Flooding Brings Up An Interesting Question

It’s been an incredible year for floods, in the United States alone there has been flooding going on across bottomland farms in the river’s upper valley in Illinois and Missouri. Also, record rains and major storms across the Midwest and South have added to the flow along with major snowmelt where predictions were being made of record stages at the Mississippi River which could end up to be as bad or worse than the historic 1937 floods.

All this flooding this year has brought up an interesting question, how big can these floods get? National Geographic takes on that question even bringing up Noah’s flood but only to cast doubt on it…

“The numbers are still provisional, but [the current flood’s peak water discharge] looks to be about the same” as the 1927 flood, said James O’Connor, a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Still, the 1927 and 2011 Mississippi River floods remain just drops in the bucket compared to other known freshwater “megafloods” around the world, according to O’Connor.

“The scientist co-authored a 2004 USGS report that ranked all freshwater floods known to have occurred during the past two million years. The list, which remains largely unchanged since its release, includes only floods that had peak discharges of 3.5 million cubic feet (100,000 cubic meters) a second or more.”

Here is an intelligent scientist who works for taxpayers in America as a a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey  where Ker Than writing for National Geographic eats up like it’s gospel, trying to suggest that Noah’s flood was a fictional story…

“Even though a real flood may have inspired the story, O’Connor thinks there’s a simple reason it couldn’t have been a days-long meteorological event like the one suggested by the Bible. “There’s just not that much water in the atmosphere,” he said.”

What’s wrong with this conclusion with this so-called expert opinion? Do you know? Do you really think this intelligent scientist knows what he is talking about? So-called man-made climate change has been suggested as an explanation of current major flooding, others say it’s too early to tell as snow in parts of Canada melted later than normal in addition to the stormy trend of spring. Again I ask, what is wrong with O’Connor’s explanation of Noah’s flood? Here is the answer…

Genesis 7:11 says…


Do you see it yet? The major source of the water was not the atmosphere rather it was “all the fountains of the great deep.” Now there is speculation on what all entailed concerning the fountains of the great deep…The catastrophic plate tectonics model (linked here) for the flood is available for public reading, perhaps then he would have known what creationists believe as the major source of the water rather than coming up with his own idea…Here is another flood model explanation by Austin…


There is evidence of rapid movements of huge volumns of water everywhere in the world (like here and here and more in the geology section) which confirms the global flood.

1) Increditable plutons around Lake Tana in Ethiopia, that appear to have been formed in the earth and exposed by erosion. 

2) The dramatic geology of the US Southwest and similar features in Ethiopia that are best explained by lots of fast moving water over a short period of time. 

3) Washington’s channeled scabland and Columbia River benches.

4) Similar braided waterways in Kergezstan (sp?) for miles southwest of Biskek.

5) Enormous rocks which had been moved 3,000 miles across whole continents.

6) Worldwide layers of sediment being housed in the fossil record and why we find animal fossils in strange places where they normally didn’t dwell.

Perhaps O’Connor was trying to build up a strawman which is easy to knock down than the actual viewpoint itself instead of addressing actual viewpoints. Perhaps Ker Than writer for Natural Geographic should have done his homework as well instead of allowing his bias to alter the actual event!

Geologists Tinker With The Cambrian Explosion Data

One of the most extensive defenses of Darwinian evolution against the Cambrian explosion (the lowest layers of fossil-bearing strata) since Charles Marshall’s attempt to explain it back in 2006 where he writes

“The Cambrian “explosion,” or radiation, is perhaps the most significant evolutionary transition seen in the fossil record.  Essentially all of the readily fossilizable animal body plans first appear in the fossil record during this interval (Valentine 2002).  We move from the depths of the Precambrian world, where the sedimentary record is essentially devoid of animal fossils, to the Phanerozoic, where animal life leaves pervasive evidence of its existence, both as body fossils and as disturbers of the sediment.”

“Numerous explanations for the Cambrian “explosion” have been posited (note here that I am not considering here in any detail explanations for the precursor to the Cambrian “explosion,” the Ediacaran radiation).  Classification of this rich panoply of explanations is somewhat arbitrary but typically explanations center on one of the following factors: (a) changes in the abiotic environment, (b) changes in the genetic or developmental capacity of the taxa involved, or (c) changes in the biotic environment, i.e., in ecology.”

“All of these factors must have played a role, but how important was each?  To what extent did the Cambrian “explosion” flow from an interaction between them?  How might we develop a conceptual framework for understanding that interaction?  Developing a coherent explanation for the Cambrian “explosion” faces several challenges….”

The Cambrian has been a thorn in evolution because it falsifies Darwinian claims about a slow gradual process and evolutionary scientists for years have been working on trying to explain away the sudden appearances of fully structured and complex animals found in the lower strata. Since fossils cannot be revised observationally, tinkering with the time line and simplifying was the focus of this recent paper

“He writes “[w]e should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy” (Darwin, 1859, p. 307).  It is this explanation—the incompleteness of our knowledge—that has turned out to be closer to the truth.  The problem of missing fossil ancestors was solved by the discovery of the Precambrian fossil record, the problem that nearly all the animal phyla appear in the Lower Cambrian with no evidence of intermediate taxa was solved by the recognition that most Lower Cambrian fossils represent stem-groups of living phyla, and the problem of the explosive diversification of animals at the start of the Tommotian was solved by improved correlation and radiometric dating of Lower Cambrian sequences—to which we contribute here—showing that this diversification was drawn out over more than 20 m.y.”

Radiometric dating with comparisons of calcium carbonate isotopes in fossil shells were used to determine a new time line. By expanding the time line it would quiet down the explosion in the Cambrian period. So geologists from Princeton, MIT, UC Santa Barbara, and Washington University made their assumptions with calcium carbonate isotopes which they argued changes ocean chemistry and thus gave us the appearance of an explosion.

What is even more interesting, they resort in making a fraudulent claim which is very misleading to the public.  “The problem of missing fossil ancestors was solved by the discovery of the Precambrian fossil record…” Some may also see this as a bluff of what hand they really have. You see, in the introduction of the paper, it was a different story…

“Despite abundant evidence for a variety of life extending back to at least 3.5 Ga, Precambrian fossils mostly record the evolution of bacteria and microbial eukaryotes.  The earliest evidence for animals predates the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary by only ~100 m.y.  (Xiao et al., 1998; Yin et al., 2007; Love et al., 2009, Maloof et al., 2010b), and the few unquestioned examples of Precambrian Bilateria are <15 m.y. older than the beginning of the Cambrian (Fedonkin and Waggoner, 1997; Martin et al., 2000; Jensen, 2003; Droser et al., 2005).”

“Significant increases in trace fossil diversity and complexity across the boundary and the absence of soft-bodied animals in upper Precambrian Burgess Shale–type biotas (Xiao et al., 2002) suggest that the general absence of bilaterian animal fossils from upper Precambrian rocks is not a preservational artifact.  Rather, it appears that animals originated and began to diversify relatively close to the base of the Cambrian.”

What is omitted in this paper? Charles Marshall also had problems with it too in his explanation. It’s intermediate forms, the transitional forms that must have existed between all the phyla. The Precambrian fossils consists mostly of bacteria and microbial eukaryotes! Then all of a sudden it jumps to higher levels of life for example, Trilobites, show up at about 525 million years in the evolutionary time frame but no pre-trilobites have ever been found. Scientists are not observing microbes becoming cnidarians, or Ediacarans becoming worms in the fossil record!

It is assumed that since bacteria and eukaryotes are found in Precambrian fossils, that Trilobites and other animals had evolved. Does this solve the Cambrian Explosion and proves a slow and gradual process? Is this really their best evidence so far? The fact of the matter is, if evolution were true there would be intermediate forms in the fossil record. Also, there would be more intermediate forms than the species themselves. These geologists didn’t explain the Cambrian explosion away, all they did was tinker with the data which deals only with fully complex structured species, revise the time line which is a common practice in evolution because it’s based on assumptions and then made a fraudulent claim (because it has to do with creationism and intelligent design proponents) that wasn’t based on an observation in the fossil record.

More Evidence for Flood Baffles Geologists









3) Weather rates increased dramatically.

