Re: a simple test of Flood geology
Paul Arveson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 4 Sep 1997 09:54:12 -0500
At 1:18 AM -0500 9/4/97, Allen Roy wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Paul Arveson wrote:
>> 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.
>It depends upon ones concept of the Flood. As I stated before, if one
>conceives of the Flood as a monumental, homogenous mess then it would be
>hard to find a means by which apparent sorting would occure. On the
>other had a catastrophe composed of thousands of events it may be
>possible to get pollens captured and deposited in apparent organization.
>Grand Canyon Creationary Geology Tours, see:
No, I don't think so. That was my point in the above. If
everything was initially alive at once, there is nothing to separate them,
no matter how many flood events are postulated. Unless you also postulate
an ad hoc miracle just to separate the species.
The standard Flood geology explanations of the separation of species
talk about how the smaller animals got left behind at the bottom, and the
faster and larger animals climbed higher to escape the flood. This kind of
description I consider to be pre-scientific. When you can look through a
microscope, this explanation fails. I defer to the expert knowledge of
palynologists and petrologists such as John McKinnis and Glenn Morton on
the conclusions of this test. They are pretty clear. There may have been
a flood, or many floods, but they do not constitute all of earth history.
Paul Arveson, Code 724, Signatures Directorate, NSWC
(301) 227-3831 (301) 227-4511 (FAX)