Re: a simple test of Flood geology

Glenn Morton (
Wed, 03 Sep 1997 22:37:16 -0500

Paul raised an interesting point. I want to respond to Paul through John's
excellent post.

At 06:20 PM 9/3/97 -0500, John P. McKiness wrote:
>At 01:52 PM 9/3/97 -0500, Paul Arveson wrote:

>>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.

>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!

This is absolutely true. Microfossils are layered as you suggested. From a
practical perspective, microfossils, be it pollen or foraminifera or
radiolarians can be viewed as tiny grains with a characteristic shape. The
shape of each species is unique and identifiable. Some genera and species
are quite long lived and are useless as index fossils. Examples from the
Foraminifera are two genera of Astrorhizidae, the Rhabdammina and
Crithionina. They are found in rocks from the Silurian to the present. So
the finding of an example from these genera doesn't tell you the age.
However, the species within these genera are unique and much more limited
and can be used as index fossils.

On the other hand some genera are quite diagnostic. In the same family as
above if you find a Pseudastrorhiza (once again a unique shape) you can be
sure that it is Silurian in age. Some genera are unique only to the recent
which is within the past 10,000 years. An example is all of the members of
the foraminiferal family Allogromiidae. My data base shows that there are 13
different species none of which are found in rocks older than 10,000 years old.
In the family Valvulinidae the genus Cuneolina is restricted to the Miocene.
These critters are quite stratified and John is absolutely correct that we
in the oil business use them to locate ourselves while drilling wells and to
tie our wells to our seismic data.

>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.

As one of the debaters with John last June, I must disagree. If logic and
science cannot be applied to the Bible and is bad for religion, I fear that
illogic and non-science would be even worse. Too often I fear that what we
really have in many of the widely held apologetical views is exactly too
much illogic and too much nonsense. I can't see that a little logic can
make it worse.


Foundation, Fall and Flood