As I understand it, YEC's believe that Noah's Flood is the major reason that the fossil record looks as it does, while OEC's believe that the 4.543B years of the earth's history is the major reason it looks as it does.
Correspondingly, YEC's, by definition, would reject the old earth as the primary cause of the fossil record, but does it work the other way around? That is, do all OEC's reject Noah's Flood as a global calamity...or are there some today who maintain the fossil record is a result both of an old earth and Noah's Flood?
I am not aware of any. All of the OEC's I am aware of view Noah's Flood as a local event, if they view Noah's flood as a real historical event at all. There is plenty of evidence for pretty massive local floods in Mesopotamia where the stories of Noah and Utnapishtim seem to come from, so it isn't surprising that a bad flood would grow to mythical proportions over the years.
There are many scholars who view the Noah story as a retelling of the Sumerian flood story from the Enuma Elis since the Sumerian stories appear to be much older than Genesis, but that is probably a discussion for another thread. However, the similarity between the two stories is pretty hard to ignore.
I'm not certain that's an accurate assessment of the YEC view. I would say that their interpretation of the Bible dictates their perception of Noah's Flood, which they will hold onto DESPITE the fossil record.
It is the AIG view. https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/the-fossil-record/
Interpreting the Noah story as a distorted regional flood actually solves a number of problems:
1) It means there would no longer be a problem with the lack of evidence for a global flood. (Like the 100,000+ years of uninterrupted arctic ice cores... and the lack of interruption of Dynastic Ebgyptian civilization since the flood would be estimated some time during the 5th or 6th Dynasty).
2) It means there would be survivors of Cain's lineage, such as the Kenites.
3) It means the ark wouldn't have to house so many animals.
Note the pseudo scientific gibberish which AIG has used to try and ape real science.
The three (3) main phenomena that no global flood scenario can explain are:
1) The complete lack of intermingling of large mammals and dinosaurs (both plant eaters & meat eaters); this includes the special issue of the complete lack of intermingling of marine mammals and marine dinosaurs;
2) The flood scenario offers no explanation for how the entire expanse of fossil bearing strata could have been created in 6000 years without any dinosaur cadavers being found in the same condition as mammoth cadavers.
3) The flood scenario does not explain the marsupial monopoly found in Australia, especially if we assume that Ausralian fauna are all post-flood arrivals!
We could add a few more:
4) The correlation between fossil species and the ratios of parent and daughter isotopes in the igneous rocks above and below them.
5) The wide spread of 14C content in terrestrial fossils within the supposed flood layers. If they all died at the same time then they should all have the same 14C content.
I like those! They become the exclamation marks that confirm and emphasize the logic of the evidence!
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.