When it comes to Noah’s flood, some believe it really happened exactly as the Bible describes, others try to explain it away as a smaller, local event, and still others consider it mythology. But this debate isn’t just about history or geology—it’s about whether we take God at His word or bow to the shifting opinions of men. That’s why this discussion matters so much.
In Part One of this series, I explored reasons why some doubt a global flood and the ramifications for such disbelief. Now, in Part Two, I’ll dig deeper—looking at more reasons, some historical context, and ultimately, why this matters for our faith today.
Atheists openly deny God, so it makes sense that they also deny His judgment in the flood. To them, the event is reduced to something ordinary, stripped of divine purpose. Instead of reading the earth’s geology through the lens of Scripture, they reinterpret it through billions of years of natural processes. No God. No judgment. Just rocks and time.
The tragedy is that many Christians have absorbed this same secular thinking. I don’t fault anyone— it’s what most of us were taught in school. Still, when Christians begin to question the plain meaning of Genesis, they often conclude that the Bible is wrong or misinterpreted, rather than consider that secular geologists might be mistaken.
But here’s the key: scientists are wrong all the time. According to a 2016 Nature survey, about 50% of scientists had failed to replicate others’ published results. And it’s not uncommon to find reports of science being overturned by new evidence. So it’s important to realize that what changes isn’t the science or evidence, but our interpretation. That’s why we need a healthy, sober view of science. We should be skeptical—especially about claims concerning the distant past, which no one alive today can directly observe.
When Christians reinterpret Genesis to align with secular science, they turn the Bible upside down. Instead of trusting God’s revelation, they treat human reasoning as the higher authority. That’s backwards. The Bible has always been clear about the flood. The author, the people of that time, other biblical writers, Jesus, and the early church fathers—affirmed it as a global event. This was the traditional view, and nobody questioned it until the 1600s, when men like Isaac Vossius began bending the text under the pressure of old earth geology. He suggested that phrases like “all the earth” could mean only the known world of the ancient Near East. But notice this: he didn’t arrive at that conclusion from Scripture. He was influenced by the geologists of his time who were beginning to propose long ages. In other words, he allowed secular philosophy—not the Bible—to set the terms of interpretation.
Some argue that God has given us two books: the Bible and the book of nature. But the issue with this idea comes when “nature” is interpreted through a worldview that denies God. The Bible is God’s special revelation and the highest authority. This is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura: God’s Word alone is sufficient, infallible, and our highest authority. If the Bible plainly teaches a global flood, then that should settle the matter.
I understand why atheists reject the flood. They don’t believe in God, so they’re left to invent their own origin story—what I would call secular mythology. But it’s a serious problem when Christians adopt the same assumptions. To deny a global flood is to compromise the authority of Scripture and, in effect, side with atheistic philosophies against God’s revelation.
I know this firsthand. For years, I accepted an old earth because that’s what I thought the evidence demanded. But when I began to study Scripture and its theology more carefully, I realized I had it backward. God’s Word must come first. Once I saw that, the evidence made far more sense. Geology, history, and theology lined up with clarity.
Here’s the bottom line: when Christians give more authority to secular science than to Scripture, they weaken the very foundation of their faith. But when we let God’s Word be our lens for interpreting the world, everything becomes clearer—not only the past, but our confidence in the future God has promised.
The flood is about trust. Will we trust the shifting opinions of man—or the eternal Word of God?
sixdaysblog 
Curious how christians themselves can’t agree on when, where, how and if the magic flood happened. That’s what occurs when you have no evidence for your claims.
” We should be skeptical—especially about claims concerning the distant past, which no one alive today can directly observe.”
why yes we should, and surprise, that means that the claims of theists of magic that happened in the past are up for analysis. Curious how they have no evidence at all for their imaginary friends.
If there was a world-wide, 28,000+ foot deep flood as described in the bible, there would be one massive layer at the appropriate time, a time that christians can’t agree on. We see no such thing.
In this layer would be everything that was torn up, and it would be sorted by hydraulic characteristics. We don’t see that either. What we do see is that fossils are arranged by complexity, just like evolutionary theory predicts.
Curoius how reality rejects the lies of theism, when we see layers of salts, which the magic flood can’t make.
No need to trust the baseless claims of a cult.
as for “shifting opinions”, funny how chistianity has splintered constantly for 2000+ years, and not one self-professed christian can do what their jesus promised. It seems that all christians have are “shifting opinions of man”.
I’ll gladly explain why there’s not complete unity among Christians regarding the flood. It’s called sin. Humans are sinful creatures, and we’re rebellious. That’s why. If all Christians were to embrace Scripture faithfully, we’d be in agreement. Interestingly, Christians were in agreement for thousands of years, and that only changed when people began to be indoctrinated by secular ideas, which is why I mentioned Vossius.
Another point to make is that atheists aren’t unified. There are many cosmologies for the origin of the universe, and many are competing to replace the Big Bang. So, according to your logic, this is what happens when you have no evidence for your claims. Right?
Even the geologic column is disputed among geologists. It’s not rigid or unchanging. Changes occur when new evidence is discovered. There are disputes over interpretations, boundaries, and regional variations. For instance, the Precambrian – Cambrian boundary has been changed since the 1990’s from 570 mya to 541 mya. I guess this means secular science is wrong.
On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that there was a global flood, such as the geologic column and fossils buried all over the earth, just as is predicted by a global flood. So, yes, the past is up for analysis. Thankfully, we have God’s word, and the physical evidence aligns perfectly. It’s as if God left behind layers of evidence for his existence!
I disagree there would be one massive layer if there had been a global flood. Obviously, we can’t recreate the flood, but it makes more sense that with all the earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanism, plate tectonics, meteor showers, rain, storms, etc., there would be many layers worldwide, over great distances, sorted by hydraulic characteristics, and this is what we find.
In science, there is no such thing as consensus. There is no universal agreement on anything, including geology. So your bias is glaring.
Funny, when I discuss evolution with evolutionists, one of the things they tell me is that evolution doesn’t happen by increasing complexity, and if I don’t agree, then I don’t understand evolution. Therefore, based on such logic, you don’t understand how evolution works. The fossil record is not arranged by complexity. According to evolutionary theory, the fossil record is described as a chronological sequence of life, generally showing increased biological diversity over time, reflecting descent with modification from common ancestors. Not linear complexity.
If you were correct, then you would have refuted evolution because the fossil record contains many exceptions to your rule of complexity. For instance, from the Ediacaran period, Dickinsonia, a complex multicellular organism appears before sponges, which are far simpler. And jawed fish appear almost 100 million years before jawless fish! If you were correct, then evolutionary predictions are a failure, and evolution has been refuted. Thanks for playing.
No, Jonathan, you’ll gladly make up BS to try to excuse why you cultists can’t agree.
You claim to blame “sin” when chritians can’t agree on what their bible actually means, and yep, you attack other christains for not agreeing with your baseless assertions. You each claim to be the only ones who “embrace scripture faithfully”, and yet again, not one of you frauds can show that your version is the right one, nor can any of you do what jesus promised in your bible. Unsurprisingly, Christians have not been agreement at any point in their history since they splintered per your bible right with the apostles and paul. As for Vossius, curious how he’s just another cultist who can’t show that his version is any better than the rest.
It’s hilarious when a Christian claims that “atheists aren’t unified”. Actually we are in what makes us atheists, so your attempt to claim “but but you aren’t any better than us” is quite a lie. I always enjoy when a christian fails miserably in trying to turn my arguments back on me.
Curious how you can’t show that the geologic column is “disputed” among geologists. Unsurprisingly, you have no more than the typical fail of a creationist who has nothing. Yep, new evidence changes things. Your magic flood is still a lie. And it’s always sweet when a creationist tries to claim that since there was a change of five percent in age that is important.
Funny how you have no evidence at all for your magic 28,000+ foot deep global flood. The geologic column shows that it is a lie since your magic flood would have made one massive layer, not the many layers we see, each sorted within itself. A very simple experiment can be done to show that creationists are liars. Just take a clear container and add sediment of various sizes to it and add water. Shake violently and allow to settle. Curious how one doesn’t get distinct layers at all. Now, if you do the same and slowly add different sediments, you get layers like what we see in reality.
Fossils also show that there was no magical flood since they are sorted by complexity. If your flood was true, they would be sorted by hydraulic characteristics and we don’t see that at all. We also have salt layers which would not form in your magic flood, we have layers with desiccation cracks on their upper surfaces, we have animal tracks on their upper surfaces, etc. All of which shows that the flood myth is false.
So your lie that the physical evidence aligns perfectly shows your perfect ignorance.
No one cares what a liar disagrees about since he can’t show that his lie is true. We can indeed recreate the chacteristics of the flood as described in your cult’s book and surprise, you don’t get multiple layers. Alas for your lies, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanism, plate tectonics, meteor showers, rain, storms, etc would not have changed what the flood supposedly did. It’s hilarious how you try to use what I say and have no idea what it means.
In science there is often consensus and it’s so sweet to see a christain show how much he needs to lie. That’s why we have scientific laws, and scientific theories.
You have no idea what evolutionary theory even says, dear, so when you try to discuss your lies with people who do know the theory, you fail. Evolution happens in many ways, and as always you have no idea what they are.
Unsurprsingly, evolutionary theory says that the fossil record shows change in populations over time. It does not require increased diversity, and descent with modification doesn’t always increase complexity. So you fail as always.
It’s hilarious how you then try to sound smart by mentioning various organisms.
“Dickinsonia is a genus of extinct organism that lived during the late Ediacaran period in what is now Australia, China, Russia, and Ukraine. It had a round, approximately bilaterally symmetric body with multiple segments running along it. It could range from a few millimeters to over a meter in length, and likely lived in shallow waters, feeding on the microbial mats that dominated the seascape at the time.
As a member of the Ediacaran biota, its relationships to other organisms has been heavily debated. It was initially proposed to be a jellyfish, and over the years has been claimed to be a land-dwelling lichen, placozoan, or even a giant protist. Currently, the most popular interpretation is that it was a seafloor dwelling animal, perhaps a primitive stem group bilaterian, although this is still contentious. Among other Ediacaran organisms, it shares a close resemblance to other segmented forms like Vendia, Yorgia and Spriggina and has been proposed to be a member of the phylum Proarticulata or alternatively the morphogroup Dickinsoniomorpha. It is disputed whether the segments of Dickinsonia are bilaterally symmetric across the midline, or are offset from each other via glide reflection, or possibly both.
Since the description of Dickinsonia costata in 1947 by Reginald Sprigg, eight other species have been proposed, although only two others—Dickinsonia tenuis and Dickinsonia menneri—are widely considered valid.” – Wikipedia
“Although molecular clocks and biomarkers suggest sponges existed well before the Cambrian explosion of life, silica spicules like those of demosponges are absent from the fossil record until the Cambrian.[90] An unsubstantiated 2002 report exists of spicules in rocks dated around 750 million years ago.[91] Well-preserved fossil sponges from about 580 million years ago in the Ediacaran period have been found in the Doushantuo Formation.” – Wikipedia
Unsurprisngly, you are also wrong about fish.
“he first ancestors of fish, or animals that were probably closely related to fish, were Haikouichthys and Myllokunmingia.[6][3] These two genera all appeared around 530 Mya. Unlike the other fauna that dominated the Cambrian, these groups had the basic vertebrate body plan: a notochord, rudimentary vertebrae, and a well-defined head and tail.[7] All of these early vertebrates lacked jaws, relying instead on filter-feeding close to the seabed.[8]
These were followed by indisputable fossil vertebrates in the form of heavily armoured fish discovered in rocks from the Ordovician period (500–430 Mya).
The first jawed vertebrates appeared in the late Ordovician and became common in the Devonian, often known as the “Age of Fishes”.[9] The two groups of bony fish, the Actinopterygii and Sarcopterygii, evolved and became common.[10] The Devonian saw the demise of virtually all jawless fish, save for lampreys and hagfish, as well as the Placodermi, a group of armoured fish that dominated much of the late Silurian, and the rise of the first labyrinthodonts, transitional between fish and amphibians.[10]” evolution of fish, wikipedia
“The major events associated with jaw evolution include acquisition of pharyngeal slits, formation of joints between the upper and lower segments of the pharyngeal arches, reduction and loss of posterior second arch dermal bones, morphogenesis of the first pouch to become a spiracle or Eustachian tube. Evolution of the jaw into an ear apparatus involved loss of the symplectic and reduction and dissociation of the hyomandibula from a role in jaw support in fishes to a role in hearing in reptiles, and a transition from a quadrate-articular jaw joint in reptiles to a dentary-squamosal joint in mammals. From agnathans to amniotes, there exists deep conservation of gene regulatory pathways that establish pharyngeal arch development among vertebrates, including expression of Pax genes that create gill slits, Hox genes that segment pharyngeal arches, and the Edn1/Hand2/Dlx and Jagged1-Notch2 pathways which give jaw elements a dorsal-ventral identity. Although the molecular mechanisms to establish the axial position of elements are increasingly understood, a new and exciting phase of jaw research aims to understand how changes to gene regulatory networks could produce the major events in morphogenesis over evolutionary time. For example, it is not known how jaw joints were acquired in gnathostomes from agnathan ancestors, as the earliest gnathostome fossils have a patent joint that is homologous to modern jaw joints and there exist no transitional forms in the fossil record. If ancient agnathan ancestors to gnathostomes looked anything like extant agnathans, they may have had a branchial basket formed of continuous cartilage that became segmented into dorsal and ventral elements. As previously mentioned, new modes of expression of factors such as nkx3.2, hand2, and barx1 may have led to the exclusion of cartilage formation within ancient agnathan gill bars, leading to the formation of a flexible junction between cartilage elements (Nichols et al., 2013). Understanding these genetic mechanisms in gnathostomes, and how joints are lost in mutants, sets the stage for potential future studies to ectopically generate jaw joints in agnathans.
Although this review has focused on the changes in structure of elements over time, some elements have remained remarkably unchanged since the early Devonian, and seem to be present in nearly all extant gnathostome taxa. The dentary, Meckel’s cartilage, hyomandibula, palatoquadrate-derived elements, and articular appear early in the evolutionary record, and are retained in most taxa. Their persistence indicates their importance in jaw development, suggesting the developmental pathways leading to their formation have been largely unperturbed since ancient times. Other jaw elements have been gained over time, such as the squamosal and angular, whereas other elements were gained and subsequently lost, such as the branchiostegal rays and the interopercle. Understanding how cellular populations contribute to the formation of these elements, and what genes are expressed associated with their formation or loss could explain how jaw elements appeared, changed, and disappeared over time and between lineages. The process by which the hyomandibula became dissociated from the jaw and became the columella/stapes is well documented in the fossil record. It remains an intriguing developmental question, which could be studied in reptiles and mammals, as to how the quadrate and articular element dissociated from the jaw joint in reptiles to become the incus and malleus of the middle ear of mammals.
Among ancient and extant taxa, extreme differences in shape and relative size of some elements suggest they possess more developmental plasticity and therefore are more prone to evolution than others. For example, the opercle has tremendous shape variation even among teleost fishes (Kimmel, Small, & Knope, 2017), and is variably reduced or lost in ancient fish lineages. As previously revealed with studies of mef2ca and indian hedgehog (ihh) mutant zebrafish, changes to expression of genes associated with opercle patterning can resulting in extreme phenotypic outcomes which evolution can act upon (DeLaurier et al., 2014; Huycke, Eames, & Kimmel, 2012; Nichols et al., 2016). The symplectic seems to be rather developmentally sensitive, as many zebrafish mutants are prone to loss or reductions of the symplectic (e.g. Furin and Edn1 pathways, wnt5b, itga8) (Sisson, Dale, Mui, Topczewska, & Topczewski, 2015; Talbot et al., 2016; Walker et al., 2006). The developmental fragility of the symplectic may underlie the independent loss of this element in ancient fish lineages, and may have promoted the dissociation of the hyomandibula from the second arch jaw skeleton to become a middle ear element in labyrinthodonts. Evolution of jaw musculature and endoderm, not discussed in this paper likely also had important influences on skeletal patterning. For example, fras1 zebrafish mutants have defects in first pharyngeal pouch formation that leads to fusions of skeletal elements (Talbot et al., 2012). Given the prevalence of Eustachian tube and hearing defects in humans, understanding how interactions between pharyngeal endoderm and jaw skeletal elements evolved could provide important insights into mechanisms underlying human ear disorders.” – Evolution and development of the fish jaw skeleton April DeLaurier 1, John Gerhart 2
So again, you are ignorant and lazy, dependent on lies and fear to cling to your cult. Thanks for showing how Christianity fails once again.
Nope. No excuses. Just a genuine answer. But by your own standard, you’re a cultist because you can’t agree with your own atheists. You atheist frauds can’t show your version to be the right one at any point in history. But we Christians are united in what makes us Christian, so your attempt to claim “but but you aren’t any better than us” is quite a lie. I always enjoy when an atheist fails miserably in trying to turn my arguments back on me. And I love using an atheists own arguments against them.
Of course I can show that the geologic column is disputed among geologists. Otherwise I wouldn’t have mentioned it. I even gave a pertinent example. Go back, read it, and apologize for lying. Then you make an excuse, stating “Yep, new evidence changes things.” Duh. Old evidence changes things too. All kinds of evidence change things. But the real point is that, just because secular geologists assign a certain age to the geologic column doesn’t mean it’s true. There could be evidence missing they’re unaware of. Evidence can overturn known theories at any time. Most of the time the evidence is already there, but politics, religion and pride prevent the most accurate conclusions from being recognized. One thing is certain- geologists don’t know with certainty that the current geologic column is accurate. You think it’s only off by 5 percent, but that’s a lie. It’s off by more than 99 percent.
Mount St. Helens eruption, produced neat, uniform sedimentary layers within hours, demonstrating that fast-moving water can deposit layers quickly and extensively. Laboratory flume experiments also show that high-velocity water sorts and deposits sediment grains by weight, density, and shape, forming thin, parallel layers. These findings confirm that the global Flood described in Genesis could have produced the vast, uniform rock layers we see today—not over millions of years, but rapidly during the Flood.
And you lie again about Dickinsonia and Jawed fish.
Dickinsonia, an iconic Ediacaran organism often interpreted as an early animal or bilaterian precursor, is dated to the late Ediacaran Period, approximately 575–541 million years ago (Ma). Fossils are found in deposits from Australia, Russia, Ukraine, and India, with well-preserved specimens showing quilted, segmented body plans preserved as impressions in sandstone. Key evidence comes from sites like the Ediacara Hills in Australia and the White Sea in Russia, where Dickinsonia fossils are radiometrically constrained to around 558–550 Ma based on uranium-lead dating of surrounding volcanic ash layers.
In contrast, the earliest unambiguous body fossils of true sponges (Porifera), such as simple filter-feeding forms, appear in the early Cambrian Period, starting around 540 Ma. While molecular clock estimates and disputed biomarkers suggest sponges may have originated as early as 760–635 Ma, there is no definitive fossil evidence of sponge-like animals before 540 Ma. The first clear sponge fossils, including hexactinellid and demosponge types, are found in Cambrian deposits like the Burgess Shale (Canada) and Chengjiang (China), postdating Dickinsonia by at least 10–20 million years. This timeline is supported by paleontological reviews noting the absence of pre-Cambrian sponge body fossils, despite claims of older putative forms (e.g., 890 Ma microstructures in Canada, which remain controversial and may represent non-biological features or non-sponge organisms).
According to Brazeau & Friedman, 2014, Nature, “Advanced jawed vertebrates like placoderms (with bony armor and paired fins) emerge, while simpler jawless fish (lamprey-like agnathans) continue to diversify and persist without jaws. Jawed fish: ~420 Ma (Early Devonian) Jawless diversification: ~360 Ma (ongoing into Carboniferous). Jawed forms represent a leap in feeding and predatory complexity, appearing before the peak of simpler agnathan diversity, illustrating mosaic evolution in vertebrates.”
These sources underscore that jaws enabled a “predatory revolution” (2015, p. 490), appearing before agnathans’ final flourish, exemplifying mosaic evolution. Full PDFs are accessible via academic databases like Wiley (for 2014) or Nature.com (for 2015; DOI: 10.1038/nature14438).
Funny that you accuse me of lying when I present secular sources. So it appears you are the one lying, demonstrating how there’s no agreement amongst the secularists.
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-cataclysm-deposit-uniform-rock-layers/?utm_source=faith_assistant
https://www.sciencealert.com/dickinsonia-russia-white-sea-fossil-fat-cholesterol-molecules-confirm-animal
https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/dickinsonia-earliest-known-living-animal
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/paleobiology/article/from-organisms-to-biodiversity-the-ecology-of-the-ediacarancambrian-transition/764C336DCA20CC67ACE38A687FCFE92F
Nice fail there, Jonathan. Curious how you’ve yet to show your imaginary friend exists. Christians are not united in what makes them Christian. They do not agree on which version of their god is the right one. We can see that by noting that Christians do not agree on what morals this god wants or what this god considers a “sin”. So you lie yet again.
It’ wonderful on how you have nthing original of your own, but have to make a strawman out of what I said. Tsk.
Notably, you haven’t shown tht the geologic column is “disputed amongst geologists”. You did not give an example, you simply lied about what the column said. But do show a “pertinent example”. Surely you can, right?
Yes, new evidence changes things. That doesn’t mean people simply make up what they want, like theists do. Curoius how Christians can’t agree on which version of creationism is the right one, Jonathan. Not one creationist has evidence for their claims and that means they can’t convince the others that their set of lies is any better than another’s.
It’s amusing how creationists have moved from the literal ignorance in their bible to try to make their bible nonsense “metaphor” so it doesn’t seem so idiotic when compared with reality.
Unsurprisngly, theistic “geologists” are simply liars. They have no evidence for their claims that the earth is 6000 years old. They have no evidence that there is an “old earth creationism” any more than there is a “young earth creationism”. Where is this evidence that secular geologists aren’t aware of? You’ve been looking for 2000+ years for evidence for your cult’s claims and have yet to find any.
Curious hw you make accusations about “politics religion and pride” prevent accuracy, and yet can’t show a single instance where your lies are true. Such lovely fail from a cultist. Where is this evidence that the geologic column is off “99%”? Oh right, you have nothing, just one more baseless assertion from an ignorant man.
Mt. St Helens produced many different types of layers, and yes, it was quick. Not all geological processes are so quick. You, like so many other ignorant creationists, still stick to the lie that current geology is based solely on uniformitarianism, a lie that has been false for over 100+ years.
Unsurprisingly, flume experiments haven’t produced what you claim, again showing you to be an incompetent liar. Nothing has shown that there was a 28,000+ foot deep worldwide flood that happened in 40 days. Even Christians can’t agree on where, how, when or if the events in their bible happened, so yet again Christians don’t agree on what their cult teaches.
it’s also great how creationists can’t agree if rock layers are uniform or not, so yet again you all do such a wonderful job of disproving your own nonsense.
Again, your magic flood did not produce what it should have, if your bible’s claims are accurate.
It’s also wonderful when you claim I’ve lied about dickinsonia or jawed and jawless fish and yet you can’t show where. Nice cut and paste, but no where does it say I’m wrong and it’s always fun to see you steal something that you don’t attribute. You’ve done a typical Christian tactic of hoping something shows I’m wrong since you can’t do so yourself. It’s hilarious how you have no idea what you are posting, just stumbling around in the dark hoping you find something pertinent.
It’s even more amusing when you simply post things that support evolutionary theory, and destroy your own claims, since you don’t know what you are reading.
Poor Jonathan, you have no idea what “Jawed forms represent a leap in feeding and predatory complexity, appearing before the peak of simpler agnathan diversity, illustrating mosaic evolution in vertebrates.”, even means, do you?
Unsurprisngly, those secular sources show you have no idea what you are talking about. But nice fail.
the AIG nonsense fails too, since it most definitely isn’t “secular” nor is it accurate in its lies. I do love things like “Whether looking into the Grand Canyon from one of the rim overlooks or traversing through the Grand Canyon on foot or by raft, the answer to this question is obviously yes. The fossil-bearing sedimentary layers deposited by the Flood can be seen exposed in the walls, stacked on top of one another like a huge pile of pancakes. And the view is much the same no matter where one views the Grand Canyon. So at the regional scale in the Grand Canyon area it is clearly evident that the sedimentary rock layers deposited there during the Flood cataclysm are neat and uniform.”
which contradicts another lie further on in the article “Superimposed on those tidal flows and surges, there would have been repeated tsunamis generated by earthquakes caused by repeated catastrophic earth movements. The “fountains of the great deep” were broken up (Genesis 7:11), initiating the catastrophic plate tectonics that drove the Flood event.12 The earth’s crust was broken up around the globe, producing massive earthquakes, followed by the accelerated motion of the crustal fragments (called plates) across the earth’s surface at many-feet-per-second speed. As the Flood event progressed, plates collided with one another, or some plates were pushed under the edges of other plates. All these earth movements would have generated many catastrophic earthquakes that in turn would have repeatedly produced massive tsunamis. As these tsunamis moved, they would have surged toward and onto the continents.”
ROFL. it’s wonderful how stupid creationists are when they think that “fast laminar (sheet)-flowing waters” would be somehow magically happening during tsunamis, and the continents shooting around like hockey pucks. That takes some pure stupidity. It shows the same lack of editorial intelligence as your bible does.
the science alert article shows nothing that supports your lies, but do explain how it does. Surely you can, right? The random article from an Indian website that is for people taking Indian civil service tests doesn’t show I’m wrong, but again, do show how it does.
The article “From organisms to biodiversity: the ecology of the Ediacaran/Cambrian transition – Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2025 by Emily G. Mitchell and Stephen Pates” is another lovely example of how you simply grab things and desperately hope they support your nonsense. This paper is a great example of how scientists support evolutionary theory since they can observe entire environments and how generalists evolve into specialists: “Across all ecological scales, we find clear trends, starting with stochastic ecosystem dynamics dominated by generalist taxa in the first Ediacaran communities, to more structured, niche-driven specialist dynamics by Cambrian Epoch 2. These trends are reflected in organism functional morphology, the complexity and strength of organisms’ interactions within their communities, and large-scale metacommunity, biogeographic, and biodiversity patterns. Yet there is often a time delay between the origination of a new type of ecological interaction and when it is observed to impact the ecosystem as a whole. As such, while many modern ecological innovations were in place by the end of the Cambrian, the knock-on effects and complexity of these interactions continued to build up throughout the Phanerozoic, leading to the complex biosphere we have today.” It’s very thoughtful of the authors to also include a non-technical explanation, which also shows just how ignorant and wrong creationists like you are:
“Animals first evolved more than 570 million years ago, during the Ediacaran time period, but it was not until well into the Cambrian time period, around 520 million years ago, that animal evolution really took off and most modern animal groups diversified. It is over this Ediacaran to Cambrian transition that we not only see animals first appear, but also the evolution of movement, the ability to burrow and to swim, and the very first reefs and macroscopic predators. There are likely many different factors that shaped this radiation of animal life, so in this review paper we discuss the ecology underlying this Ediacaran to Cambrian transition and place the individual specimens and taxa in the context of the environment in which they lived. After all, it is the interactions that organisms experienced in their daily lives with one another and their environment that led to the diversification of animal body plans, and the evolutionary patterns we observe over these crucial 75 million years. As early animals evolved, we see diversification in feeding and biological and environmental interactions. These ecological interactions started off relatively weak, with few interactions between organisms, but then increased throughout the Ediacaran and into the Cambrian. By 500 million years ago, the ecosystem structure was similar to that of marine systems today. However, there are time delays between the origins of structuring processes and the time when they have an observed impact on other organisms and their ecosystem. As such, while the key building blocks of ecosystem structure were in place by the end of the Cambrian, it takes evolutionary timescales for the impact of these innovations to be realized.”
You’ve failed again, Jonathan.
Pingback: Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – that flood thing again – Club Schadenfreude
I believe the Genesis text suggests a local earth interpretation. Here’s my commentary if you like to review it. https://reachingadventistschristiansandothers.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/verse-by-verse-genesis-commentary-chapter-1-11-39.pdf
Thanks, I appreciate your response. I looked over your introduction, and there’s some things I can agree with, while there’s plenty I disagree with.
My first criticism is with the genre. When I hear someone say, “the opening chapters of Genesis is not to supply scientific information to tell us the age the earth or how the heavenly bodies work” a red flag goes up. In your summary, you state, “the Bible has no quarrel with the scientific evidence that suggests the universe and the earth is old.”
What concerns me is, when people say things like this, they’re generally trying to remove the scientific implications from the text: “Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.” However, I believe everything the Bible touches on- including science- is true and authoritative.
You state, “We cannot say for certain when this ‘beginning’ was or how long it was, in relation to creation. Therefore, this ‘beginning’ leaves open both the possibilities of a young and an old earth.”
I disagree. We do know how long creation was because God tells us. In Exodus 20:11 he says, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”
So I’d suggest we can know with certainty how long creation was, and this rules out an old earth. I see that you addressed this in your appendix, but I think the language of the text is consistent with the days revealed in Genesis being ordinary days. It doesn’t allow for an indefinite period of time.
Here’s my commentary on Genesis 1 & 2:
https://sixdaysblog.com/2012/07/21/genesis-1/
https://sixdaysblog.com/2012/08/07/genesis-2/
I’d love to discuss more if you’re inclined.
curious how christains cant even agree and none of them has any more evidnce than the next for their baseless nonsense.
You haven’t said anything new, and you haven’t said anything that hasn’t already been refuted. You’re just throwing dirt against the walls hoping something will stick.
But since you doubt that the geologic column is ever disputed amongst geologists, and you demand an example because surely I have one, right? So I’ll list a few, even though you will object with your usual ramblings:
Precambrian- Cambrian Boundary: Was originally vague, and was disputed due to fuzzy fossil transitions. Updates were made in the 1990s to set as 541 MA using a trace fossil in Newfoundland as the “golden spike.” Still debated for molecular clock mismatches.
Permian- Triassic boundary: Hotly contested site for the “Great Dying,” with arguments over iridium layers vs. volcanic ash in China vs. Siberia. In 2004 it was fixed in Meishan, China, based on conodont fossils. there’s ongoing disputes over extinction triggers (Siberian Traps, volcanism).
Quaternary- Pleistocene boundary: Debated whether to keep “Pleistocene” for the entire Ice Agee or split it. Involved climate data from ocean cores. In 2009 Renamed Quaternary base to 2.58 MA (Gelasian stage). Some geologists still push for reversal due to human impact focus.
Ediacaran Period addition: Pre-Cambrian “vendian” fossils were long ignored. There was a dispute over whether they fit a new period. In 2004 they were officially added as 635-541 MA. Refined in 2010s with new South Australian sites, but debates persist on biota’s affinity (animals or algae).
Cretaceous- Paleogene boundary: Early disputes over iridium anomalies worldwide. In the 1980s- 1990s, locked at 66 MA. Ongoing tweaks to regional correlations.
And still no evidence for your imaginary friend. You have yet to refute my points, but it is fun to see you repeatedly lie to me.
The geologic column isn’t disputed as you claim. Additions aren’t disputes, dear, and it’s great fun to see you give this information with no sources. That is typical for you, having nothing to support your claims with. Differing by a few million years isn’t a dispute. Extinction triggers are biology, not geology.
This is the typical fail of a cultist who has nothing, trying to make claim that geologists disagree when they do not. We know that the geologic column wasn’t laid down by a magic flood. Creationists try much the same thing when it comes to the age of the universe.
Try again.
oh and do remember you claimed you had evidence for your magic jesus months ago. strange how you can’t provide that either.
And still no evidence for evolution. And no evidence against God. You have yet to overcome any of my refutations, and it’s sad to see you repeatedly lie. As I have demonstrated, the geologic column is in dispute. If it weren’t, then it wouldn’t be science. All good science is disputable and can be questioned. Once it obtains unanimous consensus, however, it is no longer science, but a cult, dogma and indoctrination.
I was tempted to provide sources, but I resisted, knowing it would do no good. You’re not interested in truth, so why bother? If you were really interested in truth, you could look it up yourself instead of demanding to be spoon fed. Thankfully, good science doesn’t need to abide by your rules to work. I have, indeed provided evidence for Jesus, but you’ve closed your eyes to the truth. What evidence would you accept? Evidence that he rose from the dead?
Nice lies, dear. I am always pleased when a christian has nothing but attempts to mimic me.
Funny how you stil haven’t shown your god exists, Jonathan. Why is that? All of your arguments can be used by any other theist, so why should anyone believe your particular imagniary friend is the right one?
The geological column is not in dispute as you claim. All science can be disputed if there are facts to support a different conclusion. Curious how you have nothing, dear.
Facts are a unanimous concensus. It is consensus that if you put your unprotected hand into molten steel, it will be destroyed. No magic will stop that.
Yep, you cant’ provide sources since you are a fraud and a liar. It’s hilarious how christians always try so hard to make up excuses why they can provide nothign. You try to blame me for your failure.
Jonathan, do you really think yur god is that stupid to not realize that you are doing, if it exists? Frauds always try to avoid providing evidence for their claims, insisting that the oppoent must “look it up”. That means you can keep lying to yourself by insisting to yourself that the information that you can’t find is really out there.
Curoius how you have no evdience your jesus existed, or rose from the dead. No one noticed this character, dear. STrange how the romans, the jews, and even paul never noticed the events the bible claims happened.
and since you yourself are wonderful evidence that the promises in the bible aren’t true, I can just look at you and eveyr other christian when they can’t do what jesus promises. Why do you fail, Jonathan?