Lack of Time

No Time for Mr. Oard’s Diverse and Magical Flood Environments

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

May 4, 2014

Dictatorial Young-Earth Creationism Hinders Thorough Geological Investigations

When geologists want to identify the ancient depositional environment of a sedimentary rock, we not only look at the properties of the rock (that is, mineralogy, chemistry, textures, structures and any fossils, etc.), but also at the properties of the surrounding rocks. That is, we try to determine the three-dimensional context of the rock in time and space through facies modeling and other techniques. Based on the results, geologists have a wide variety of depositional environments that we could consider, including: deltas, hot deserts, glacial environments, lakes, rivers, different marine categories, etc. Under actualism, geologists may also consider a wide variety of depositional rates for the sediments ranging from extremely slow to naturally catastrophic. In contrast, the theological commissars of young-Earth creationism would never permit any geological explanation for a rock that conflicts with their narrow and rigid biblical interpretations, no matter how good the geological evidence might be. That is, under Flood geology not a single pre-Pleistocene glacial, varved or desert deposit is permitted to exist. While geologists consider a wide variety of possibilities to explain the depositional environment of a rock, YEC biblical dictates automatically throw out most hypotheses without giving them appropriate and thorough consideration. Flood geology creates a totally inflexible, dictatorial, and anti-scientific approach to the sedimentary record.

Although some young-Earth creationists (YECs) believe that certain sedimentary rocks must have been deposited during the brief periods before or after the Flood (e.g., Whitmore, 2006a,b,c), most YECs still try to force all or nearly all of the sedimentary record into a year-long Flood with disastrous results for their religious agenda. Contrary to the hopes of Oard (2009a, p. 120-121), Flood geology just doesn’t have enough time to explain the geologic record (for example, see: “Flood Geology Loses Its Power and is in the Dark” and for additional specifics see: “How Could the Castile Formation have Ever Formed during Noah's Flood?”). In contrast, actualism has more than enough time and energy.

No Time to Spare in Flood Geology

Both theistic evolutionist Glen Morton and I have raised serious questions about the veracity of Flood Geology and a worldwide Flood. Mr. Oard claims that I am mistaken to assume that the Flood had “uniform conditions” (Oard 2009a, p. 120). He also states that Glen Morton’s views of the Flood “distort the truth by oversimplification” (Oard 2009c, p. 246). But, how can Mr. Oard make these claims when he cannot tell us in suitable detail what the chemistry and physical properties of his imaginary Flood were like and how they could have varied within one year? This is like arguing that there must be a large variety of colors on Santa’s sleigh or the Easter Bunny’s eggs.

Geologists have some reasonably good ideas of how the chemistry of ocean water has varied over the past 600 million years (Krauskopf and Bird, 1995, p. 579; Horita et al., 2002). Fossil communities, isotopes, the composition of ancient marine sediments and any connate water place limits on the variability of ancient ocean water chemistry. That is, limestones would not form and most organisms could not survive if the pH of seawater was ever 2. Although there are YECs, including “Hutchinson” (2009), that have speculated about some of the general chemical and physical properties of the Flood waters, they have never demonstrated that the waters actually existed and what the ranges of pH, Eh, total dissolved solids, temperature, etc. of the “Flood waters” were and how they know. Also, how could any liquid water exist when an enormous amount of heat would have been released by supposed widespread volcanism and catastrophic plate tectonics during the Flood? Furthermore, how was the Flood capable of rapidly moving sand from the Appalachians to Arizona, but still become tranquil enough within one year to allow for the precipitation of thousands of delicate water-soluble varves in the nearby Castile Formation? (See: “How Could the Castile Formation have Ever Formed during Noah's Flood?”) As usual, Oard (2009a; 2009b) and the other authors in Oard and Reed (2009) utterly fail to provide any specifics and answer these critical questions.

The Flood also suffers from a severe lack of time. That is, how does Oard (2009c, p. 246-247) know that “particular areas [during the Flood] at particular times would have been quite violent” while “the water would have been much less so at other places and at other times, especially in the water basins and within enclosed basins”? [my emphasis] How can Mr. Oard make any claims about variable environments over time when the brief year-long Flood does not give him any time to spare? As usual, Mr. Oard cannot provide any suitable answers or evidence. He merely provides desperate arm-waving speculation without any basis in reality. Recently, Helble (2011, pp. 37-38) concisely refuted the absurdities of the “diverse Flood approach” of Oard (2009c, p. 247) with respect to the YEC problem of multiple layers of dinosaur nests and footprints in sedimentary rocks:

“To explain how dinosaur fossils and footprints could exist in Flood deposits, Oard [2009c, p. 247] maintains that ‘rapid sedimentation would have occurred early in the Flood, especially in deeper, calmer areas’ and that circulating gyres proposed by Barnette and Baumgardner would cause local drops in sea level, providing a ‘powerful force to create the temporary, yet extended, exposures of newly laid Flood sediments.’ [reference footnote omitted] Any pause in the Flood, to expose freshly laid sediments to the atmosphere and to allow floating/swimming dinosaurs to walk ashore, leave footprints, lay egg nests, and die, only compounds the problem for Flood geology because it requires even more absurd average sediment transport rates to make up for the lost deposition time. Several other young Earth/Flood geology arguments similarly collapse in the light of the sediment transport problem.”

Helble (2011) also exposes many other fatal flaws in Flood geology.

Contrary to Oard (2009a, p. 120), I'm not at fault for assuming “uniform conditions” during the Flood. I'm just trying to apply the same anti-miraculous laws of chemistry and physics to the supposed Flood that Oard (2009b) and his coauthors rely on (see “Why does Mr. Oard Embrace the Actualism Instead of Supernaturalism to Explain the Origin of Flood and Post-Flood Deposits?”). Mr. Oard is clearly at fault for proclaiming that Flood processes were diverse without being able to explain how a Flood could produce both multiple quiet and violent conditions in the same place within about one year under the actualistic processes that he both hates and embraces.

Magical Flood Waters

Oard (2009a, p. 121) also believes that one Flood year is somehow enough time to produce water that is both fresh and salty. Here is the context of a statement in my 1999 essay, which Oard (2009a, pp. 120-121) only partially quotes:

“At times, Oard’s statements exaggerate the supposed problematic relations between carbonates and glacial deposits. For example, Oard ([1997], p. 32) cites Lindsay (1970, p. 1150) and describes the Late Paleozoic Pagoda Tillite of Antarctica as having persistent beds of thin limestone averaging ‘two METERS thick.’ In reality, Lindsay (1970, p. 1150) describes the limestones as occurring in ‘very small amounts as thin persistent beds’ and on the average being only 20 CENTIMETERS thick. Oard ([1997], p. 32) clearly misread and misinterpreted Lindsay’s statements. Furthermore, strontium isotope ratios indicate that these limestones were deposited in fresh water. So, Oard will have to account for both fresh and salt waters into [sic, in] his ‘Flood’ scenario.” [Capitalization in the original; bolded italicized section quoted by Oard]

So how would a fresh water limestone form in the middle of “marine” Flood deposits? How would strontium isotopes be distributed during Noah's Flood? Oard (2009a, p. 121) can't or won't explain this problem in suitable detail. He just speculates without any evidence that Flood water chemistry would have somehow varied in space and time, the latter of which he totally lacks. The evidence continues to show that the geologic record often contains evidence of ancient environments that were too cold or too dry for Mr. Oard's Flood geology and his denials, neglect, and misquoting of the 21^st century geological literature don't change these facts. Rather than trying to twist the geologic record of the entire planet to comply with totally unrealistic interpretations of a few verses of Genesis, perhaps YECs should look at the root cause of all of their problems and get rid of their unrealistic biblical views.

References

Helble, T.K. 2011. “Sediment Transport and Coconino Sandstone: A Reality Check on Flood Geology”, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, v. 63, n.1, pp. 25-41.

Horita, J., H. Zimmermann, and H.D. Holland. 2002. “Chemical Evolution of Seawater during the Phanerozoic: Implications from the Record of Marine Evaporites,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 66, n. 21, pp. 3733-3756.

“Hutchinson” (sic, Hutchison), A.R. 2009. “Mercury Toxicity and the Genesis Flood”, chapter 3 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 29-44.

Krauskopf, K.B. and D. K. Bird. 1995. Introduction to Geochemistry, 3^rd edition, McGraw-Hill: Boston, 647pp.

Lindsay, J.F. 1970. "Depositional Environment of Paleozoic Glacial Rocks in the Central Transantarctic Mountains," Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 81, pp. 1149-1172.

Oard, M.J. 1997. Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landsides? Creation Research Society, Monograph No. 5, Chino Valley, AZ.

Oard, M.J. 2009a. “Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient 'Ice Ages'“, chapter 7 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 111-123.

Oard, M.J. 2009b. “Do Varves Contradict Biblical History?”, chapter 8 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 125-148.

Oard, M.J. 2009c. “Dinosaur Tracks, Eggs, and Bonebeds”, chapter 15 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 245-258.

Whitmore, J.H. 2006a. “The Green River Formation: A Large Post-Flood Lake System”, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 55-63.

Whitmore, J.H. 2006b. “The Geologic Setting of the Green River Formation”, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 72-78.

Whitmore, J.H. 2006c. “Difficulties with a Flood Model for the Green River Formation”, Journal of Creation, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 81-85.