"There is no such thing as a 'transitional fossil'..."


A local flood in that region wouldn’t need an ark at all. Just enough advance warning to reach higher ground.

So what exactly are you proposing? I am confused.

Except amphibians, as the name implies, require access to both land and water to survive.



It seems you are confused… I would propose that a global flood is what was detailed, since, as you agree, a local flood would not require an ark, and would not last for an entire year or more.

The name implies how they usually live, but not always an absolute requirement … so some amphibians can hibernate under water in colder soils (during winter, for example). Floating vegetation can also substitute for land. Animals can survive, without thriving, in extreme conditions, sometimes.


So how deep is this flood?

How long did this flood last?

Was the flood fresh water or salty?

Did this flood lay down the sediment that created most of the layers of rock found today?


Check out some websites with keywords, ICS, creationco, to find out about depth, length, salty water, and sediment. And read the scriptures for how long it lasted.


“First, evolution predicts that diversity precedes disparity; a population splits into different species, which then further splits into genera, and then eventually into families, orders, classes, and phyla … In other words, disparity should grow with time (especially as many ‘branches’ of the evolutionary tree die off). However, with the fossils, the opposite is true for animals; disparity precedes diversity …”

“Most of the phylum-level disparity appears very abruptly and almost entirely in the Cambrian (the lowest part of the ‘Phanerozoic’ (more or less the fossil bearing portion of the rock record), ‘dated’ to 541–485 million years ago by evolutionists). Above that, diversity grows within phyla (and lower forms of disparity arise e.g. at class and order levels), but we never see new phyla arising. In fact, evolutionists think most animal phyla arose in a 5–15 million-year period in the Cambrian.”

“Evolution predicts that diversity precedes disparity; … However, in the fossils, the opposite is true for animals; disparity precedes diversity”

“Question: why hasn’t diversification within animals produced new phyla since the ‘explosion’ of phyla in the Cambrian? If evolution could do it then, why not now? And it’s not like there weren’t new niches to fill after it all happened in the Cambrian; there were plenty of places animals supposedly hadn’t colonized yet. Why has all the change in animals since then only happened within phyla? Both creationists (The Cambrian explosion) and evolutionists (The Cambrian explosion in colorful, zoological context) have noted this pattern. Even Darwin knew about it, and he considered it the best objection to his theory! Nothing has changed since Darwin’s day; the so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’ remains one of the biggest challenges to evolution.”


Interesting observation by Marcus Ross that tracks precede fossils.

"Moreover, animal tracks almost always precede body fossils in the fossil record, as paleontologist Dr Marcus Ross explains …

“This is a pattern we see in several different groups, where their footprints are first, and their body parts are later. For the trilobites, for the amphibians, for the dinosaurs—the first time I find evidence of them in the fossil record, it’s from trackways, not from hard parts. From an old-earth perspective, that’s really weird, and hard to grapple with, because you have millions of years of trackway production, then ultimately the animal that made it. But that obviously doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Because if there’s trackways, there’s animals, and those animals have bones and teeth and shells to them, why aren’t they fossilized? Instead the pattern is telling us something different: there’s no time between when somebody leaves a track and when somebody’s buried.”

or, sometime between, but a very short time, or simply amazing all those tracks got buried and fossilized, and the animals all escaped the destruction at that time, but not later, at another time.


Apparently it was deep enough and long enough to destroy every living land animal on earth and produce most of the layers of rock we find today (including fossilized bones and trackways) but simultaneously mild enough to allow seals, ducks, alligators, turtles, frogs, etc. to remain alive in sufficient numbers to reproduce after more than a month of swimming. At least, that’s my impression from the various YEC sources I’ve encountered.


Problem is there is no single YEC description of the flood. It seems to change as various problems with the science try to get worked into the story. Such as, do you accept plate tectonics or no plate tectonics? What I was interested in was how YOU view the flood.

In terms of the types of answers you find at AIG there is this:

The explanations given being just so stories that are hard to believe. Such as vast layers of fresh and salt water that extended around the world and yet did not mix. In fact it was proposed that there were different layers with different salinity to support the different types of fish.

The explanation for the olive tree is another just so story. The olive tree was uprooted, floated in a mat of debris, stayed in a region where the water was fresh, landed at just the right elevation with enough of the roots covered that the tree could take root. The article I found on the olive tree pointed out some trees can survive under water, but not for months at a time, but conveniently didn’t mention that olive trees are not in the group.

(Chris) #172

That’s from the Bible. The dove brought back a freshly plucked olive leaf showing that seedlings (not an uprooted tree) were growing. Noah left the ark more than 3 months later. That’s enough time for vegetation to be well established.

in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest
2½ months later
in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared.
47 days later (~17th of 11th month)
and the dove came back to him in the evening, and there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf; so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth.
3 months + 10 days later
In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. Then God said to Noah, “Go out of the ark, …

That’s hardly surprising. We are dealing with an unrepeatable historic event with no floods of similar scale to compare it with.
Similarly there is no single EC description of pre-historic events.
Nor is there a single Evolutionist description of the evolution of Man.


Strange, the YEC site I found said it had to have come from a tree. There wasn’t enough time for a seed to sprout and grow, assuming the seeds survived.

But you are all working from the same literal reading and you can’t come to an agreement? Makes me think that other interpretations should also be considered. Perhaps an interpretation that doesn’t require the truth God has revealed in creation to be tortured to fit.

You have never grown a garden or planted trees have you.

You have any idea how well seeds will sprout after soaking in water for a year? Yes I know coconuts will sprout after months in the water, but the seeds of the olive tree will have sprouted or rotted after a long soak. Hence the need for an olive tree to survive.

(Chris) #174

Have you read the account in the Bible? If you had you would see that it is succinct and that only directly relevant details (to the author) are given and much is not mentioned. Obviously there can be differences in opinion when discussing things that aren’t even mentioned in the Bible, such as whether there were tectonic movements during the flood year.

Yes I have grown a garden and planted trees.
Yes I do have some idea of how well seeds will sprout after prolonged soaking; and it was probably for less than 10 months,since, according to the Biblical account, by the middle of the 11th month it was growing.
Darwin himself experimented on the effects of soaking in sea-water and found that “To my surprise I found that out of 87 kinds, 64 germinated after an immersion of 28 days, and a few survived an immersion of 137 days.” He also goes on to discuss ways in which seeds could survive much longer. (“On the Origin”, CHAPTER XII, GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION)

Since a Global Flood itself was a miraculous event I can countenance miraculous preservation of plants that would not normally survive those conditions; after all, Noah did. Do you believe in the miraculous resurrection of Jesus?

(Matthew Pevarnik) #175

That’s convenient. Any time a global flood cannot account for some aspect of geology or biology there must have been some miracle. And if anyone dare question such a just so story, ask if they believe in the resurrection.

(Tim) #176

I do not think the miraculous part was the geological manefestation, but the ability of the planet to bounce back so fast. Bounce back without human intervention is a given. The miracle would be humans surviving. Since they are left to their own free will, and not part of creation under the direct guidence of God. God can bury fossils one way or another, so that should not be an issue, should it?

What the Bible leaves out, is the most interesting. It was observed and told as “scientific” fact. Sure it was wrapped up in the religion of the day, but no less so than the endeavor of biologos. The secular humans remember the account as a planet splitting the earth apart. Now whose account is more believable, but also just as true? Secular religious account of two planets colliding, or a Flood that rescues a group of people who heeded a warning? We really do not get to say what was true. We only get the privilege of believability.

(Phil) #177

U[quote=“Timtofly, post:176, topic:40301”]
We really do not get to say what was true. We only get the privilege of believability.

As I read elsewhere, if something is true, it does not change just because you choose not to belief it. So I can certainly agree with the first part of that statement. Not sure what you mean by the last part, but makes me think about why we find something believable.
First, the evidence supporting the issue. What does the physical evidence say. If we are examining a painting and want to see if it was painted by Van Gogh, we look at the pigments used, the age of the canvas,the patina, etc. when we look at the Flood account, we find it lacking with a literalist interpretation, but potentially consistent with a local flood, and entirely conpatable with a symbolic interpretation.
Second , we look at consistency. In the case of Biblical interpretation, is it consistent with scripture and the overall message of the Bible. With a painting, is it consistent with the artists other works. Van Gogh could have painted a nice cheesy little Christmas scene with lit up buildings, but would he? When applied to the flood, the metaphoric message of God being angry with sin but providing salvation from his judgement and providing new life, is consistent with the rest of scripture, the drowning of infants and pregnant women, I have trouble with.
Third, historical accounts. With a Van Gogh, was it mentioned in notes or documented by someone in the past, or did it just appear on the scene? With the flood, that is tricky, given the Gilgamesh accounts of a flood have older documentation, though they maybe derivative. The question is which is derived from what.
Next, we ultimately have to rely on faith. If it looks like a Van Gogh and tests out to be consistent with a Van Gogh, some may believe it is, but others may still think it was perhaps a gifted student of his that painted it. With the flood, faith that the literal account is accurate is more difficult given the inconsistency with the physical evidence and the seeming inconsistency with the totality of the message of the Bible, IMHO.

(Tim) #178

I am not sure if your unbelief stems from the destruction (which is assumed) of all mankind, or the fact that God regreted the creation of man kind. The literal reading is that God regreted creating humans. The assumption is that innocent lives were lost. Why not just assume that the condition of humanity was past the point they even wanted to be saved? Because throughout the Bible God removed humanity after a certain point. I don’t think it was because God wanted to or felt pleasure in doing so, but it was necessary according to God’s plan and will for the earth. Of course in our self righteousness and morality, we are going to balk at God. God is not human. God is God. The created will never on their own get to the point of being God.

Saying that you want the truth to be in the evidence itself, when it seems that God says otherwise does not follow. God is truth. There is no evidence the moon once formed in a collision of a Mars size planet, yet Revelations says 4 stars (planets) were thrown at the earth by the dragon. But the evidence says that the moon did not form together with the earth, but came some time later. The time frame regardless, there is no evidence there ever was such an event, other than the fact that is the theory or explanation accepted. How did the writer of the Enuma Elish know what happened and mythologized the account? A Global Flood alone does not account for the event. That is just water, even heavy water, but water alone is not enough. Considering that Satan wants us destroyed, and the example in Revelations and Job, What God said happened in Genesis is not the whole story. Only John in Revelations got a view of what happened. Genesis tells us of one’s mans obedience, saving the human race. Revelations tells of Satan out to destroy all of humanity. We then have to figure out from a spiritual context what actually happened in the physical. Peter tells us that at Noah’s time the ancient world which we have limited knowledge of was totally destroyed. We call that pre-history because there is nothing in the written account. All we have is the geological record. Perhaps there are remnants of human origin in Egypt left from the world that perished. I agree that we can see the true handiwork of God. But it is still basically human interpretations either way. The literal reading is God’s judgment. If you are going to dismiss the Flood as literal, because of God’s judgment, why not take God’s judgment as figurative, and the Flood as a deliberate attack of Satan? That was the figurative view of Revelations. I am not sure we can just declare that nothing happened just because it does not fit human interpretation of the data collected.


I think when you really think about the consequences with an open mind, you begin to realize how possible it is, and how so many objections are invalid. We know that mountain tops had marine fossils on them - fact. Question is how they got there. Interesting the flood story corroborates the possibility of the location of these fossils. But of course, from a logistics perspective, it is possible that these mountains were not quite as high, during the flood, and that the upheavals association with such a flood, the fountains of the deep, etc., likely were associated with violent tectonic movement, whereby mountains, rivers, lakes and oceans were all changed.
The assumption that an olive tree had to survive for a whole year submerged in water is not accurate, as mountain tops themselves were not covered for more than about 180 days (half a year). Secondly, olives can also grow from cuttings or seeds, and a mature tree would not be needed to produce a recognizable olive leaf. Whether a cutting or seed survived in the water itself, or in the floating plant matter debris, it had about 54 days from the time the mountain tops were seen, until the dove came back with olive leaf, to produce such leaf.


And in checking further, it takes about 40 days for olive pit to germinate. Given it could have been getting wet before the land appeared, in the floating plant matter debris, then it could have started to germinate within a week or two of touching ground, and had about 40 days to produce some leaves. A broken branch possibly also, due to very cold weather, could have been dormant until the land appeared, and then fairly quickly, if the basal end of the branch had access to moisture, could begin to produce roots as well as a few olive leafs. Granted, most plants and many seeds would have been rendered infertile or dead by the floods, but just as the ark saved a few people and animals, so conditions would have existed to save a few seeds or shoots or viable roots of most plants.


Good synopsis. Although I detect a bit of skepticism, you must realize of course that extreme conditions do not necessarily mean that various species cannot survive. You do not expect geese to welcome icy conditions when they are looking for a place to produce their brood of goslings, but yet the ice on the water does not prevent them from waiting for it to melt and then laying their eggs and raising their young. Ducks do not have to swim on water… they can just sit on the water and sleep. Walruses like to bask in the sun on the rocks, but thrive in the water. Seals can stay under water for up to a half hour, if they are just resting or sleeping… and if they can sleep or rest in the water, they would not need land in order to survive. They would not produce young until land appeared again, but survive they could. Even presently, they migrate 6000 miles in the sea, every year.


Well sure, but most YEC descriptions of the flood that I read emphasize how utterly destructive and cataclysmic this event was. It has to be in order to explain away layers and layers of rocks and fossils. While at the same time, despite destroying all of humanity and the remaining populations of every creature that was on the ark, it magically preserved a few of the creatures that couldn’t fit on the ark – so the flood also has to be mild enough to explain away a potentially overcrowded ark. Some would simply posit multiple miraculous interventions from God at this point, and that is always possible, but at that point it’s futile to involve science.

(Phil) #183

Not unbelief, but differing belief. I just believe your interpretation is wrong, though I believe you are fine to believe as you wish.

I did not say that. Restated, I said the evidence supports a particular belief set, and while I did not say this earlier, would also now say that truth is not created by the evidence, but is consistent with it. To argue otherwise is to say truth is inconsistent with observed reality. Truth can be difficult to fully grasp and our understanding of it may evolve with our knowledge and experience