Flood Geology Critique by a YEC Flood Geologist

It's fine if you don't believe me and are suspicious of what I say @TruthMuse and @Kjav, but I encourage you to watch this three part video by YEC flood geologist and paleontologist, Ken Coulson. Ken Coulson is an acquaintance of mine but no friend of old ages or evolution, so hopefully you'll be open to what he has to say and teach, because there's a lot that can be learned from his three part video "How much of the geologic record was deposited during Noah's Flood?"

Part 1 is a short 5 minute intro that gives common creationist arguments for the start of Noah's Flood being at the "Great Unconformity" boundary between the Precambrian and Cambrian at the bottom of the Grand Canyon

Part 2 is an 8 minute video where Ken tells you about his PhD research (published in the Answers for Genesis journal) on Cambrian stromatolites (bacterial "reefs") in Utah and how this research shows that the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary can't be the start of Noah's Flood. The problems are similar to the problems with reefs found throughout the fossil record that I discussed in another OP. See here, here, here, here, and here. He also reviews all the common creationist suggestions for explaining these stromatolite "reefs" (maybe they grew faster, maybe they're not biological, maybe they were ripped up and transported, etc.). He explains in a non-technical, easy to understand way why these arguments don't work. It's very informative, and a short video, so I hope you'll watch.

In Part 3 Ken gives his own Flood theory and explains why he thinks Noah's Flood happened during the Mesozoic time of the dinosaurs. I do not believe it is supported by the facts, however, I'm still willing to post the video, and welcome his contributions even though I disagree, because he's still a legit scientist who knows his geology and paleontology, while most creationists don't, but simply repeat the same erroneous creationist proof texts for flood geology that aren't actually true and don't actually work. I hope among other things that you will recognize that not all YEC scientists are the same and that some are better than others (in terms of accuracy and accurate information). And if YEC ever wants to attain a place of acceptance and legitimacy in science, then it needs more legit, rigorous scientists like Ken Coulson.

Very nice, b-pawn.

It is nice to see somebody in the Creationist camp, searching for actual evidence. Instead of just latching onto anything that supports their political viewpoint.

Agreed 👍 

A lot of that going around.

But did you watch the videos?

"...if YEC ever wants to attain a place of acceptance and legitimacy in science" - isn't that a contradiction in terms?

I think I've pointed this out before but since the claim that the Earth is merely 10,000 years old is demonstrably false, how on earth can Young Earth Creationism ever be scientifically legitimate?

There's a difference between professional legitimacy of a scientist and legitimacy of a theory. Stephen J Gould had immense respect for YEC paleontologist Kurt Wise and endorsed him as a legitimate professional scientist even though he didn't endorse his views.

So how should we understand the geologic record? Megasequences help us understand the big picture. There are six megasequences that correspond with global changes in sea level.

Most of the geologic record can thus be understood in the context of rising (transgressions) and falling (regressions) sea level. 

Here's a great (short) video that shows in time lapse how these megasequences play out. 

If you have a sandy beach, and then mud/shale further out in the water, and carbonate/limestone out beyond that...

then when sea level rises these horizontally/laterally positioned environments will get vertically stacked on top of each other.

So when you find a vertical sequence of rocks that has sandstone on the bottom with shale on top and limestone on top of that, then that is usually indicative of a transgression (rising sea level).

The Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale, and Muav Limestone in the Grand Canyon are a transgressive sequence showing that the water is getting deeper in that area. 

And this is one of the ways to track sea level rise and fall because you can follow the layers laterally and see where the new shoreline (sand) migrated to.

Even among YECs this is not controversial and flood geologists recognize megasequences and how they show rising and falling sea level. They just believe it's all due to Noah's Flood. But they lie about it and about what "secular geologists" think. That's what I have the biggest problem with: the incessant lies of YECs in order to try to legitimize themselves. Newsflash: lies do the opposite of that! Here's a YEC lie from Answers in Genesis about the sandstone-shale-limestone pattern, saying...

Umm, no it doesn't. "Secular geologists" are the ones who discovered and taught YECs about megasequences.

And here's a lie by ICR (Institute for Cambrian Research) claiming that some megasequences are a "complete reversal of the secular story!"

Umm, no, the "reversal of the secular story!" (limestone-shale-sandstone instead of sandstone-shale-limestone) is simply a regression (sea level falling) you big fat liar. More than the inaccurate science, I detest the lies.

But there's inaccurate science as well...

YEC Ken Coulson has already explained (in Part 2 of his three part video above) why this can't be true.

YEC flood geologists will try to gloss over the facts too (and the problems they create): like how the six megasequence rise-and-falls in sea level is supposedly an "exact" confirmation of the Bible:

Notice the attempt to fudge and gloss over the problem: "The waters *may* have dropped between megasequences" (Oh, they did. That was the "complete reversal of the secular story!" that is actually a problem for YECs). And these are "merely" "variations" in "local conditions during the one *continuous* Flood event" (umm, no, they're global changes in sea level; that's why they're called MEGA-sequences).

You see, megasequences are actually a problem because they don't fit a literal view of the Bible, which says the waters of Noah's Flood rose and then fell a single time. They didn't rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall six times. To conform with a literal Biblical interpretation, YECs would need to pick one rising-falling megasequence for Noah's Flood, which again means most of the geologic record can't be due to Noah's Flood.

*Furthermore, at no time in the history of these six major changes in sea level is the entire earth covered by water.

YECs can only make the geologic record "fit" by fudging the facts ("one continuous Flood event" vs the truth: six major changes in sea level) and by NOT accepting a literal view of the Bible. And this single-rise and fall of Noah's Flood in the Bible is not some trivial point that can be glossed over, because the entire flood story is structured around it using a Hebrew poetry device known as a chiasm (mirror image literary structure) 

Everything that happens during the flood as the waters rise is then reversed and undone step-by-step at the turning point in the story, when the waters start to recede. It is that turning point, the center of the chiasm that is the whole point/main point of the story ("God remembered Noah"), not to give us insight about the geologic record.

Not yet, but I will today. I have jury duty today so not sure when I'll get the time but I will make it.

Oh no! Jury duty. Well thanks for doing your civic duty.

https://www.gotquestions.org/global-flood.html

The last paragraph seems to support the bible....

Genesis does not depict a local flood or global flood but a flood on a scale of COSMIC proportions that represents a reversal and undoing of the very creation itself  (Day 2, 3, 5 & 6). The separated waters on Day 2 are no longer separated and the separated water and land on Day 3 are no longer separated (and the vapor canopy theory discussed in the link was discarded by YECs long ago: not only do the physics not work, but the Bible uses the Hebrew word mayim--literal liquid water--not vapor). And unfortunately, everything in that last paragraph does not support. See GeoChristian's post on "Six Bad Answers from Answers in Genesis are still Bad Answers."

That's not the Bible's fault, but the fault of those who try to turn the Bible into a modern science textbook

Then perhaps you didn't phrase this particularly well? ...

"...if YEC ever wants to attain a place of acceptance and legitimacy in science"

However many times I read that it seems to suggest that it's possible for Young Earth Creationism as a theory/a position/a belief system to achieve scientific respectability but that's plainly impossible if only because of the assertion that the Earth is less than 15,000 years (?) old.

That's been established as false and it's hard to imagine the world of science accepting anything that's founded on falsehood wouldn't you agree?

The respectability of individual scientists who associate with YEC is an entirely separate issue I'd say.

So I missed an "s" and wrote "if YEC" instead of "if YECs." But it was exceedingly clear from the context that I was referring to the legitimacy of them as professional scientists, was it not?

Then I'm puzzled because if I'd read this "...if YEC ever want to attain a place of acceptance and legitimacy in science", I'd have realised you meant 'YEC's' but instead you wrote...

"...if YEC ever wants to attain a place of acceptance and legitimacy in science", which made me assume YEC was intended to be singular.

Typing fast, but again what I meant was still clear from the context (and the fact I said I disagree with his view; not sure what you're trying to insinuate). But at any rate, I can't see the views ever being legitimized, but you'll find that scientists are on the whole pretty welcoming and tolerant even of people (and their views) they consider wacky as long as they're trying to do honest work, not misrepresenting the work of other scientists, not making crazy, unfounded, or exaggerated statements to the media, and following the 'rules' of science for establishing scientific knowledge via the professional peer-review process.

The Seventh Day Adventist Loma Linda University (where Ken Coulson actually got his PhD) is one such institution that is not a political creationist organization but a respected institution of higher learning (and great medical program where the first infant heart transplant was done) that by and large is only interested in doing legit scientific research (not advancing their creationist beliefs through activism like typical creationist organizations).

I forgot when I got home, I will do it today.

Two down the rest to go. As I was watching it an off-topic thought occurred to me. Do you think/believe that earth's land mass was always as it is, or was it at one time one land mass? I'm still looking for something that we could both call a fact that we can use to sort out some of the things that have to do with evolutionary changes. I'm going to watch them all, you can wait till I'm done or respond here.

Tons of evidence for continental drift (even flood geologists accept) including puzzle like fit of continents, matching fossils and rock sequences, direct measurement of seafloor spreading and tectonic plate movement by satellites, tropical plant fossils Glossopteris found in Antarctica, mesosaurus reptile found in same freshwater basin (half of the basin is in South America and the other half is in Africa). You can pick just about any horizontal-vertical location in the geologic record and determine the paleolatitude-longitude of that position and see how it changes over time (by using the same principle as a compass "points North")

Interesting thank you