By: Sue Armstrong To: Jerry Gilbreath Re: Genesis problems What follows is Wolfie's Challe

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

By: Sue Armstrong To: Jerry Gilbreath Re: Genesis problems What follows is Wolfie's Challenge. This is a collection of files I keep around as a challenge to Flood-believing fundies like yourself. Please read these, under the heading "Genesis problems" and "Noah's Impossible Ark" very, very carefully and attempt to answer all points to the best of your ability. So far, no fundy has been able to do this, resorting instead to "God can do anything", making themselves appear to be like children, mutliplying miracle upon miracle in order to explain just how their invisible playmate is responsible for setting the cat on fire. Is your faith strong enough to answer the challenge? Is it even strong enough to allow you to read the following posts? --------------------------------------------------------------------- --- I have forwarded your latest comments back to Mark Isaak. Also, he sent me an updated verson of that article, which I'll post in the next few messages here. A great deal will be the same as the older one, but it has some new stuff in it: Problems With a Global Flood (last modified 7/27/94) Mark Isaak isaak@aurora.com (Email comments and contributions to this collection are welcome. I would especially like to add more references.) Creationist models are often criticized for being too vague to have any predictive value. A literal interpretation of the Flood story in Genesis, however, does imply certain physical consequences which can be tested against what we actually observe. Most, if not all, observations, discredit the flood hypothesis, as you can see from what follows. (Most the the arguments below are based only on a literal reading of Genesis, but some specifically refer to the flood model of Whitcomb & Morris [1961].) Can any Creationists address even half of the points in this list? Before the flood: How did animals travel from all over the world? * Some, like the sloths, can't travel overland very well at all. * Some, like koalas, require a special diet. How did they bring it along? * Some, like the dodo, must have lived on islands. (If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals.) If animals all lived fairly close to Noah before the flood (as Whitcomb & Morris suggest), how were they all able to survive the predation and competition pressures from all the others, and why doesn't evidence of their living together show up in fossil distributions? How was the ark loaded? The Bible says all the animals were all loaded in seven days [Gen. 7:4]. Even if there were only 9 million species to be loaded, there would have to be an average of 30 animals per second going through the ark's one door. How was the ark made seaworthy? The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [Gen. 6:15]. Life on the ark: How did all the different species fit on the ark? 10 million species is a reasonable estimate of species presently alive (though estimates vary widely; see May, 1992). They all would have had to fit in about 100,000 square feet of deck space [Gen. 6:15-16]. Since most animals are small, they probably could have all fit, but only if you allow very little room around them. Caged animals probably wouldn't all fit, nor would the animals have any room to exercise. The dinosaurs, mastodons, and other now-extinct animals would have been aboard the ark as well [Gen. 7:15; Morris, 1993], and they would take up a _lot_ of room. Bracings, corridors, bilges, etc. would have taken up a lot of room, too. If you hypothesize significantly fewer species on the ark than now exist, you must explain evolution rates faster than any evolutionists propose to account for all the present species. How did Noah supply food and water for all the animals for a year? [Gen. 6:21] Food for a year would have taken up many times the space of the animals themselves. (I know of no animals, except some desert amphibians, that hibernate for anywhere close to a year.) How was the food kept fresh for a year? (Aphids, e.g., can't eat wilted plants.) What did the carnivorous animals eat, especially those which require fresh meat? How did creatures needing special environments survive on the ark? How do you explain how all host-specific parasites/diseases made do with only one pair of hosts (and if they did OK, how the hosts survived!) How was the ark kept livable? Shoveling the manure of the ungulates alone must have been a full time job for eight people. How well ventilated was the ark? The body heat from millions of closely packed animals must have been very intense. The flood: Where did the water come from? (It would take 4.4 billion cubic kilometers to cover Mt. Everest.) Where did it go? If you accept the vapor canopy model of some Creationists, you must answer some equally difficult questions, such as: What kept the water up before the Flood? What happened to the heat of condensation of all that water? Why didn't ultraviolet light from the sun break all the water into hydrogen and oxygen atoms and blow them away? Geological effects of the flood: How were mountains formed? Many very tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rocks. (The summit of Everest is composed of deep-marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling crinoids [Gansser, 1964].) If these were laid down during the flood, how did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys between them eroded away? Keep in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a slow process. How does a global flood explain angular unconformities, where one set of layers of sediments have been extensively modified (e.g., tilted) and eroded before a second set of layers were deposited on top? They thus seem to require at least two periods of deposition (more, where there is more than one unconformity) with long periods of time in between to account for the deformation, erosion, and weathering observed. When did granite batholiths form? Some of these are intruded into older sediments and have younger sediments on their eroded top surfaces. It takes a long time for magma to cool into granite, nor does granite erode very quickly. [For example, see Donohoe & Grantham, 1989, for locations of contact between the South Mountain Batholith and the Meugma Group of sediments, as well as some angular unconformities.] How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation and hydrodynamic sorting fail to explain: (1) the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants? (2) the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?) (3) why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata. (4) why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted. (5) why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground? (6) how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them. (7) why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata. How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering? One formation is six kilometers thick. If we grant 400 days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction since the flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling *per day*. And yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly layered, with great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate occurring within a few centimeters in the vertical direction. How does such a neat sorting process occur in the violent context of a universal flood dropping 15 meters of sediment per day? How can you explain a thin layer of high carbonate sediment being deposited over an area of ten thousand square kilometers for some thirty minutes, followed by thirty minutes of low carbonate deposition, followed by thirty minutes more of .... well, I think you get the picture. [From: Bill Hyde; see also Kent & Olsen, 1992] How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River formation in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle. [From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)] How do you explain worldwide agreement between "apparent" geological eras and several different (independent) radiometric and nonradiometric dating methods? [Short et. al., 1991] Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. All such evidence is lacking in annual layers dating back 40,000 years. How were limestone deposits formed? Limestone is made of the skeletons of zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some deposits are thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the flood started? If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of fossils in the deposits? How could a flood have deposited chalk? Chalk is largely made up of the bodies of planktonic animals 700 to 1000 angstroms in diameter [Bignot, 1985]. Objects this small settle at a rate of .0000154 mm/sec. [Twenhofel, 1961] In a year of the flood, they could have settled about half a meter. [From xdegrm@oryx.com (glenn r morton)] Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have originated only on the surface, such as: * rain drops; * river channels; * wind-blown dunes [Kocurek & Dott, 1981; Clemmenson & Abrahamsen, 1983; Hubert & Mertz, 1984]; * beaches; * glacial deposits [Eyles & Miall, 1984]; * burrows; * in-place trees [Cristie & McMillan, 1991]; * soil [Reinhardt & Sigleo, 1989]; * dessication cracks; * footprints. [Gore, 1993, has a photograph (p. 16-17) showing dinosaur footprints in one layer with water ripples in layers above and below it. Gilette & Lockley, 1989, have several more examples, including dinosaur footprints on top of a coal seam (p. 361-366).] How could these have appeared in the midst of a catastrophic flood? How could a one-year flood deposit explain stratigraphic sections showing a dozen or more mature forests layered atop each other, all with upright trunks, in-place roots, and well-developed soil? Such layers of forests appear in many locations. [See Dawson, 1868; Cristie & McMillan, 1991; Yuretich, 1994, for examples.] Creationists point to logs sinking in a lake below Mt. St. Helens as an example of how a flood can deposit vertical trunks, but deposition by flood fails to explain the roots, the soil, and the layering. How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? Why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalacians during the flood? How do you explain fossil mineralization - the replacement of the original material with a different mineral? * Buried skeletal remains of modern fauna are negligibly mineralized, including some that biblical archaeology says are quite old - a substantial fraction of the age of the earth in this diluvian geology. For example, remains of Egyptian commoners buried near the time of Moses aren't extensively mineralized. * Buried skeletal remains of extinct mammalian fauna show quite variable mineralization. * Dinosaur remains are often extensively mineralized. * Trilobite remains are usually mineralized - and in different sites, fossils of the same species are composed of different materials. How are these observations explained by a sorted deposition of remains in a single episode of global flooding? [From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)] How could the flood deposit layers of solid salt, sometimes meters in width, interbedded with sediments containing marine fossils? This apparently occurs when a body of salt water has its fresh-water intake cut off, and then evaporates. These layers can occur more or less at random times in the geological history, and have characteristic fossils on either side. Therefore, if the fossils were themselves laid down during a catastrophic flood, there are, it seems, only two choices: (1) the salt layers were themselves laid down at the same time, during the heavy rains that began the flooding, or (2) the salt is a later intrusion. I suspect that both will prove insuperable difficulties for a theory of flood deposition of the geologic column and its fossils. [From: marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe). See also Jackson et al., 1990] How were sedimentary deposits recrystalized and plastically deformed in the short time since the flood? The stretched pepple conglomerate in Death Valley National Monument (Wildrose Canyon Rd., 15 mi. south of Hwy. 190), for example, contains streambed pebbles metamorphosed to quartzite and stretched to 3 or more times their original length. Plastically deformed stone is also common around salt diapirs [Jackson et. al., 1990]. How were hematite layers laid down? Standard theory is that they were laid down before Earth's atmosphere contained much oxygen. In an oxygen-rich regime, they would almost certainly be impossible. How are the polar ice caps possible? Such a mass of water as the flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds. No way to drop them _exactly_ back onto their original location, _or_ to regrow them. (In fact, the Greenland ice cap would _not_ regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.) [From: Bob Grumbine rmg3@psuvm.psu.edu] A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up? When did impact craters on the earth occur? Geological evidence indicates that they would have formed in sediments early enough for erosion and crustal movements to partially erase them. Creationists Whitcomb and DeYoung suggest they occurred during the year of Noah's flood. But the heat from all those impacts concentrated in one year would have vaporized the flood waters. [Fezer, pp 45-46] And before you argue that fossil evidence was dated and interpreted to meet evolutionary assumptions, remember that the geological column and the relative dates therein were laid out by _creationists_ before Darwin even formulated his theory. (See, for example, the closing pages of Dawson [1868], who was cited above.) Biological effects of the flood: How did _all_ the fish survive? Some require cool clear water, some need brackish water, some need ocean water, some need water even saltier. A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats. How did short-lived species survive? Adult mayflies on the ark would have died in a few days, and the larvae of many mayflies require shallow fresh running water. Many other insects would face similar problems. How did all the modern plant species survive? Many plants (seeds and all) would be killed by being submerged for a few months. Most plants require established soils to grow--soils which would have been stripped by the Flood. Some plants germinate only after being exposed to fire or after being ingested by animals; these conditions would be rare (to put it mildly) after the Flood. How do you explain the survival of any sensitive marine life (e.g., coral)? Since most coral are found in shallow water, the turbidity created by the runoff from the land would effectively cut them off from the sun. The silt would cover the reef after the rains were over, and the coral would ALL DIE. By the way, the rates at which coral deposits calcium are well known, and some highly mature reefs (such a the great barrier) have been around for MILLIONS of years to be deposited to their observed thickness. [From: bmb@bluemoon.rn.com] Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? How does the flood explain the geological sorting of pollen? Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer? Furthermore, pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983]. How could a flood sort all of them together perfectly? How does a flood explain the accuracy of "coral clocks"? The moon is slowly sapping the earth's rotational energy. The earth should have rotated more quickly in the distant past, meaning that a day would have been less than 24 hours, and there would have been more days per year. Corals can be dated by the number of "daily" growth layers per "annual" growth layer. Devonian corals, for example, show nearly 400 days per year. There is an exceedingly strong correlation between the "supposed age" of a wide range of fossils (corals, stromatolites, and a few others -- collected from geologic formations throughout the column and from locations all over the world) and the number of days per year that their growth pattern shows. The agreement between these clocks, and radiometric dating, and the theory of superposition... is a little hard to explain away as the result of a number of unlucky coincidences in a 300-day-long flood. [From: stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)] If a single flood is responsible for all fossils, where were all those animals when they were alive? From "Six 'Flood' Arguments Creationists Can't Answer" by Robert Schadewald, _Creation/Evolution_ IV (Summer 1982), pp. 12-13: "Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the remains of animals that perished in the Noachian Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in "fossil graveyards" as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem enamored by the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals (see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood. "Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth. Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation contains 1 percent of the vertebrate fossils on earth [land fossils only--whj]. Then when the Flood began, there must have been at least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind, that seems a bit crowded." A thousand kilometers' length of arctic coastal plain, according to experts in Leningrad [N. Newell, _Creation and Evolution_; 1982, Columbia U. Press, p. 62], contains about 500,000 *tons* of tusks. Even assuming that the entire population was preserved, you seem to be saying that Russia had wall-to-wall mammoths before this "event." How do you explain the relative commonness of aquatic fossils? A flood would have washed over everything equally, so terrestrial organisms should be roughly as abundant as aquatic ones (or more abundant, since Creationists hypothesize greater land area before the Flood) in the fossil record. Yet shallow marine environments account for by far the most fossils. Even if there were room physically for all the large animals which now exist only as fossils, how could they have all coexisted in a stable ecology before the flood? Montana alone would have had to support a diversity of herbivores orders of magnitude larger than anything now observed. Historical effects of the flood: Why is there no mention of the flood in the records of Egyptian or Chinese civilizations which existed at the time? Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C. How did the human population rebound so fast? Geneologies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, found the Sumarian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc. Aftermath of the flood: How did koalas get from Ararat to Australia, polar bears to the Arctic, etc., when the kinds of environment they require to live doesn't exist between the two points. How were ecological interdependencies preserved as animals migrated from Ararat? Did the yucca an the yucca moth migrate together across the Atlantic? Were there, a few thousand years ago, unbroken giant sequoia forests between Ararat and California to allow indigenous bark and cone beetles to migrate? Why are so many marsupials limited to Australia; why are there no wallabies in Indonesia? The same argument applies to any number of groups of plants and animals. How could more than a handful of species survive in a devastated habitat? How could more than a handful of the predator species on the ark have survived, with only two individuals of their prey to eat? All of the predators at the top of the food pyramid require larger numbers of food animals beneath them on the pyramid, which in turn require large numbers of the animals they prey on, and so on, down to the primary producers (plants...etc.) at the bottom. And if the predators survived, how did the other animals survive being preyed on? How could more than a handful of species survive random influences that affect populations? Isolated populations with fewer than 20 members are usually doomed even when extraordinary measures are taken to protect them. [Simberloff, 1988] How could more than a handful of species survive the inbreeding depression that comes with establishing a population from a single mating pair? How do you explain the genetic variation in all populations today? The Bible states that seven pairs of all "clean" animals, but only one pair each of other animals, were taken aboard the ark. Thus, after the flood, clean animals should have started with seven times the genetic variation. (Clean animals could have had up to 28 alleles of any gene, while non-clean animals would have been limited to 4 alleles.) Why do we not observe a correlation between genetic variation and Hebrew dietary restrictions? Is the flood model consistent with the Bible? The model seems to say that large numbers of kinds of land animals became extinct because of the flood [e.g., Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 69n], while Genesis repeatedly says that Noah was ordered to take a representative sample of all kinds of land animals on the Ark to save them from extinction, and that Noah did as ordered. Which is right? Genesis 6:20 and 7:14-15 say there were two of each kind of fowl and clean beasts, yet Genesis 7:2-3,5 says they came in sevens. How can a literal interpretation be appropriate if the text is self-contradictory? If your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the flood literally, then shouldn't you also believe in a flat and stationary earth? [Dan. 4:10-11, Matt. 4:8, 1 Chron. 16:30, Psalms 93:1, ...] In fact, is there any reason at all why the flood story should be taken literally? Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too? How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind [Gen. 7:15-16] when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females, and others (such as earthworms) are hermaphrodites? And what about social animals like ants and termites which need the whole nest to survive? What was used to waterproof the ark? We are told that God instructed Noah to coat the ark with pitch inside and out with the naturally- occurring hydrocarbon pitch, which causes a bit of a problem since, according to Whitcomb and Morris, all oil, tar and coal deposits were formed when organic matter was buried DURING the flood. Does the flood story make the whole Bible less credible? Davis Young is a working geologist who also is an Evangelical Christian. He has personal doubts about some aspects of evolution, but he makes a devastating case against "Flood Geology." He writes (_Christianity and the Age of the Earth_, p. 163): "The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will reason that a Christianity that believes in such nonsense must be a religion not worthy of his interest...Modern creationism in this sense is apologetically and evangelistically ineffective. It could even be a hindrance to the gospel. "Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done...." [From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) See also Young, 1988] If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? Why resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable additional miracles? The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work? Finally, even if the flood model weren't riddled by all these problems, why should we accept it? What it does attempt to explain is already explained more accurately, consistently, and thoroughly by conventional geology and biology, and the flood model leaves many other things unexplained, even unexplainable. How is flood geology useful? References: (My thanks to R. Andrew MacRae for supplying most of these references.) Bignot, G., 1985. _Micropaleontology_ Boston: IHRDC, p. 75 Clemmenson, L.B. and Abrahamsen, K., 1983. Aeolian stratification in desert sediments, Arran basin (Permian), Scotland. Sedimentology, v.30, p.311-339. Cristie, R.L., and McMillan, N.J. (eds.), 1991. Tertiary fossil forests of the Geodetic Hills, Axel Heiberg Island, Arctic Archipelago, Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 403., 227pp. Dawson, J.W., 1868. Acadian Geology. The Geological Structure, Organic Remains, and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, 2nd edition. MacMillan and Co.: London, 694pp. Donohoe, H.V. Jr. and Grantham, R.G. (eds.), 1989. Geological Highway Map of Nova Scotia, 2nd edition. Atlantic Geoscience Society, Halifax, Nova Scotia. AGS Special Publication no. 1, 1:640 000. Eyles, N. and Miall, A.D., 1984, Glacial Facies IN: Walker, R.G., Facies Models, Second Edition. Geoscience Canada, Reprint Series 1, p.15-38. Fezer, Karl D., 1993. "Creationism: Please Don't Call It Science" Creation/Evolution, 13:1 (Summer 1993), 45-49. Gansser, A., 1964. Geology of the Himalayas, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., New York, 289pp. Genesis 6:9-8:22. Gilette, D.D. and Lockley, M.G. (eds.), 1989. _Dinosaur Tracks and Traces_, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 454pp. Gore, Rick, 1993. "Dinosaurs" National Geographic, 183:1 (Jan. 1993), 2-54. Hubert, J.F., and Mertz, K.A., Jr., 1984. Eolian sandstones in Upper Triassic-Lower Jurassic red beds of the Fundy Basin, Nova Scotia. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v.54, p.798-810. Jackson, M.P.A., et al., 1990. Salt diapirs of the Great Kavir, Central Iran. Geological Society of America, Memoir 177, 139pp. Kent and Olsen, 1992. (Columbia University Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) Discover, Jan. 1992 Kocurek, G., and Dott, R.H., 1981. Distinctions and uses of stratification types in the interpretation of eolian sand. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v.51, no.2, p.579-595. May, Robert M., 1992. "How Many Species Inhabit the Earth?" Scientific American, 267:4 (Oct. 1992), 42-49. Moore, Robert A., 1983. "The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark" Creation/Evolution, #11 (Winter 1983), 1-43. The entire issue is about the ark. Moore lists over one hundred references. Morris, John D., 1993. "Did dinosaurs survive the flood?" Back to Genesis, #53 (May 1993), d. Reinhardt, J., and Sigleo, W.R. (eds.), 1989. Paleosols and weathering through geologic time: principles and applications. Geological Society of America Special Paper 216, 181pp. Short, D. A., J. G. Mengel, T. J. Crowley, W. T. Hyde and G. R. North, 1991. Filtering of Milankovitch Cycles by Earth's Geography. Quaternary Research. 35, 157-173. (Re an independent method of dating the Green River formation) Simberloff, David, 1988. "The Contribution of Population and Community Biology to Conservation Science" Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, #19, 473-511. Stewart, W.N., 1983. _Paleontology and the Evolution of Plants_. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 405pp. Tarnocai, C. and Smith, C.A.S., 1991. Paleosols of the Fossil Forest area, Axel Heiberg Island. IN: Cristie & McMillan [see above], p.171-187. Twenhofel, William H., 1961. _Treatise on Sedimentation_, Dover, p. 50-52. Whitcomb, John C. and Morris, Henry M., 1961. _The Genesis Flood_, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia. Young, Davis, 1988. _Christianity and the Age of the Earth_. Artisan Sales, Thousand Oaks, CA. Yun, Zhang, 1989. "Multicellular thallophytes with differentiated tissues from Late Proterozoic phosphate rocks of South China" Lethaia, #22, 113-132. Yuretich, Richard F., 1984. "Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place," _Geology_ 12, 159-162. Re frozen mammoths as evidence of a catastrophe: Farrand, Wm. R.;_Science_, 133:729-735, March 17, 1961 --Wolfie "In the higher animals the ability and inclination to do damage is, unfortunately, in direct proportion to the degree of their intelligence." -- Konrad Lorenz, "King Solomon's Ring" ... Oh no! The creationists are mutating! --- GEcho 1.00 * Origin: [Windsor Download BBS] USR/V.Everything (519)-973-9330 (1:246/15)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank