Friday, December 7, 2012

Even More Geological Reasons the Noachian Deluge Did Not Happen

Another, "Reports of the National Center for Science Education", has been released, and within it was a PDF file containing nine decent-sized pages of anti-Flood arguments, dealing with the supposed "deposition" of the Grand Canyon, the formation of sandstone, and radiolarian cherts (minerals made from the left-over silica skeletal structures of tiny organisms).

"More Geological Reason Noah's Flood Did Not Happen"

Yea, I just got a little aroused.

The page to see the article can be found here.  For whatever reason, I had difficulties with actually loading the PDF on the page itself, so I downloaded it. 

For the convenience of the average uninformed reader, a quick introduction is given to Young Earth Creationism, and a larger one is given to the uniformitarian interpretation of geology.  For the satisfaction of the informed reader, the author does choose to completely dissect and disarm the arguments at hand. 

Anyway, the entire article focuses on the claims made by one Michael Oard, in a paper that was published in Creation Ministries International's wannabe-science outlet "The Creation Journal".  What Oard, an atmospheric meteorologist, is doing fooling around in stratigraphy is beyond me, but the NCSE is quick to point out the errors of his logic and methods: ignoring decades worth of geologic literature, relying on miracle circumstances, and neglecting to address certain important factors.  You know, typical Creationist scientific procedure.  He also makes several factual mistakes, such as making highly misinformed statements about the geological formation of sandstone and orthoquartzites, among other things. 

But that is all I will say, lest I ruin the ending for you, which goes something like this:

The scientific evidence strongly suggests that a global Noachian Flood did not happen.
Oard’s (2002) model requires not only the rejection of strict uniformitarian models, as he
claims, but also a repudiation of practically all the geologic processes that geoscientists
have studied and confirmed for decades. A model of geologic processes that only works by rejecting the fundamental knowledge in the geosciences is not a scientific model at all, but little more than wishful thinking.

No comments:

Post a Comment