explain in detail how what is in the column
>>could be accomplished by a global flood? I would like a detailed explanation
>>of each event.
>>thank you.
>Regarding the geologic column, it seems to me that there is an easy test to
>distinguish the Flood and evolutionary hypotheses. That is, the
>examination of microscopic fossils of pollen grains. Under an evolutionary
>hypothesis, we would expect to see a particular species present in some
>layers and absolutely absent in others. Under a young-earth Flood geology
>hypothesis, we would expect to see a mixture of these fine, lightweight
>particles dispersed throughout the column. To diagram these:
>Time -->
> Species 1: - - - - - --------- - -- - - -
> Species 2: - - - - - - ---------------------
> Species 3: - - - - ----- -- -
> Species 1: - - - - - --- - -- - - - - - -- - -- - --
> Species 2: - - -- - - - - - --- - - - - ---- -
>------ - -
> Species 3: - - - - -- - ------ - -- --- - - - - ------
>The evolutionary hypothesis (*) predicts that some strata will be
>absolutely free of some species, barring contamination. Under the
>creationist Flood hypothesis, all of the pre-existing species were alive at
>the same time. Therefore the soil, air and water could contain any pollen
>from anywhere, with a finite probability. Once these are mixed, there is
>nothing that a flood, or any series of floods could do to separate them.
>The resulting geologic column would show a more or less continuous mixture
>of all species.
>These are distinct predictions. Which hypothesis agrees most closely with
>the findings of paleontologists? I'll leave that for Glenn Morton and
>others more acquainted with the data.
>(*) I could widen this to include progressive creationism, intelligent
>design and all kinds of other alternatives to Flood geology.
> Paul Arveson, Code 724, Signatures Directorate, NSWC
> (301) 227-3831 (301) 227-4511 (FAX)


My doctorate project is a palynology project, I have kept up with the
research in pollen, spore, and fungal analysis and paleobotany for 20 years
(paleoenvironmental analysis is my dominate geological interest) the record
is in conformity with the evolutionary model not the flood model. The test
you propose is in the literature of all the palynological studies of all the
continents since the beginning of the science. The oil industry has used
the results of palynology during much of this century to increase their
odds of finding oil and in establishing regional stratigraphy. Flood
Geology is a lie!

Again, the creationists look like fools; palynology/paleobotany agrees with
depositional environments, marine micro-organisms, sedimentology,
stratigraphy etc. etc. etc., all lines of evidence are against them. There
is no evidence of the Genesis Flood.

I despair of the discussion, there is no agreement between early chapters of
Genesis and the geological evidence. This is one reason why I came to the
conclusion along time ago which I discussed in early June on this list to no
affect -- logic and science method cannot be applied with success to prove
Biblical statements. Such statements require faith in God's revelations.
We have a dichotomy we must accept; we need the faith of a child for
salvation and in walking with Jesus, and the wisdom of science to understand
how Earth systems work. We delude ourselves if we think otherwise.