Biblical & Scientific Reasons why the Fossil Record is not due to Noah's Flood

Saying (1) the Bible presents Noah's flood as universal/global/cosmic in extent, and (2) the fossil record is primarily the result of Noah's flood, are two completely different claims.  Claim #1 is true.  The Bible does, in fact, depict Noah's flood as not merely global in extent but in almost cosmic proportions as a reversal of creation itself and a regression from order back to a pre-creation chaotic state where the 'waters above' and 'below' are no longer separated as they are on Day 2 of the Genesis creation account.  Now whether this is meant to be taken literally or is hyperbole and purposeful exaggeration to make a theological point is a separate matter of debate.  Either way, Genesis does not depict Noah's flood as a local flood, but as a global, universal catastrophe on an epic, cosmic scale. 

That said, however, the Bible does not equate the fossil record with Noah's flood.  The Bible doesn't even mention the fossil record, so claim #2 is an assumption that YECs often make without critical assessment. This distinction is important to avoid potential misunderstanding, because this OP is not disputing claim #1, only claim #2.  That is, it is not the Bible's depiction of Noah's flood that is being disputed, it is only the unfounded YEC assertion that the fossil record is mostly the result of Noah's flood that is being disputed. 

This topic is of further importance because YECs commonly maintain that 'flood geology' is just a different, equally valid interpretation of the *same data* used by modern geologists.  But this is simply untrue.  'Flood geology' is not an equally valid interpretation of the 'same data', but a forced interpretation based on isolated, cherry-picked examples that ignore a mountain of incongruous data to the contrary. 

There are, in fact, biblical and scientific problems with the YEC claim that the fossil record is mostly the result of Noah's flood.  The purpose of this OP, then, is to present some of these problems, while welcoming anyone who disagrees to present their case for claim #2.

A.  Biblical Problems

First, the YEC claim that the fossil record is mostly the result of Noah's flood actually stands in direct contradiction to what the Bible says. This is because such a belief requires the garden of Eden to predate the fossil record.  This in turn is problematic because the Bible locates the four rivers associated with the garden of Eden on the surface of the earth--on top of the fossil record--not five miles underground where Paleozoic rocks occur in the Middle East (a fact known from extensive drilling).

Most YECs seems blithely unaware of this problem and those YECs who are aware try to explain away this inconvenient truth by claiming the Tigris and Euphrates rivers associated with the garden of Eden in Genesis 2 are not the same rivers as the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in the Middle East, but entirely different rivers that just happen to have the same name. But the problem with that theory is that it's not supported by the Bible and actually contradicts and runs counter to the Bible that YECs say they believe in and take literally.  For example, Genesis 2:14 directly identifies the Tigris River as the river which 'flows east of Assyria', the same river we know today as the Tigris River and the identification with Assyria shows the river still existed (on the surface of the earth) 'post-flood' (instead of being buried five miles underground below the Paleozoic).  Same thing with the Euphrates River, which is mentioned in Genesis 2 but also again in Genesis 15:18 with the Abrahamic covenant when Yahweh tells Abraham the land of his descendants will extend from Egypt to the great river Euphrates that is still so-named today.

Thus, given Mosaic authorship of Genesis, Moses understood the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers associated with the garden of Eden as the same Tigris and Euphrates known in his time and known to us today.

Thus, what the Bible teaches stands in direct contradiction to YEC flood geologists who insist that most of the fossil record was put down in Noah's flood.  It is also difficult to reconcile with those who insist there was no death of any kind before 'the fall', since that too would require the garden of Eden to predate all the death in the fossil record.

B.  Scientific Problems  

The scientific problems with claim #2 are myriad.  There are countless problems and inconsistencies that are simply ignored by YEC 'flood geologists'.  But to be a valid, plausible scientific theory or model, a theory/model can't ignore inconvenient, incongruous data, but must account for such data.  Instead, YECs selectively pick-and-choose isolated examples; cherry-picking what they believe to be evidence for a catastrophic one year global flood.  They then generalize these examples to the entire fossil record without justifying such generalizations and while again ignoring a mountain of contrary evidence. 

YEC arguments can also sound persuasive and even convincing on the surface, but only because most people have little to no knowledge of geology so they don't know any better.  This, in turn, leads to further confusion when geologists trade barbs back and forth with YECs who make 'scientific' sounding arguments, because then people don't know who to believe.  I hope to avoid all that by limiting my own discussion to just two categories: the problem of (1) plate tectonics/continental drift, and (2) locating/identifying Noah's flood in the fossil record. 

For example, instead of arguing over whether such-and-such cherry-picked example truly is evidence for Noah's flood, I will give it a free pass and assume for sake of argument that the example is as YECs claim.  There is no need to get bogged down in the details and technicalities that accompany such discussions.  It just confuses people.  Instead, I will bypass all that entirely and simply focus on the parts of the fossil record that YECs and others recognize *can't* be due to Noah's flood (i.e., 'where in the fossil record the flood isn't or can't be').  When we do this and begin ruling out the possibilities we find that the fossil record gets progressively whittled down to fewer and fewer options until we're left with virtually nothing at all---no part of the fossil record that we can identify with Noah's flood. 

C.  CHALLENGE TO YECs

In the coming days I will start posting on these two categories of problems: the problem of (1) plate tectonics/continental drift, and (2) locating/identifying Noah's flood in the fossil record.  I welcome any and all opposing viewpoints in the process.  In fact, with regard to problem (2), I will state up front that a big part of that problem centers on where to locate the pre-flood/flood & flood/post-flood boundaries in the fossil record.  This is something YECs still have no consensus agreement on, so I will start with this initial challenge: I will ask anyone who wants to defend YEC 'flood geology' to first identify where in the fossil record Noah's flood begins and where it ends, and how they know.  If YECs want to convince people that the fossil record truly is the result of Noah's flood and that there is geological evidence to this effect, then identifying where in the fossil record/geologic column Noah's flood begins and ends is crucial to the discussion.

tbwp10 I'll help you if you run into problems.

Sounds good.  I look forward to your contributions and expertise in biostratigraphy as we go along.  In fact, while I'm going to limit myself to two categories of problems, feel free to introduce a third category of your own with biostratigraphy.

I worked in biostratigraphy and we could identify all the ice ages by the O16 and O18 in the tests or shells of the planktonic foraminifera. The Order Foraminiferida (informally foraminifera) belongs to the Kingdom Protista, Subkingdom Protozoa, Phylum Sarcomastigophora, Subphylum Sarcodina, Superclass Rhizopoda, Class Granuloreticulosea.

I think this point needs making whether or not it's strictly relevant to this topic - some who take the Genesis story of the flood literally represent it as being only local in nature, not the worldwide catastrophe that's actually depicted.

I've come across this myself although I can't remember if the individual(s) concerned identified as YEC.

That's a good point.  If you want we can expand the discussion to include this (i.e., how we know claim #1 is true, and that Genesis is not depicting a local flood).

In a similar discussion a few years ago I calculated the volume of water required to raise the height of the oceans to the top of Mount Everest. I expected it to be a very large amount but even I was surprised at the immense amount of water in cubic kilometers.

I remember asking one of the Bible literalists where all the extra water went to and they seemed bewildered. I think some literalists might represent the flood as a localised event to get around that problem?

Most flood theories appeal to tectonic upflift and subsidence 

Most people are unfamiliar with how O18/O16 isotope ratios are used in paleothermometry.  Would you mind explaining this more and how this process works?

O stands for oxygen and 16 and 18 = the total number of protons and neutrons are in the atom. O18 has two extra neutrons making it heavier than O16. The water molecules with O16 being lighter it evaporates easier concentrating the water with O18. The forams use the H2O in sea water to make CaCO3 (the shells are made of CaCO3). When there is a high percentage of O18 in the shells it means a lot of O16 is tied up in the ice of an ice age. If you have any questions or need more explanation let me know.

Not in my experience but then I'm usually dealing with people who have a very literal understanding of scripture.

The only time I remember someone reaching for the tectonic explanation was when I challenged the section in Genesis that refers to the 'waters being gathered to one place', thereby creating the dry land and oceans we see today. The trouble is that in the absence of the raising of the ocean floor, the 'gathered waters' would simply flow back.

Of course Genesis makes no such claim.

I guess I was thinking of literalists of the YEC flood geology kind.  I haven't run into literalists of the kind you describe.  But yes, even the literalists don't consistently read the Bible literally.

So in short would it be accurate to say there is an inverse relationship between O18 and temperature?  Higher O18 generally indicates lower temperatures and lower O18 indicates higher temperatures?  

Also, if I recall correctly you specialized mainly in Cenozoic biostratigraphy?  I was curious if you also happen to know anything about the evidence for the late Ordovician glaciation.  I am only generally familiar and would be interested in learning more on the subject.

Do you have any graphs or charts you could post of O18/O16 correlated with temperature over time for the Phanerozoic?  And what would you say is the significance of this data for the OP (i.e., does it accord, or not accord with claim #2 that the fossil record is mostly the product of a one year global flood).  Thanks!  

Forams are such an important part of the fossil record, but one I confess I know less about (than my Cambrian trilobites).  O18/O16 ratios aside, I suspect the biostratigraphic zones of forams (and diatoms as well) don't fit YEC appeals to 'ecological zonation' and 'hydrological sorting' to explain the observed order/sequence of fossils.

I have been retired since 2008 and my work in biostratigraphy was during the 1980s so I have boxes of my old reports but I signed a paper that does not allow me to share the data I collected. I think the public information may be googled but I have not tried yet. My data does not fit the YECs conclusion. In fact the data I am aware of makes the YECs look very biased to to their beliefs. So much so that they seem to me to be hindered at seeing truth! Of course that is just my opinion but my opinion has a lot of facts supporting it.

B1: SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS: ACCELERATED RADIOACTIVE DECAY & PLATE TECTONICS

The first of two major problems with YEC 'flood geology' relates to plate tectonics and radioactive decay.  The theory of plate tectonics is one of the most successful theories in science.  The Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain is an example of a geophysical feature that is well explained by plate tectonics.  Hawaii currently sits atop a mantle 'hot spot'.  Rising magma has built up the Hawaiian islands over time.

While this 'hot spot' has remained relatively fixed (but not completely) the Pacific Plate has been moving across it at the snail's pace of 3-4 inches per year.  The result is a conveyer-belt like creation of chains of volcanic islands.

This chain of more than 100 volcanic islands is known as the Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain that stretches some 3,900 miles.

The Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain is an example of multiple, independent lines of supporting evidence.  For example, as predicted the ages of these different volcanic islands and seamounts based on Potassium-Argon radiometric dating (K-Ar) increase with distance from the Hawaii 'hot spot' from present age at the big island of Hawaii to about 81 million years at the Detroit Seamount.  These ages are also consistent with the ages derived from paleontological (fossil) data.

Not only that, but when these Potassium-Argon dates are plotted as a function of distance from the 'hot spot' a near linear relationship results that is consistent with current rates of tectonic plate motion.  In other words, the average speed of the Pacific Plate during the time span when the Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain was being created is consistent with the current speed of the Pacific Plate today; approximately 3-4 inches per year.

The agreement of these multiple, independent lines of evidence constitute strong evidence for plate tectonics and an old-age earth; not an earth that is only 6,000 years old as YECs claim.

The YEC 'solution': Accelerated Nuclear Decay & Catastrophic Plate Tectonics:

In 1994, YECs proposed Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT)--a theory of accelerated plate tectonics--in an attempt to accord 'flood geology' with the modern theory of plate tectonics.  Prior to this not all YECs recognized the truth of plate tectonics ('continental drift'). 

Then in 1997, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) funded the RATE Project (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) to study the age of the earth.  The RATE Project in particular marked a turning point in the history of YEC.  Prior to this the standard YEC 'explanation' for radiometric dating was to claim that 'secular' scientists are biased and accept radiometric dates that fit with their 'uniformitarianism/evolutionary' time scale and reject dates that don't fit their long-age assumptions.  In a dramatic turn of events and paradigm shift from this stance, the YEC RATE Project concluded that 'secular' scientists *don't* actually pick-and-choose dates to conform with supposed long-age assumptions; that there *is* some truth behind radiometric dates; and that billions of years worth of radioactive decay (by 'today's' decay rates) HAS actually occurred on our planet earth.  As a result, while YECs still think radiometric dates do not give true, actual 'absolute' dates, they now recognize that radiometric dates are valid in the 'relative ages' that they provide.  For example, Ken Ham's YEC organization Answers in Genesis published an article on the Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain that stated the following:

"One clue is the relative ages of the rocks on the Hawaiian Islands and Emperor Seamount chains. Using the standard radiometric dating technique that measures the radioactive decay of potassium to argon (the potassium-argon method), we learn that the youngest volcanic rocks are on the island of Hawaii. (That’s what we would expect since its volcanoes are still active.) The volcanic rocks become progressively older northward along the chain. The central islands of Midway Island and Kure Atoll are said to be 28 million years old, and then the seamounts along the Emperor Chain date from 47 million years northward to 81 million years. While creationists strongly dispute the actual ages, they agree with the relative nature of the measurements."

***In short, today's YECs recognize that plate tectonics ('continental drift') is true and that radiometric dating gives valid 'relative ages', so in order to make this fit with a one year global flood, YECs are forced to say rates of nuclear decay and tectonic plate motion were vastly accelerated (AND = Accelerated Nuclear Decay; CPT = Catastrophic Plate Tectonics).  Thus, instead of 3-4 inches per year, the Pacific Plate had to move tens of feet per second during Noah's flood, combined with a massive increase in volcanic magma output at the 'hot spot' during the same time span in order to account for the formation of most of the Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain volcanic islands.  In addition, in order to account for the radiometric dates of these volcanic islands, YECs now believe the rates of nuclear decay were greatly accelerated during the one year flood (for some inexplicable reasons!) and then slowed down to current rates of decay (again, for some inexplicable reason; there really is no 'reason'--it's simply an ad hoc 'solution' to fit the evidence with 'flood geology').

There are of course many, many, many problems with this proposal; not least of which is the "Catch-22" that the faster tectonic plates move over the 'hot spot' the less time there is available to actually build-up volcanic islands.  If the Pacific Plate were somehow moving tens of feet per second over the 'hot spot' there simply wouldn't be enough time to make the islands, so YECs are then forced to say the rate of volcanic output must have been highly accelerated too (even though the physics of this doesn't work; you can't get magma to move fast enough to create the Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain if the tectonic plates were moving as fast as YECs say).

But there are other problems as well, such as the time it takes for erosion and coral reef growth.  For example, the Kure Atoll is at approximately the mid-way point in the Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain.  The atoll is approximately 4-5 miles in diameter and this presents a problem due to how long it takes atolls to form.

An atoll forms when a volcanic island (after it's been created) slowly erodes over time until it is below the surface of the ocean again.  While this is happening coral reefs are slowly growing up around the volcanic island as the volcano is eroded.  The result is an atoll--a lagoon (where the volcano used to be) surrounded by a coral reef.

One simply cannot make a volcanic island with a tectonic plate moving tens of feet per second over a 'hot spot' and then erode it while growing coral reefs up around the volcano in a one-year flood, or even in the 4,400 years since the purported date of the flood.

***But these are still not the BIGGEST PROBLEMS.  The GREATEST PROBLEMS with Accelerated Nuclear Decay (AND) & Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT) are that EVEN IF for argument sake we accept the YEC's inexplicable, unsupported proposal of accelerated decay and plate tectonics, IT STILL DOESN'T WORK---because of the HEAT.  YECs admit that the HEAT generated from accelerated plate motion and accelerated nuclear decay during a one year global flood would be so much that it would not only boil away the oceans (making it hard to have a flood in the first place!), but it would be hot enough to melt the earth's crust, too, possibly several times over (which also does not bode well for Noah's ark and its occupants!). 

YECs currently have no solution for this other than to propose supernatural miracles.  After all, they reason, if God can suspend physical laws of the universe to part the Red Sea or resurrect a dead corpse, then surely God could do the same during Noah's flood (and Noah's flood was a much bigger supernatural event than the parting of the Red Sea!).  But the problem with this 'argument' is that it doesn't make logical (or even theological!) sense.  Accounts of supernatural miracles in the Bible aren't arbitrary ad hoc occurrences that just randomly happen for no apparent reason, but are given theological reasons and significance for their occurrence.  By contrast, why in heaven (or on earth) would God accelerate nuclear decay and then slow it down?   What possible purpose could this serve?  Why not leave them unchanged (just like they appear to be), so that if all this tectonic activity happened in a one year flood, then the dates would accurately reflect that?  In short, it doesn't make sense, which is further evidence of why YEC 'flood geology' is such an abject failure at explaining the scientific evidence (or even coming up with a sensible theological explanation).

B2: SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS: LOCATING NOAH'S FLOOD: "WHERE IS NOAH'S FLOOD IN THE FOSSIL/GEOLOGIC RECORD?"

YECs will often claim that the evidence for Noah's flood is obvious, overwhelming and unmistakable--so much so that only fools or those with a 'bias' would fail to see it.  However, if this Is true, then it should be equally easy to identify where in the fossil/geologic record Noah's flood starts (i.e., the 'pre-flood/flood boundary') and where it ends (i.e., the 'flood/post-flood boundary').  But in point of fact, it is far from clear, and much disagreement and lack of consensus exists among YECs as to where Noah's flood begins and ends.  This is no minor issue, but crucial to the discussion.  Because if, for example, the flood/post-flood boundary is at the K/T boundary (when dinosaurs went extinct), as some creationists argue, then that means all the so-called mass amounts of ‘evidence’ for the flood that other creationists cite above the K/T boundary *can’t actually be evidence for Noah’s flood*.  

B2A: YEC 'FLOOD GEOLOGY' IS SELF-REFUTING

A recent YEC article summarizes the disagreements among YEC 'flood geologists'.  https://newcreation.blog/where-is-noahs-flood-in-the-geologic-record/  noting four major views.  The disparities between these views are striking.  In fact, YEC 'flood geology' is largely self-refuting because of this.  One need merely consult the YEC opponents of each YEC view to see that collectively they have effectively ruled out the entire fossil/geologic record!  Quoting from this article:

1.  Neogene/Quaternary Boundary Model:

"This is the second most widely-accepted Flood model and posits that the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and all of the Cenozoic (up to the Ice Age) were the result of the Flood. Some, like geologist Tim Clarey, argue that most of the Precambrian was formed during Creation Week, while others, like Michael Oard and Tas Walker, place the Precambrian in the Flood as well. There is also considerable debate among this model’s advocates on the existence of the geologic column. Regardless, all agree that there is a general order to the geologic record.

Many proponents of the Neogene/Quaternary boundary model explain the fossil record as the result of Ecological Zonation Theory; the order of burial reflects the order in which their native ecosystems were buried during the Flood. Lifeforms on the deep ocean floors were the first to be buried due to their low elevation. Next to be swept away, transported, and buried were ecological communities along the coast, in the lowlands, and finally those in the uplands. Differential escape and hydrodynamic sorting may also have played a role in the order of fossils. This model suggests that the last air-breathing land animals perished by the 150th day of the Flood. The Cenozoic animals and plants buried near the top of the geologic record were likely living in the upland regions of the pre-Flood world. Since these were the last to be taken out by the Flood, many were likely buried in depositional basins around the world as the floodwaters receded.

A brief ice age lasting for centuries occurred in the immediate wake of the Flood, during which the woolly mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, and other animals commonly associated with the glaciation period lived."

In Support of this Position:
Clarey, T.L., and D.J. Werner. 2018. Use of sedimentary megasequences to re-create pre-Flood geography. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 351–372. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.

Holt, R. D., 1996. Evidence for a Late Cainozoic Flood/post-Flood boundary. CEN Tech. J., 10(1): 128-167.

Against this Position:
Arment, C. (2020). Implications of Creation Biology for a Neogene-Quaternary Flood/Post-Flood Boundary. Answers Research Journal, 13, 241-256. doi: https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/implication-creation-biology-neogene-quaternary-flood-post-flood-boundary/  

Johnston, Richard H. THE FLOOD/POST-FLOOD BOUNDARY. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, 1997, pp. 162–165.

2.   Cretaceous/Paleogene (K/Pg) Boundary Model:

"The general consensus among creation geologists and paleontologists is that the Flood is responsible for much or all of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata, regardless of their Flood model. According to this specific model, the majority of Precambrian strata was formed via Supernatural Formative Processes during Creation Week. On the other hand, much or all of the Cenozoic strata is the result of localized or regional natural disasters occurring as the earth settled down from the Flood itself. This Flood model was popularized in 1994 by geologists Steve Austin and Andrew Snelling, paleontologist Kurt Wise, and others.

As with the Neogene/Quaternary model, ecological zonation plays a role in explaining the order of fossils. Another factor is that of biogeographic zonation, in which ecological communities are segregated and/or spatially adjacent to each other. Both models also agree that the air-breathing land animals were extinguished by day 150.

Unlike the previous model, the Cretaceous/Paleogene model argues that the Cenozoic represents successive snapshots of post-Flood recovery ending about the time of Abraham. In this framework, some residual catastrophic processes were still at play in the years or even centuries after the Flood. So, there may still be widespread features in post-Flood deposits, albeit dwarfed by the ones from the Flood itself.

Some advocates of this model think that certain features, like microbialite “reefs” in the Paleozoic, require longer time to form than that allotted in the year-long Flood. They suggest that extensive geologic activity may have been occurring in the ocean basins of the pre-Flood world during the centuries leading up to the Flood. In this case, the first true terrigenous sediments (that is, those washed from off the land) marks the beginning of the Flood in the geologic record. This would put the pre-Flood/Flood boundary somewhere in the upper Paleozoic or lower Mesozoic. Interestingly, this view was held by many scriptural geologists of the 19th century."

In Support of this Position:
Whitmore, J. and Garner, P., Using suites of criteria to recognize pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood strata in the rock record with application to Wyoming (USA); in: Snelling, A.A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, and Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, pp. 425–448, 2008.

Against this Position:
Oard, M.J., Geology indicates the terrestrial Flood/post-Flood boundary is mostly in the Late Cenozoic, J. Creation 27(1):119–127, 2013.

3.  Late Paleozoic Boundary Model:

"In 1988, paleontologist Joachim Scheven proposed a new Flood model in his book, Megasuccessions and Climax in the Tertiary: Catastrophes between Flood and Ice Age. Other European creationists got on board, including Michael Garten, Paul Garner, David Tyler, Bernard Northrop, and Steven Robinson. This model is known as the Late Paleozoic Boundary model and was greatly expounded upon by Robinson in 1996.

According to its supporters, the Flood begins in the upper Precambrian and ends in the lower Carboniferous (Mississippian) strata. The raging waters from the “fountains of the great deep” and the torrential rain (Genesis 7:11-12) swept away the pre-Flood land surface, “blotting out” all remains of air-breathing terrestrial life not aboard Noah’s Ark, within the first 40 days. Left in the floodwaters’ wake was the massive, worldwide erosion surface known today as the Great Unconformity.

The geologic record from the Great Unconformity onward to the upper Ordovician represents the global rise in sea level, during which successions of marine organisms, one ecological community after another, were washed onto and over the continents, many buried and later becoming fossils. Fish and other more powerful swimmers largely avoided this fate because of their mobility and ability to escape to open water. The upper Silurian-Mississippian represents the ebb and flow of the receding floodwaters during the latter half of the Flood year. Advocates of this model point out that just as the Flood account does not address the survival of fish, it also does not tell us of the fate of creatures that resided upon pre-Flood floating forests, like pelycosaurs, dragonflies, and petrolacosaurs. Since these creatures were not residents of “dry land,” and since their biome was, by its very nature, already afloat, the animals that lived on it could survive through much of the Flood, drifting across the submerged continents. As the waters receded, the floating forests were broken apart, beached, and buried in layers on top of each other (later to become coal). Their surviving inhabitants scrambled onto newly-exposed land surfaces, ready to colonize a post-Flood world.

According to this model, the Flood/post-Flood boundary lies in the mid-Carboniferous, specifically at the Mississipian/Pennsylvanian boundary. The fossil record of terrestrial vertebrates found in Permian to the Tertiary strata demonstrate how the animals that left the Ark multiplied, diversified and repopulated the world.

This is the third most widely held young-earth history model. Steven Robinson no longer accepts an upper Paleozoic Flood boundary, now favoring Recolonization Theory instead because he does not feel certain geologic and fossil features could be explained in the context of the year-long Flood. Paul Garner has also left this position, but for the opposite reason. He currently adheres to the K/Pg model, arguing that it best fits the overwhelming geologic patterns in the rock record. Meanwhile, David Tyler advocates for a unique model that combines elements of the Late Paleozoic Boundary Model with those of Recolonization Theory."

In Support of this Position:
Robinson S, 1996, Can Flood Geology Explain the Fossil Record?, CEN Tech. J, vol. 10 nr 1: p. 32–69.

Tyler, D.J. 2006. Recolonisation and the Mabbul. In Reed, J.K., and M.J. Oard (editors), The Geologic Column: Perspectives within Diluvial Geology, pp. 73–86

Against this Position:
Garner, P. 2008. Time for an Upgrade? Answers Magazine.

Reed, John & Kulikovsky, Andrew & Oard, Michael. (2009). Can Recolonization Explain the Rock Record? Creation Research Quarterly, 46. 27.

4.  Recolonization Theory:

"Starting in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, some creationists began to argue that the fossil record is not the result from the Flood, but rather the product of different phases of Earth’s recovery after the Flood. This model has been called Recolonization Theory. One of its most vocal advocates has been geologist Steven Robinson. Those who accept this model often posit that the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 may contain gaps, making the earth between 8,000 and 20,000 years old. Earthhistory.org.uk, which promotes Recolonization Theory, states that, “We take no position on the age of the Earth, except to point out that its claimed age of 4.6 billion years old rests on the assumption that rates of radioactive decay have always been constant. That is a fundamental tenet that science is currently unprepared to question. In our opinion, the primary evidence (some of which we discuss) indicates much shorter timescales.” 

Recolonization Theory correlates the Noahic cataclysm to the Late Heavy Bombardment, a hypothesis which posits that the early earth was pummeled by failed planets and huge chunks of rock left behind from the formation of the solar system. In this scenario, the “rain” of Genesis 7:4 was not water, but actually a rain of asteroids. It was also at this time that the entire world was submerged by subterranean water bursting forth from below the earth’s surface. Between the flooding and pummeling from extraterrestrial bodies, the pre-Flood earth’s crust was destroyed and anything upon it “blotted out.”

Seeing as no evidence of the Late Heavy Bombardment exists on Earth, the Flood/post-Flood boundary lies at the base of the Archean, the oldest rocks on the planet. Recolonization Theory posits that the fossil record represents the hundreds and/or thousands of years after the Flood, during which successions of the surviving organisms’ descendants (be they from the Ark or from subaqueous refugia) repopulated the empty earth."

In Support of this Position:
A record of earth’s recolonisation. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2021, from https://www.earthhistory.org.uk/recolonisation 

Against this Position:
White, D., & Taylor, P. (2017, October 23). The ‘recolonisation theory’-the latest compromise. Retrieved March 24, 2021 from https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/the-recolonisation-theory-the-latest-compromise/  

B2B: NOAH'S FLOOD CAN'T BE LOCATED IN THE FOSSIL/GEOLOGIC RECORD:

As stated above, YEC 'flood geology' is largely self-refuting.  One need merely consult YEC opponents of each YEC flood position (See above, under 'Against this Position' for each of the four major YEC views).  But I'd also like to provide a more concrete refutation.  This can be done using the first YEC 'flood geology' view given above to illustrate.  By this view, the great majority of the Phanerozoic Eon (which consists of the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras) is due to Noah's flood.  Proponents of this view typically locate the pre-flood/flood boundary at the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary; citing the global extent of the 'Great Unconformity' as irrefutable evidence for the onset of Noah's flood.  The 'Great Unconformity' between the Precambrian and Cambrian is well-known in the Grand Canyon.

Proponents of this view locate the flood/post-flood boundary at the Neogene/Quaternary boundary; well above the K/T boundary that marks the extinction of the dinosaurs and the boundary between the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras.  To put this in perspective, this means that YEC proponents of this view believe that the more 500 million years represented by this roughly two mile-thick sequence of rocks was deposited in a single year; and includes all of the Paleozoic era (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous- Mississippian/Pennsylvanian, and Permian); all of the Mesozoic era of dinosaurs (Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous); and most  of the Cenozoic era (Paleogene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene--which is at the end of the Neogene); leaving only the Quaternary (Pleistocene and Holocene).

OK, let's go with that and assume for argument sake that the 'Great Unconformity' between the Precambrian and Cambrian is the 'pre-flood/flood boundary', and the Neogene/Quaternary boundary is the 'flood/post-flood boundary'.  Having said that, I want to keep things simple by dealing with only one type of problem: namely, the problem of *stromatolites*.

THE PROBLEM OF STROMATOLITES:

Fossil *stromatolites* are layered sedimentary structures made by photosynthetic cyanobacteria.  Stromatolites are analogous to coral reefs, but instead of being made by invertebrate animals they are made by cyanobacteria (formerly called 'blue-green algae').  They typically grow in *quiet, low-energy* depositional environments, and grow very slowly; adding tiny layer upon tiny layer over time at the snail's pace of .0001 centimeters per year to 5 centimeters per year.  In short, stromatolites indicate slow growth deposition.  Even YECs acknowledge this and acknowledge that stromatolites are a problem because of their slow rate of growth.  YECs 'solve' this by claiming stromatolites aren't really stromatolites, by claiming that stromatolites did not form *in situ* (i.e., in the place where they are found) but are *allochthonous* (i.e., transported from somewhere else), or by simply ignoring stromatolites altogether.  However, criteria for identifying real, authentic *in situ* fossil stromatolites have been developed that even YECs recognize and accept.

The upshot of all this is that the time frames needed for *in situ* stromatolites to form exceed a putative one-year global flood, so sedimentary layers in which *in situ* stromatolites are found in the fossil record, cannot be 'flood deposits' attributed to Noah's flood.

1.  Precambrian stromatolites below the 'Great Unconformity':

When we apply this information to the fossil record we can conclude first of all that the 'pre-flood/flood' boundary can't be below the 'Great Unconformity, as even YEC 'flood geologists' like Kurt Wise, Steven Austin, and others have noted.  This is because only a short-ways below the Great Unconformity we run into slow-growth, laminated Precambrian *stromatolites* that formed *in situ*--in place--and took time to build up one layer at a time by the action of photosynthetic cyanobacteria in lower-energy depositional environments. (Wise & Snelling, 'A Note on the Pre-flood/flood boundary in the Grand Canyon':  https://apologetyka.com/ptkr/groups/ptkrmember/mlodoziemcy/Wise%2C%20Snelling%2C%20A%20Note%20on%20the%20Pre-Flood.pdf  ; 'Stromatolites: what they are and mean to us': https://www2.palomar.edu/users/warmstrong/ls2exams/images/stromatolite1.pdf  )

2.  Eocene stromatolites in freshwater lake deposits below the Neogene/Quaternary boundary:

On the upper half of the geologic column we run-into the Green River formation lacustrine ('lake') deposits of Eocene age, well below the proposed flood/post-flood boundary of the Neogene/Quaternary.  This formation is an extensive, ecologically stable ancient freshwater lake system that is right in the middle of where our flood is supposed to be that we can map both the lateral and vertical boundaries of complete with various freshwater fish, reptiles, insects, and so on, as well as the very problematic occurrence of slow-growth, in situ, laminated *stromatolites* that we can further use to map the changing lake shoreline (and gradation of lake depth) over time.  These are real stromatolites of biogenic origin that formed *in situ* with zero evidence for allochthonous transport.  Even the late Paul Buchheim--a YEC geologist and leading world authority on the Green River formation (among both YEC AND secular geologists)--acknowledges that these are real stromatolites in ancient lacustrine ('lake') deposits.  What this means is that the flood/post-flood boundary simply CAN'T be all the way up at the Neogene/Quaternary boundary but must at minimum be below the Green River formation of the Eocene, because you simply can't have a large, stable freshwater lake system with stromatolites in the middle of what is supposed to be a catastrophic global flood.  

3.  Global occurrence of stromatolites in Upper Cambrian rocks above the 'Great Unconformity':

But we find a similar problem at the lower end of the geologic column with *widespread*, multiple-stacked layers of slow-growth, in situ Upper Cambrian stromatolites--far more widespread than realized--that occur well above the Great Unconformity.  These stromatolites are in fact global in their distribution.  Ken Coulson, a YEC geologist, has done extensive research on these stromatolites as part of his doctoral dissertation and expanded research he has published in both professional peer reviewed secular journals as well as YEC journals. (From 2021 'Answers in Genesis': 'Using Stromatolites to Rethink the Precambrian-Cambrian Pre-Flood/Flood Boundary': https://answersingenesis.org/geology/using-stromalites-rethink-precambrian-flood-boundary/  ; From the 2018 Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism: 'Global Deposits of in situ Upper Cambrian microbialites: Implications for a Cohesive Model of Origins': https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=icc_proceedings  ; Doctoral dissertation: 'The Growth and Ecology of Upper Cambrian Microbialite Biostromes from the Notch Peak Formation in Utah': https://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1370&context=etd ). 

Whether by secular criteria or the YEC criteria (of Wise & Snelling) for establishing bona fide *in situ* deposition and growth of stromatolites (and ruling out all other possible competing explanations, including allochthonous transport), Coulson came to the same conclusions. He documented the extensive, widespread occurrence of in situ stromatolites of biogenic origin in Upper Cambrian rocks covering a one thousand square mile area.  Not only that, he found multiple stromatolite beds over this area that were vertically stacked one atop the other directly or with intervening sedimentary deposition, ranging in vertical thickness from 300 meters up to several kilometers high. He further notes the global occurrence of similar stromatolites in Upper Cambrian to Lower Ordovician rocks    Needless to say, these vast numbers of stromatolites covering extensive areas that are found *above* the Great Unconformity represent quiet, low-energy depositional environments 'that require time frames greater than the one-year period of Noah's Flood' to produce.  In short, they cannot be Flood-deposits, so the pre-flood/flood boundary cannot be at the Great Unconformity, but must be above it; and at minimum, above these extensive Upper Cambrian sequences of slow-growth, in situ stromatolites.  Coulson, himself, suggests the best candidate for the pre-flood/flood boundary above these stromatolites is higher still, all the way up at the Permian/Carboniferous, just before the Mesozoic; which, would limit the flood to just the Mesozoic (plus the Paleocene below the Eocene Green River Formation).

4.  Giant stromatolites in the Jurassic interdunal desert ponds/lakes:

But giant stromatolites have also been discovered in rocks of Jurassic age, so the entire Mesozoic can't be attributed to Noah's flood either. ('Giant Stromatolites of Capitol Reef National Park': https://www.nps.gov/articles/stromatolites-of-capitol-reef-national-park.htm ).

SUMMARY: These are but a handful of examples.  Unfortunately, what we find is that if we continue this exercise the amount of fossil record available for locating the flood gets ever smaller, and smaller still, until we've whittled away the possibilities to virtually nil.  Because we find in situ fossil stromatolites in rocks of just about every age, including the Precambrian, we have very little room left in the fossil/geologic record where we can put Noah's flood.