Friday, November 23, 2012

Real Geology vs. “Flood Geology” via eSkeptic

Real Geology vs. “Flood Geology”


ny time you read creationist attempts to claim Noah’s flood was real, they point to the Grand Canyon or cherry-pick a flood event in a local region and claim there was once a giant flood that could cover the entire earth. Such claims show that creationists not only don’t know much about real geology and have never looked at very many real outcrops, but also that they don’t know history.

First of all, all geologists before 1800 were creationists and devout Christians who believed that the rocks they were studying were deposits of Noah’s flood. But by 1840, they had completely rejected the idea of a global flood because the rock record clearly didn’t support the idea. The Noah’s flood story was rejected by creationists based on the actual hard evidence over 170 years ago, and no geologist with legitimate training and any real experience in the real rock record has taken it seriously since then. The reason is simple: there are no flood deposits in most parts of the world that could reasonably be connected to Noah’s flood, and 99% of the rock record (including the Grand Canyon) are not flood deposits whatsoever. As I explained in my 2007 book, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters (pp. 58–64):

The first detailed attempt [to revive the “Noah’s flood geology” model] came from a Seventh-Day Adventist schoolteacher named George Macready Price, who published a series of books starting in 1902. Price had no formal training or experience in geology or paleontology, and in fact attended only a few college classes at a tiny Adventist college. But inspired by Ellen G. White, the prophetess and founder of the Seventh-Day Adventist movement, he dreamed up an explanation called “flood geology” and aggressively promoted it for more than sixty years until his death in 1963. According to Price, the Flood accounted for all of the fossil record, with the helpless invertebrates being buried first, and the larger land animals floating to the top to be buried in higher strata, or fleeing the floodwaters to higher ground.

Ignorant of history or geology, Price was unaware of the fact that religious geologists had believed in a Noachian deluge explanation of the fossil record in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but abandoned it when their own work showed it to be impossible—long before evolution came on the scene. The most famous geological treatise of the seventeenth century, The Sacred Theory of the Earth, by Reverend Thomas Burnet, dealt with the problem of the Noachian Deluge explaining the rock record. Burnet, unlike the modern creationists, did not fall back on the supernatural. Although others urged him to resort to miracles, Burnet declared: “They say in short that God Almighty created waters on purpose to make the Deluge…. And this, in a few words, is the whole account of the business. This is to cut the knot when we cannot loose it.”

In Price’s later years, his bizarre ideas about geology were generally ignored as embarrassments by most creationists (see Numbers, 1992, pp. 89–101). Most subscribed to the “day-age” idea of Genesis, where the “days” of scripture were geologic “ages,” and did not try to contort all the evidence of geology into a simplistic flood model. Some disciples of Price actually tried to test his ideas and look at the rocks for themselves, which Price apparently never bothered to do. In 1938, Price’s follower Harold W. Clark “at the invitation of one of his students visited the oil fields of Oklahoma and northern Texas and saw with his own eyes why geologists believed as they did. Observations of deep drilling and conversations with practical geologists gave him a ‘real shock’ that permanently erased any confidence in Price’s vision of a topsy-turvy fossil record” (Numbers, 1992, p. 125). Clark wrote to Price:

The rocks do lie in a much more definite sequence than we have ever allowed. The statements made in the New Geology [Price’s term for “flood geology”] do not harmonize with the conditions in the field… All over the Middle West the rocks lie in great sheets extending over hundreds of miles, in regular order. Thousands of well cores prove this. In East Texas alone are 25,000 deep wells. Probably well over 100,000 wells in the Midwest give data that have been studied and correlated. The science has become a very exact one, and millions of dollars are spent in drilling, with the paleontological findings of the company geologists taken as the basis for the work. The sequence of microscopic fossils in the strata is very remarkably uniform … The same sequence is found in America, Europe, and anywhere that detailed studies have been made. This oil geology has opened up the depths of the earth in a way that we never dreamed of twenty years ago. (quoted in Numbers, 1992, p. 125)

Clark’s statement is a classic example of a reality check shattering the fantasy world of the flood geologists. Unfortunately, most creationists do not seek scientific reality. They prefer to speculate from their armchairs and read simplified popular books about fossils and rocks, rather than go out in the field and do the research themselves, or do the hard work of getting the necessary advanced training in geology and paleontology.

In the 1950s the young seminarian John C. Whitcomb tried to revive Price’s ideas yet again. When Douglas Block, a devout and sympathetic friend with geological training, reviewed Whitcomb’s manuscript, he “found Price’s recycled arguments almost more than he could stomach. ‘It would seem,’ wrote the upset geologist, ‘that somewhere along the line there would have been a genuinely well-trained geologist who would have seen the implications of flood-geology, and, if tenable, would have worked them into a reasonable system that was positive rather than negative in character.’ He assured Whitcomb that he and his colleagues at Wheaton [College, an evangelical school] were not ignoring Price. In fact, they required every geology student to read at least one of his books, and they repeatedly tested his ideas in seminars and in the field. By the time Block finished Whitcomb’s manuscript, he had grown so agitated he offered to drive down to instruct Whitcomb on the basics of historical geology” (Numbers, 1992, p. 190).

In 1961, Whitcomb and hydraulic engineer Henry Morris publishedThe Genesis Flood, where they rehashed Price’s notions with a little twist or two of their own. Their main contribution was the idea of hydraulic sorting by Noah’s flood, where the flood would bury the heavier shells of marine invertebrates and fishes in the lower levels, followed by more advanced animals such as amphibians, reptiles (including dinosaurs) fleeing to intermediate levels, and finally the “smart mammals” would climb to the highest levels to escape the rising floodwaters before they are buried.

The first time a professional geologist or paleontologist reads this weird scenario, they cannot help but be amazed at its naiveté. Price, Whitcomb and Morris apparently never spent any time collecting fossils or rocks. What their model is trying to explain is a cartoon, an oversimplication drawn for kiddie books—not any real stratigraphic sequence of fossils documented in science. Those simplistic diagrams with the invertebrates at the bottom, the dinosaurs in the middle, and the mammals on top bear no real resemblance to any local sequence on earth. In fact, those cartoons show only the first appearance of invertebrates, dinosaurs, and mammals, not their order of fossilization in the rock record (since invertebrates are obviously still with us, and are found in all strata from the bottom to the top). This diagram is an abstraction based on the complex three-dimensional pattern of rocks from all over the world. In a few extraordinary places, such as the Grand Canyon, Zion, and Bryce National Parks in Utah and Arizona, we have a fairly continuous sequence of a long stretch of geologic time, so we know the true order in which rocks and fossils stack one on top of another. But even in that sequence, we have “dumb” marine ammonites, clams, and snails from the Cretaceous Mancos Shale found on top of“smarter, faster” amphibians and reptiles (including dinosaurs) from the Triassic and Jurassic Moenkopi, Chinle, Kayenta, and Navajo formations.

Just to the north, in the Utah-Wyoming border region, the middle Eocene Green River Shale yields famous fish fossils have been quarried by commercial collectors for almost a century. The Green River Shale produces fossils not only of freshwater fish, but also freshwater clams and snails, frogs, crocodiles, birds, and land plants. The rocks are finely laminated shale diagnostic of deposition in quiet water over thousands of years, with fossil mud cracks and salts formed by complete evaporation of the water. These fossils and sediments are all characteristic of a lake deposit which occasionally dried up, not a giant flood. These Green River fish fossils lie abovethe famous dinosaur-bearing beds of the upper Jurassic Morrison Formation in places such as Dinosaur National Monument, and above many of the mammal-bearing beds of the lower Eocene Wasatch Formation as well, so once again the fish and invertebrates are found above the supposedly smarter and faster dinosaurs and mammals.

If you think hard about it, why should we expect that marine invertebrates or fish would drown at all? They are, after all, adapted to marine waters, and many are highly mobile when the sediment is shifting. As Stephen Jay Gould put it:

Surely, somewhere, at least one courageous trilobite would have paddled on valiantly (as its colleagues succumbed) and won a place in the upper strata. Surely, on some primordial beach, a man would have suffered a heart attack and been washed into the lower strata before intelligence had a chance to plot a temporary escape….No trilobite lies in the upper strata because they all perished 225 million years ago. No man keeps lithified company with a dinosaur, because we were still 60 million years in the future when the last dinosaur perished. (Gould, 1984, p. 132)
In addition to the examples just given, there are hundreds of other places in the world where the “dumb invertebrates” that supposedly drowned in the initial stages of the rising flood are found on top of “smarter, faster land animals,” including many places in the Atlantic Coast of the United States, in Europe, and in Asia, where marine shell beds overlie those bearing land mammals. In some places, like the Calvert Cliffs of Chesapeake Bay in Maryland or Sharktooth Hill near Bakersfield, California, the land mammal fossils and the marine shells are all mixed together, and there are also beds with marine shellsabove and below those containing land mammals! How could that make any sense with the “rising flood waters” of the creationist model?

In short, the “flood geology” model was rejected by trained, experienced geologists (who also happened to be creationists) over 170 years ago, and has not been taken seriously since then. Real geology has proven enormously powerful, for without it we would not have the fossils in our museums or our understanding of geologic history. Without it, we would never find oil, gas, coal, or many other economic deposits that are based on understanding real geology, not theological fantasies. If “flood geology” were still in use by real geologists, we would have none of these benefits.

Gould, S.J. 1994. “Hooking Leviathan by its Past,” pp. 375–396, in Gould, S.J.,Dinosaur in a Haystack. W.W. Norton, New York.
Numbers, R. 1992. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. Knopf, New York.
Prothero, D.R. 2007. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters. Columbia University Press, New York.
Whitcomb, J.C., Jr., and H.M. Morris. 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Nutley, NJ.


  1. The website below shows the discovery of plenty of seashells on mountains top:

    The discovery of seashells on mountains top provides the evidence of the existence of a Great Flood in the past. The absence of sea surrounding each mountain provides the truth that it is irrational to have seashells on mountains top especially they could only be available around the sea. It is also irrational to comment that seashells could climb up the mountains to reach its top. Apparently there should be a Great Flood occurred in the past with great sea waves that had caused that mountains top to bring forth plenty of seashells.

    If there were no great flood occurred in the past, why should there be plenty of seashells located on mountains top then?

    1. this nonsense only proves your complete ignorance of the geological processes that form mountains. Have a look at this and it becomes clear how shells can be found on mountain tops:

    2. You contradict yourself, Zuma. The fossils you describe are found much higher than the mammalian fossils "flood geologists" claim must be found on top of the marine fossils.

  2. Seashells on mountain tops can be explained by plate tectonics. Continental collisions are what formed such mountain ranges as the Himalayas. When the two continents collided, it brought up the sea floor (as depicted in the gif that was provided above). There are mounds of evidence to support plate tectonics. Starting with the answer and working backward is a very ineffective method of inquiry, which is what you've done here in immediately assuming seashells were atop the mountain as a result of a worldwide flood.. I definitely suggest studying plate tectonics with an open mind and you will discover how easy it really is to grasp.

    1. Ok. But what's filled the empty space underneath where mountain ranges now are. Whole continents even? Does the corresponding drop in the sea floor match the rise of land mass the last billion years? Was the world once a shallow sea, no mountains, no continents, no deep sea floor? How shallow? To shallow to prevent a vapor atmosphere? And which came first, water or sky? What kind of weather would that have produced? This and endless other questions to this point remain. Id like to see a time model of how the altitude of earths geography has changed since the earth was supposedly a single continent to comprehend the seeminly foolish notions of geologists that disprove the flood. Kinda seems geologists and Bible beaters are both "unscientifically" religious to their own dogmatic views. Neither can really explain much of anything. Both claim to know. How foolish to presume with as little we really know. I can tell you one thing as fact. The pair of sissors I own was manufactured by some endeavor of mankind I have never witnessed. Can you prove me wrong? I can in the same way recognize a bigger hand at work in all of nature and geology. How and when no one can fathom or ever see.

  3. I won't waste too much time or energy refuting this hypocritical tripe. The claim that an all creationist band of geologists collectively abandoned creationism in the light of newfound hard evidence constitutes a humongous generalization that bears little resemblance to historical fact. I'm afraid the story is a lot more complicated than that. Research Hutton, Playfair and Lyells in conjunction with Lamarck, Blythe, and Darwin to see what I mean. Either the author's grasp on history isn't any better than those he ridicules or he is being purposely deceptive. Furthermore, the assertion that creationist geologists with legitimate training and real experience no longer exist is utter fallacy; contrary to popular opinion, they do indeed exist to this day. On another note, I counter the authors hypocritical statement identifying creationists as contemptuous "cherry-pickers" with this challenge: Show me a uniformitarian or naturalist who doesn't propagate evidence supporting their argument while underemphasizing or omitting that which doesn't, and I'll show you the mystically perfect being who doesn't cherry-pick because he doesn't exist. Show me an example of evolution that isn't a mere instance of speciation; bring to my attention one credible transitional fossil; Relay to me a fact proving the validity of macroevolution that is not merely a disguised supposition or inference based on indirect evidence; introduce me to someone who can realistically demonstrate that their "knowing" that molecules to man macroevolution is indeed fact and not actually based on blind faith; and I'll shut my mouth and go home. And for the love of God, please stop perpetuating the false idea that certainty is obtainable when dealing with unobservable (therefore untestable) theories; in such cases, all you have are probabilities, and don't deny that your presuppositions decide your interpretation of the evidence. My advice to curious readers is to put on their big boy/girl pants and research BOTH sides of the origins debate. Don't ridicule the faith of those who say they believe in God and answer an inquiry of why with "because the Bible tells me so" and then justify a belief in atheistic evolution by spouting "because the scientists tell me so." Here's a link to get you started: If you choose not to research the issue and conclude for yourself but rather prefer to sheepishly rely on biased people like the author of this article to tell you what you believe, then your opinion has no value anyway; consequently, your glib comments demonstrating your superficial understanding will continue to reveal you to be an ignoramus.

    1. It's interesting Ken that you write an encyclopedia-length essay with no paragraph breaks, hinting that there's science behind your position, then you link to an "institute" that requires its "scientists" to sign a statement of faith declaring any evidence that contradicts scripture (itself riddled with contradictions and errors) is automatically wrong -- before they even see the evidence.


    This guy seems legitimately trained and experienced

  5. If you do not believe in God... I feel very sorry for your dumb ass xD lol

    1. Hi, We should feel sorry for these people who claim God doesn't exist or the flood didn't happen worldwide.

  6. Are you aware of have even an inkling of how worms prove that Earth is young and The Flood really was was worldwide event just 4,400 years ago?

  7. People will believe what they want of course. Me? I choose to believe the truth of God and what His Holy Word tells us .... that at one point He was sorry for creating man because we were bent on sinning, so He decided to destroy all life on Earth except for the only righteous man He could find ... and His family. By the way something similar is ready to go down again. Yes God is love but He's also filled with wrath for what the whole world has become. This is what we are soon to be 'saved' from ... that is if you have accepted the only provision that God has provided .. the blood of Jesus.