What Triggered the Flood?
Sometime after the Fall but before the Flood, God set in motion a chain of physical events that produced a global Flood. Although we cannot be sure exactly how it began, that cataclysm had many consequences: layered fossils; coal, oil, and methane deposits; major mountain ranges; ice ages; and dozens of other global features. Our challenge is to show how all these are related and are consistent with the laws of physics and the biblical account. Recognizing that water was created under the earth’s crust and understanding the second creation day clarify the Flood considerably and explain many major issues that befuddle evolutionists.
THE EVAPORITE DEPOSITS OF SALTVILLE, VIRGINIA
EMMETT L. WILLIAMS
Suggestions by various authors for the origin of evaporite deposits in the Saltville, Virginia region are reviewed. Past tectonic activity and its effects on the evaporites are discussed. The geologic setting of the area is noted, and the mining and manufacturing history in Smyth and Washington counties in relation to the evaporite deposits is briefly described. A preliminary young earth-Flood model for evaporite formation and subsequent tectonism is presented.
The Pre-Fall Mortality of Aquatic Autotrophsand and Other Designated Nephesh Kinds
Of three positions regarding the pre-Fall consumption of lower aquatic creatures, one is seldom taken (and rightfully so): that these creatures are actually plants. A second position is that these small creatures indeed experienced pre-Fall death, but that lacking nephesh life, this death was and is as benign as vegetative death. Thus, there is an implied creative category between “vegetation” and “creature.” A third view is posited here: that these primary and secondary creatures indeed possess nephesh life, yet their original provisionary nature for other creatures’ consumption is physiologically evident and biblically allowable. This third view of pre-Fall mortality can be adopted without supporting the evolutionary idea of death as a creative mechanism.
THE UNIFORMITARIAN STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN — SHORTCUT OR PITFALL FOR CREATION GEOLOGY?
JOHN K. REED AND CARL R. FROEDE JR.
The end of the twentieth century saw a substantial increase in theories attempting to explain natural history within a Biblical framework. The proliferation of divergent models has opened the door to healthy debate, but suggests that more clarity in the foundational issues of natural history would be beneficial for creationism. In the arena of stratigraphy, one of these issues is the role of the global uniformitarian stratigraphic column (hereafter referred to as “the column”): is it a springboard to accelerated progress or a quagmire? If the former, then it allows for the immediate development of mature Flood models. But we assert the inseparability between the column and evolution, uniformitarianism, and deep time. Therefore logic demands its separation from any Flood models. This caution is reinforced by the careless use of the column in some creationist models. Alternative approaches to defining stratigraphy within the Christian Worldview are needed and that work is underway.
Postdiluvial Soil Formation and the Question of Time
Peter Klevberg and Richard Bandy
Many believe that most soils require great periods of time to form. This argument has been used in an attempt to refute the Bible’s claims for a global flood only a few thousand years ago. In addition to arguments based on formation of extant soils, many geologists or paleopedologists see evidence of multiple fossil soil horizons or paleosols in the geologic record. Few, if any, of these researchers have examined carefully the assumptions behind their arguments. As described in Part I of this paper, pedogenesis is a complex phenomenon affected by several environmental factors. In Part II of this paper, we describe predictions of traditional and diluvial approaches to natural history and compare these predictions with constraints resulting from analysis of soil-forming mechanism rates. The results indicate that data from soil science are not only compatible with a diluvial view of earth history, but are actually more easily accommodated by it than by the traditional view.