There are hundreds of folk tales worldwide about a great flood. They bear many similarities to the Biblical account. How do you explain this from an evolutionary historical model, in which peoples have lived isolated from each other for tens of thousands of years? That's not going to work. However, it is exactly what you would expect based on the Biblical record. The nations have a shared history which they distributed across the world, from the Mesopotamian plains [the migration of all nations]. Remarkably for instance, the old Chinese character for "big boat" contains a symbol for 8 people. Is it coincidence or did the first Chinese know the history of the ark?
Click around at the Answers in Genesis site if you want to find information on this fascinating and highly underexposed topic.
Do you have to assume that the current state of affairs in the world has always been the same? Or is it fair to draw explanations based on great events from the past? Think about this example: Today, America’s continent is shifting several inches away from the Euro-African continent every year. If you take this as a constant factor and calculate backwards, it must have taken a very long time to arrive at the current situation. Given this reasoning, are you justified to say it must have been millions of years ago when the continents were connected? Or have you silently introduced a huge assumption?
The point is that you can’t say for sure it always happened at this rate. There have been no measurements to support the idea in the past (supposed) millions of years. It is therefore an unprovable assumption. It might be a good one. But it might be a bad one as well. A prominent representative of the theory of constant natural processes was James Hutton. He said: “The past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now (…) No Powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle” (James Hutton, quoted in Holmes, A., Principles of Physical Geology , 2nd ed. Edinburgh, Scotland: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1965, pg. 43-44). Note that nowadays more and more attention is being paid to the role of 'major catastrophes' in the past. Rightly so. There’s much to say to support the claim that it all happened a good deal faster than is generally thought. Reason enough for further investigation.
Beginning in the 1830s, the idea was promoted that the Flood would be an embellished version of a local flood in Mesopotamia. But why would Noah have to spend many years working on a huge ship if he could also have moved to a safer region in two months' time? Often these kinds of liberal theories are very illogical if you think about them independently yourself. The next point is a prime example of this.
Another popular idea is that the Biblical story was copied from surrounding nations. That is very unlikely. The story of the flood was supposedly copied and adapted during the time when the Jewish people were in Babylonian captivity (around the 6th century BC). The Babylonian version of Gilgamesh talks about a boat in the form of a cube measuring 60x60x60 meters. But Noah's version has dimensions that have been used in later shipbuilding (six times the length to the width), because it turned out to be the ideal ratio for building large wooden ships. Also check out the real-life reconstruction of the ark in the Answers in Genesis Park. What do you think? Which of the two versions sounds the most reliable? Sometimes it looks like everything has to be pulled out to prove that the Bible is unreliable, and we would rather believe sheer nonsense than give authority to it.
According to recent scientific research, the rolling rock layers of the Grand Canyon were formed in the span of just weeks. Think about it, how can hard rock in the Grand Canyon still have a sloping character? That's the question Dr. Andrew Snelling set out on. At least, after having to fight for years to get a permit. As a 'creationist' he questions the standard interpretations surrounding the origin of the Canyon, and the established order is not happy about that. When, with the necessary legal assistance, he was finally able to obtain a permit, he and his team were able to get to work.
The research into the so-called 'Tapeats sandstone' had a simple objective. There are three possible explanations for the slope of this rock, which is located low in the Canyon, just above the 'great unconformity'. It is possible that the slope was created over time by 1) pressure from the overlying rock or 2) by an upward movement from below. In either case, you should see fault lines or remnants of a chemical process that occurs when the combination of pressure and heat changes the morphology of the rocks. If these two options fall away, only one alternative remains, namely 3) that the material was still soft/liquid at the time of deposition. However, that would imply that the rock must have formed in a matter of weeks, not millions of years.
Dr. Snelling's team has determined after a four-year investigation, using many samples, that there is no trace of fracture or chemical transformation in the Tapeats sandstone, even at the micro level. The only alternative explanation left is that the sloping rock formed when it was still liquid. Snelling's research implies nothing less than that the current paradigm surrounding the origin of the Canyon needs to be overhauled. But hey, who wants that? It was indeed not such a good idea to issue a permit. Here's a beautiful snapshot of the rock:
Dr. Snelling's results fit with other observations that support a recent origin. For example, take a good look at the different layers of rocks in the Canyon. You can see for yourself that they can be clearly distinguished from each other. If, as is claimed, there are millions of years of time between the different layers, how do you explain that there are no signs of erosion at all on the clearly identifiable interfaces? No water flows, no subsidence, no disturbance from animal activities? Also supporting this conclusion is the fact that the degree of rock formation in the Canyon is typical of submerged sedimentation (i.e., an angle of < 25 degrees). With this in mind you look at this beautiful piece of nature with completely different eyes!
In 1980 we saw a real-life example of how a similar landscape can be created in a very short time. During the eruption of volcano Mount St. Helens (USA, west coast), a geological situation emerged almost identical to the canyon, even though the latter is about forty times larger. It all happened in a period of weeks. So, why could this happen in 1980, but is it far-fetched to explain similar situations based on the impact of a global flood in the past?
Here you have a video of Dr. Snelling telling some interesting things about the Canyon. There are more studies available if you want to dive deeper into the subject.
Evidence for the Flood and the Research We Had to Fight For! – YouTube
What is the geological evidence for a young Earth? – dr. Andrew Snelling.
The forces that were released during the worldwide flood created the present continents. The primordial continent of Pangea was broken open at breakneck speed due to the unprecedented dynamics. From the new fault lines, gigantic land masses shifted to their present position in a short time. It was not a continental drift, but rather a continental sprint.
Dr. Kurt Wise presents a fascinating model explaining in detail the origin of the flood and its impact on geology. Not only does the model provide alternative explanations to phenomena explained by secular theories, but it does much more than that. Several phenomena that cannot be properly explained based on a slow geological process are covered. Consider, for example, the origin of the Himalayas. The landmass of present-day India must have collided with central Asia with great force to produce such an impressive mountain range. That can only be reasonably explained by a mega-catastrophic process, such as a global flood.
Have you ever wondered how it is possible that all the earth was covered with water? And why this is no longer the case? Reserve one hour of your life to delve deeper into this fascinating topic:
It is perfectly possible to think about an 'ice age' from the perspective of a young earth. Once you accept that global catastrophes are possible – which, by the way, is being suggested a lot in the current climate crisis debate! – it becomes plausible to theorize from the Biblical starting point. This is not a sign of weakness or naive presumptions, but it is rather a very strong starting point. The explanation of an ice age just after the catastrophe of a global flood is in fact obvious. Watch and listen to this talk by Dr. Larry Vardiman. He develops a scenario of rapid climatic changes based on the geological catastrophe of the flood. Are you excited about this completely different view of things, or does it leave you cold?