The Global Flood and the Geological Column

Introduction

         The geological column has long been recognized as a potential problem for creationism. The seeming progression from superficially more “primitive” organisms to creatures considered to be “higher” on the evolutionary tree of life has puzzled creationist scientists into a state of debate and divergence. Theories abound. Some creationists caution against using the geological column at all (Woodmorappe 1999 and Reed et Froede 2003), but the various fossil-bearing rock formations, such as the Scollard Formation in Saskatchewan, clearly represent differential ecosystems and the successive layers, where they can be seen, demonstrate at least some form of transition in faunal species. How do these distinct ecosystems, captured in geological formations around the world, fit in with a Biblical framework of history?

         Creationists use secular names, like Mesozoic or Devonian, to reference strata that are normally used by secular scientists to reference ages (in hundreds of millions of years). However, for ease of use, creationists retain the names as they apply to those particular layers in the geological column, without regard for secular dates. Most creationists do not accept a age of more than about six thousand years for the age of the Earth.

The Pre-Flood Boundary: Upper Mantle

         Where the global Flood should begin in geology is not as hotly debated as where it should end, but it is still an important question. Geologist Max Hunter hypothesized that the natural cause, used by God, of the global Flood’s onset was the temporary lowering of the Earth’s gravitational constant, causing the melting and differentiation of the mantle (among other things). Additionally, he tied this frame of thought in with the decreasingly popular Canopy Theory, which states there was a layer of water suspended above the atmosphere and acknowledges the hypothesis of a rainless pre-Flood world. With all these assumptions in mind, Hunter believes that even the uppermost layers of the mantle, above the transition zone, are Flood-formed (Hunter 2000). However, most creationists now believe that it is primarily sedimentary layers that should be attributed to the Flood.

The Pre-Flood Boundary: Middle Precambrian

         In an extensive study of the geology of Israel, geologist Andrew Snelling concluded that the onset of the Flood, at least in that country, correlated with a major unconformity in the center of supposed Precambrian strata (Snelling 2010). This disrupted layer, separating two very different kinds of rock, show clear signs of catastrophic, volcanic activity. He notes that these trends are also analogous to strata of the same secular age in North America. Even more recently, Snelling and microbiologist Georgia Purdom indicate that fossil stromatolites, confirmed to be biotic, were possibly growing by day three of the creation week (Snelling et Purdom 2013). Indeed, in light of Snelling’s meticulous research on stromatolite growth and Israeli geology, it seems fairly unlikely that Max Hunter’s excessively catastrophic model played much of a part in Flood geology at all. Rather, the Flood very likely began during the Precambrian, the most basal member of the geological column.

The Flood Deposits

         Exactly how the floodwaters progressed in biological effect on the earth in the inundation period of the Flood remained almost completely unaddressed until the 21^st century. Geologist Kurt Wise noticed the correlation while studying coal formation (Wise 2008). He recognized that the secular geological column, at least up to the Mesozoic (dinosaur-bearing strata), correlated well with the shift of habitat from marine to inland. To Wise, the majority of stromatolites were buried as the continental edges collapsed during the earliest stages of the Flood. Cambrian, Silurian, Ordovician, and Devonian sea life died in a similar way, buried as shallower portions of the continental shelf collapsed. As the floodwaters progressed, they soon broke down the “floating forest” swamp-life of the Carboniferous, the coastal dunes of the Permian, and, finally, the inland regions, represented by the Mesozoic. It is an amazing revelation; so obvious it is a wonder other creationists did not recognize it before. But why should Wise stop at the Mesozoic, the last layers dinosaur fossils are found? Why did he exclude the Cenozoic, a predominantly mammal-fossil series, from his model? It seems Wise assumed the end of the Mesozoic was the end of the Flood, a stance that is surprisingly controversial.

The Post-Flood Boundary: Early to Late Paleozoic

         Creationists have, for the most part, been supportive of the majority of the fossil record as Flood-deposited. Some of the early attempts to define the post-Flood boundary by creationists are very presumptive. In particular, the presence of animal tracks in sedimentary layers was understood to be a serious challenge to a Flood interpretation. Paul Garner and many other creationists propagated the idea that fossilized tracks and nests could not have been formed during the global Flood, under the assumption that floodwaters would obliterate them (Garner 1996 and Garner et al. 2003). Thus, they concluded that the Flood must have ended at the Paleozoic (beneath dinosaur-bearing strata) and Mesozoic junctions or even as deep as the Devonian strata, where animal tracks are reportedly found. The idea that all sedimentary layers above the Paleozoic has not been accepted well by many creationists because it seemed to fail to take into account the immense amount of sedimentary strata overlaying the Paleozoic deposits. In fact, creationists have confirmed that certain formations, such as the Tapeats Sandstone, have analogous layers in the United States and Israel (Snelling 2010b). Therefore, most scientists agree that at least the majority of the geologic column was formed during the global Flood.

The Post-Flood Boundary: Late Cenozoic

         With a Paleozoic post-Flood boundary doubtful, some authors concluded that all sedimentary layers were deposited during the Flood, pushing the date to the opposite extreme in the uppermost Cenozoic (Holt 1996 and Froede et Reed 1999). More contemporary articles have agreed with this stance, including many published by atmospheric scientist Michael Oard. By developing a set of criterion, such as sedimentation or fossilization independent of the geologic column, Oard concluded that most fossils were formed during the Flood, including many of those considered to be from the Cenozoic layers (Oard 2007). But should the geological column be taken so lightly? Oard’s desire to be uninfluenced by secular thinking may have caused him to make a flawed assumption: no large catastrophes took place after the Flood.

The Post-Flood Boundary: K/T

         Possibly the most widespread theory on the post-Flood boundary is that the Cretaceous (end of the Mesozoic)/Tertiary (Cenozoic) boundary correlates roughly to the end of the Flood. This darkened layer, conventionally believed to mark the place of a giant asteroid impact or volcanic eruption, is commonly referred to the K/T boundary. One of the most powerful evidences for a K/T post-Flood boundary is the distribution of the geological formations. Many of the formations in the Mesozoic, under the K/T, are distributed across multiple continents, while those in the Cenozoic, tend to be more localized, a fact acknowledged even by proponents of a later post-Flood boundary (Oard 2010a). But there are some serious objections to this interpretation.

         Michael Oard continues to be strongly apposed to the K/T boundary as the end of the Flood. Oard believes that widespread erosion and volcanic activity evidenced in Cenozoic layers means they must have been deposited during the Flood (Oard 2011). In particular, Oard annually discovers examples of uplift in Cenozoic strata (Oard 2012, Oard 2013b, Oard 2013c). However, the uplift of these regions, demonstrated by the slant of the sediments exposed on hillsides, could still be explained as a post-Flood event. In each of Oard’s articles he seems to assume that the world returned to a tranquil sate relatively rapidly after the Flood. Both late Cenozoic and K/T proponents agree that the Flood, being a worldwide event, was amazingly catastrophic. One of the prominent after affects of the Flood would be continental unrest, involving much volcanism, and perhaps uplift. Catastrophic erosion would also be expected in the years after the Flood since large inland lakes, restrained by natural dams, broke free (Snelling et Vail 2010 and Oard 2000).

         Another question brought up by Oard is, if the Cenozoic is post-Flood, why are mammals primarily absent from supposed Flood deposits (Oard 2010b)? This question is not unanswerable from the K/T proponent’s perspective, though. For example, the Bible clearly portrays people in abundance before the global Flood but no human fossils are found in Mesozoic or Paleozoic layers. Perhaps the ecosystems hosting mammals were concentrated in only a few locations, like humans, and did not chance to be in favorable location for fossilization (such as a mountain top). Indeed, creationist paleontologist Marcus Ross observed clear biological succession of the kinds of animals present in each layer in North American Cenozoic strata (Ross 2012). He noticed that each successive formation contained, primarily, the same mammal genera as the layer below it. However, in each successive layer, there were a few new genera that had been absent in the underlying strata. This progressed to the point of nearly completely contemporary genera in the uppermost layers, indicating a clear succession of environments into the present. This is powerful evidence that the Cenozoic is not, in fact, attributable to the global Flood, which describes all life dying off, but, rather, the colonization of the planet just prior to the Ice Age. Michael Oard published a rebuttal of Ross’ paper (Oard 2013a) but used essentially the same arguments he has since the early 2000s.

         Proponents of a K/T post-Flood boundary often recognize the clear climatic changes throughout the Cenozoic layers as the earth reputably became cooler, approaching the Ice Age. However, Oard points out that evolutionists make such claims of progressive climatic change for Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata as well. The environmental objection has a simple explanation, though, since Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata tend to be more geologically disrupted, the evidence often quoted for climatic change in those layers is not nearly as substantiated as for the Cenozoic.

The Post Flood Boundary: Mantle

         Some creationists carry the idea of paleobiotic succession even farther, suggesting that the geologic column represents a succession of ecosystems that developed progressively after the global Flood (Robinson 1996). However, proponents of that view are faced with similar problems as secular scientists, such as the worldwide distribution of certain geologic formations. Additionally, the vast extent and depth of the geological layers in some places means additional time to the age of the Earth, beyond the exegetical six thousand, needs to be invoked. Because of that many advocates of the Recolonization Theory do not take the Biblical genealogies absolutely literally and extend the age of the Earth to around twenty thousand years.

Conclusion

Creationist scientists have postulated many theories on how the geological column should be considered in light of Biblical Flood geology. Exactly how lithology correlates to the global Flood is a very inexact science, since it was not observable. Ultimately, every geologic formation should be analyzed independently and creationists should never presume that the Flood correlates exclusively to any member of the secular geological column. Creationists should be cautious accepting secular conclusions, such as the geologic column, paleofaunal succession, or climatic change.

There are two primary creationist views on the post-Flood boundary. Atmospheric scientist Michael Oard has written consistently and extensively, arguing for a late Cenozoic post-Flood boundary and demonstrating many evidences that do point to certain Cenozoic formations as Flood deposits. However, paleontologist Marcus Ross has recently begun to publish convincing arguments for an end to the Flood closer to the K/T boundary. Therefore, in light of Ross’ paleontological analysis of genera in the Cenozoic and the habitat distinction between pre and post K/T boundary, the end of the Mesozoic likely correlates at least partially to the end of deposition stage of the Flood. Both Oard and Ross have arranged excellent perspectives on the geological column and either one is a logical and absolutely possible explanation for the geological column. The location of the post-Flood boundary is certainly not “set in stone.”

         References

Froede, C.R., Jr. and Reed K.J. 1999. “Assessing creationist stratigraphy with evidence from the Gulf of Mexico”. Creation Research Society Quarterly 36(2):51-60.

Garner, P. 1996. “Where is the Flood/post-Flood boundary? Implications of dinosaur nests in the Mesozoic”. Technical Journal 10(1):101-106.

Garner, P.A., M. Garton, R.H. Johnston, S.J. Robinson, and D.J. Tyler. 2003. “Dinosaur footprints, fish traces, and the Flood”. Technical Journal 17(1):54-59.

Holt, R.D. 1996. “Evidence for a late Cainozoic Flood/post-Flood boundary”. Technical Journal 10(1):128-167.

Hunter, M.J. 2000. “The pre-Flood/Flood boundary at the base of the earth’s transition zone”. Technical Journal 14(1):60-74.

Oard, M.J. 2000. “Only one Lake Missoula flood”. Technical Journal 14(2):14-17.

Oard, M.J. 2007. “Defining the Flood/post-Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks”. Journal of Creation 21(1):98-110.

Oard, M.J. 2010a. “Is the K/T the post-Flood boundary?—part 1: introduction and the scale of sedimentary rocks”. Journal of Creation 24(2):95-104.

Oard, M.J. 2010b. “Is the K/T the post-Flood boundary?—part 2: paleoclimates and fossils”. Journal of Creation 24(3):87-93.

Oard, M.J. 2011. “Is the K/T the post-Flood boundary?—part 3: volcanism and plate tectonics”. Journal of Creation 25(1):57-62.

Oard, M.J. 2012. “The Uinta Mountains and the Flood: part I. Geology”. Creation Research Society Quarterly 49(2):109-121.

Oard, M.J. 2013a. “Geology indicates the terrestrial Flood/post-Flood boundary is mostly in the Late Cenozoic”. Journal of Creation 27(1):119-127.

Oard, M.J. 2013b. “Surficial continental erosion places the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the late Cenozoic”. Journal of Creation 27(2):62-70.

Oard, M.J. 2013c. “The Uinta Mountains and the Flood: part II. Geomorphology”. Creation Research Society Quarterly 49(3):180-196

Reed, J.K. and C.R. Froede Jr. 2003. “The uniformitarian stratigraphic column—shortcut or pitfall for creation geology?”. Creation Research Society Quarterly 40(2):90-98.

Robinson, S.J. 1996. “Can Flood geology explain the fossil record?”. Technical Journal 10(1):32-69.

Ross, M.R. 2012. “Evaluating potential post-Flood boundaries with biostratigraphy—the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary”. Journal of Creation 26(2):82-87.

Snelling, A.A. 2010a. “The geology of Israel within the Biblical Creation-Flood framework of history: 1. The pre-flood rocks”. Answers Research Journal 3:165-190. https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/geology_Israel_pre-Flood.pdf (accessed October 10, 2014).

Snelling, A.A. 2010b. “The geology of Israel within the Biblical Creation-Flood framework of history: 2. The flood rocks”. Answers Research Journal 3:267-309. https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/geology_Israel_Flood.pdf (accessed October 10, 2014).

Snelling, A. and G. Purdom. 2013. “Survey of microbial composition and mechanisms of living stromatolites of the Bahamas and Australia: developing criteria to determine the biogenicity of fossil stromatolites”. Answers in Depth 8. https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/survey-of-microbial-composition-and-mechanisms-of-living-stromatolites-of-the-bahamas-and-australia-/ (accessed October 9, 2014).

Snelling, A.A. and T. Vail. 2010. “When and how did the Grand Canyon form?”. In: Ham, K. ed. The New Answers Book 3. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 173-185.

Wise, K. 2008. “Sinking a floating forest”. Answers 3(4):40-45.

Woodmorappe, J. 1999. Studies in Flood Geology: A Compilation of Research Studies Supporting Creation and the Flood. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research.