Is the Flood a Better Theory?

Building a Better Theory:
As a thought exercise, let’s put aside the very powerful fact that the Bible describes a worldwide flood. Consequently, we can put aside the hundred other global flood stories that have surfaced in such a variety of cultures. That can be uncovered later. For now, how about going off of simply what is seen in our world.
We see water- lots of it. The surface of the earth is 70% water- 96.5% of this water is in the oceans. That’s a lot of water, but there was apparently a lot more water at some point in the recent past. We can still see numerous lines that mark where water levels used to be above lakes.
As it is now, there is a lot more water below sea level than land above sea level. Relative to the size of the planet, the sphere of the earth is very smooth. A ball of water 860 miles in diameter would contain all the water of all the oceans. If the water was pulled out, and the land smoothed out a little more, then water would cover all the surface of the planet. There is enough water now to make it two miles deep- and there are reasons to think that there used to be even more water. Much of the water is held up in the ice caps. Amazing how many people would need to be evacuated if the ice caps melted. Sea level would be 220 feet higher.

We see layers of rock laid out all over the world. I’ve seen some of these in books, but it is far more moving and memorable seeing them in person. I frequently go to southern Utah and see the sandstone cliffs. These cliffs have obvious signs of water acting upon them.
I also have major issues of the supposed settling of atmospheric dust. I don’t understand how the same theory that supposedly erodes rocks also was supposed to build them up- layer upon layer.
Even if this were the most likely method of layers of rock, there are other problems as you look closer- cross-bedding and folding of layers. Cross-bedding is where one supposed age intersects another supposed age. It’s a wrinkle in time of sorts… Or maybe that’s not how they got there. Folding offers a nice clue. The folded layers have a conspicuous absence of cracking (which makes them beautiful). This indicates that the layer was flexible and moist. Moist layer, uniformitarianism, settling dust… it doesn’t line up.
There is something very significant now that evolutionists want to claim, yet fits more firmly within the framework of a flood catastrophe. In fact, when someone is asked why they believe in evolution, the response is usually “because of the fossils”. Do they know that upon that same theory, thousands of years of dust had to settle on that organism before it could be imbedded like it is? Will they really suppose a million mini or local catastrophes before ever suggesting large scale catastrophes. Whatever protects the golden calf, sometimes.
What should we expect to see if the flood occurred? We would see fossils. Probably billions of things died within about a month when the rains started pouring. It is well known that fossils only form by being buried rapidly. Dust does not bury things rapidly, mud does. A fish being fossilized eating part of another fish would take a rapid violent burial. Unfortunately for the evolutionists, the long ages of rock layers does not allow for such occurrences.
But doesn’t the succession of organisms from least developed to more advanced in the rock layers prove that macro-evolution has occurred? Let’s be fair to what the data reveals. Lower life forms are generally found lower in the strata. More advanced life forms are generally found in the higher up strata. Fossilization is already in doubt from the previous paragraph, but this contention needs to be honored too.
It actually fits very well into what we would expect if the flood occurred. The things in the lowest layers ought to be the things that the muddy flood waters buried the lowest. Some of the things that are assumed to be from hundreds of million years ago are still alive in their same forms today. This, too, is no surprise since I believe they were only buried thousands of years ago. After you get above water the layer the being was buried in probably mostly had to do with their ability to escape the rising waters. After drowning another large variable would have been the density of the creature. These also seem very consistent with the evidence.
Lest we think that this is always the case, there are frequent “anomalies”. A creature will be found in a layer that was not supposed to have that organism at the time. Instead of taking the evidence as it lies with an open mind- accepting it for what it is- finding like that are thrown out. Again the sacred calf of presuppositions is guarded. Anomalous data is thrown out if it doesn’t line up with the grand scheme instead of having the grand scheme developed based on the evidence. Within the flood framework there would undoubtedly be a mixing of the norm.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s