Ham secondly asserts that geological
evidence too affirms a global flood; a notion he supports by appealing to the presence
of fossils on the top of Mt. Everest (which is indeed the case).[i] Upon first consideration this point might
seem to amount to a slam dunk argument in favor of a global flood. Yet there are two factors which completely
undermine the contention that the array of geological features across our world
were caused by a single flood. Firstly,
the recently discovered phenomenon of plate tectonics fully explains not only
the current configuration of our continents, but also the extensive world-wide
presence of mountain ranges whose features suggest it was the colliding of
landmasses which caused their folded and buckled features. YECs will of course argue that a flood as
massive as they allege Noah’s to have been, is likewise able to account for
such features. Yet that is impossible
for two reasons. Firstly, individual
layers of rock and/or sand are often sandwiched between other layers which show
no geological relationship with their “bed-fellows” above and below Yet what is even more problematic for YECs is
that each individual layer of fossils (as opposed to solely rock) must,
in order to be preserved, become hardened prior to the formation of the layer
of fossils above it.[ii] The existence of multitudes of fossil formations
thousands of feet high across the globe utterly refutes the possibility that the
“whole show” was caused by a single flood within a single a year.
YECs in reply occasionally postulate
that God has the capacity to miraculously create a multi-faceted fossil record such
as geologists have uncovered in their fieldwork. My reply to that assertion is that yes, He can
do such things. But the all-relevant question
is, did He?[iii] Since, as I stated above, God employs the TN
as a standard against which He will judge all of those who deny His existence,
I find it ludicrous to suggest that He would resort to a deceptive ploy to
achieve that purpose. Finally, in spite
of the respect for Ham’s piety and zeal that I earlier acknowledged, I judge that
the error-ridden contents of his message undermine people’s receptivity
to a Gospel which we proclaim is a matter of sober truth (2 Cor. 5:10). How much better it is to commend the Gospel
on the very grounds upon which it appeals: that it is through the witness
of nature, as opposed to despite it, that “God’s invisible nature, namely
His eternal power and deity is clearly perceived” (Rom. 1:20).
[i] http://mathisencorollary.blogspot.com/2012/03/crinoids-on-mount-everest.html
[ii] Access at Op.cit. (3).
[iii] See my paper, “Could God Do a Noahic Global Flood?” at
Op.cit. (3).
No comments:
Post a Comment