He begins by correcting the misconception among his fellow young-earth
creationists that the geologic column does not exit. He writes:
"One of the ways Whitcomb and Morris sought to explain the fossil
succession was to deny, or minimise, its reality. They claimed, for
example, to perceive a viscious circle:
'The fossils alone are used to assign a geologic time to the rock stratum,
and yet this very sequence of fossils is said to constitute the greatest
proof of organic evolution!"
Although this argument is still current among creationists and appears
repeatedly in the popular literature, it is both misleading and untrue. By
'geologic time' is meant simply a geologic system relative to other
systems." ~ Steven J. Robinson, "Can Flood Geology Explain the Fossil
Record?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69, p. 34
He then takes on the misconception that overthrusts don't exist. He is
correct that overthrusts exist, but he is wrong that they imply
catastrophism other than that lots of earthquakes occur over a long, long
time.
"Whitcomb and Morris minimized the fossil succession further by arguing
that overthrusts, that is, places where rocks with earlier fossils lie on
top of rocks with later fossils, cannot be explained by the thrusting of
earlier rock over later rock. This is not, however, supported by the
evidence adduced for it, for example the Lewis Overthrust Montana.
Contrary to popular creationist belief, overthrusting is deduced first and
foremost from geophysical evidence rather than from any inverted order of
fossils, and is demonstrable only in regions of deformation, a dramatic
example being the multiple thrusts of non-fossiliferous Precambrain over
Palaeozoic rock in the highlands of Scotland. Overthrusts testify to the
operation of catastrophic processes, and since they are not primarily
inferred from the fossils, they tend only to confirm the geological
column." ~ Steven J. Robinson, "Can Flood Geology Explain the Fossil
Record?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69, p. 35
He correctly points out that the fossil order is derived from the order of
the rocks containing them, not the other way around as YECs often claim.
"Thus, the iconoclasm of Whitcomb and Morris in this area--still
prevalent, as recent contributions to this journal make clear--is
unwarranted and indeed embarrassing. The assertion that the geological
column is built on the premise of biological evolution is untrue. Fossils
are used to assign rocks a place in the geological column not because the
order in which they occur shows a gradual evolution from simpler to more
complex life--it does not --but because they occur in a definite
succession. To suggest, as Froede does, that an alternative timescale
should be developed which
'will allow the user the flexibility to evaluate individual sites and large
areas without confusing evolutionary geology with the stratigraphic record.'
is simply to wish that the evidence were different from what it is." ~
Steven J. Robinson, "Can Flood Geology Explain the Fossil Record?" Creation
Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69, p.36
**
Robinson advocates that the flood ended with the deposition of the Permian
rocks and that the entire Mesozoic and Tertiary strata are post-flood. In
this he opposes Morris' views which advocate that the entire geologic
column was deposited by the flood--i.e. a post-Cretaceous flood model. To
support his case he notes that the usual view where animals are buried
according to the preflood ecological niche they inhabited is totally
impossible. This is because terrestrial fossils are found directly above
marine fossils. If the geological layers represent pre-flood ecological
niches it means that each layer must slide horizontally to cover the one
below. And then marine fossils are also found above terrestrial fossils.
Robinson says,
"Thus, how can the presence of terrestrial fossils kilometres above marine
fossils be in any way connected with the presence of higher ground, when
the original land surface was beneath the marine fossils?" ~ Steven J.
Robinson, "Can Flood Geology Explain the Fossil Record?" Creation Ex Nihilo
Technical Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69, p. 41
Robinson points out that the Morrisian Post-Cretaceous model can't explain
the data from the Scritpure. He notes:
"The difficulty for adherents of the post-Cretaceous model who register the
emphasis of these phrases is that they have to explain why man was wiped
out without trace while other terrestrial animals were not. The
explanation offered by Snelling is that the animals were not morally
accountable, implying that God intervened in the processes of nature to
ensure that man was not fossilised, while, paradoxically, the animals were
fossilised so that they might remind us of the penalty incurred by sin.
John Morris, similarly, comments that the primary purpose of the Flood was
the destruction of mankind rather than of the animals. Not only are such
explanations ad hoc and unscientific, but they contravene the testimony of
Genesis that all creatures living on the ground were obliterated, without
distinction." ~ Steven J. Robinson, "Can Flood Geology Explain the Fossil
Record?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69, p.42
and
"In the conditions of the first 40 days--beginning with the stripping of
the original land surface to depths of thousands of metres--it is difficult
to imagine that any remains of land animals could have survived in
recognizable form." ~ Steven J. Robinson, "Can Flood Geology Explain the
Fossil Record?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69, p. 42
He then takes on Steven Austin's Mt St. Helens analogy
"The Mt St Helens catastrophe is an inadequate analogy, not least because
freshly uprooted trees float, and as those on the surface of Spirit Lake
demonstrated, it takes years for floating trees to become so saturated that
they sink to the bottom. Consequently, if ones' Flood model requires that
mats of ripped-up vegetation were deposited in the middle of the Flood
year, an explanation has to be found for why they sank within months,
before even the carcasses of reptiles, birds and ammals. The problem is
particularly acute in relation to the evidence that much of the vegetation
in the Permo-Carboniferous seams was originally aquatic rather than
terrestrial. As scheven has noted, the aerated structures and radial
arrangement around the main stems indicate that the plants were designed to
float. Far from being less buoyant than the vegetation of Tertiary coal
seams, they were more buoyant." ~ Steven J. Robinson, "Can Flood Geology
Explain the Fossil Record?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal,
10(1996):1:32-69, p. 46
What is fascinating is that while Steve Austin goes around the country
telling non-geologist church people that the trees at Spirit Lake are a
good model for the flood, he writes to geologists:
"The 1980 eruptions of Mount St Helens radically reconfigured Spirit Lake
basin north of the volcano. Landslide-generated water waves of May
18,1980, delivered approximately one million conifer logs to the surface of
Spirit Lake. In 1990, ten years after the eruption, 50% of the logs
remained floating in the lake. Floating logs and deposited logs were
studied by SCUBA, by sidescan sonar and by periodic species counts." ~
Steven A. Austin, "Floating Logs and Log Deposits of Spirit Lake, Mount St.
Hellens Volcano National Monument, Washington," Geological Society of
America Abstracts with Programs 23(5):A85
What this means is that the floating logs could NOT BECOME WATERLOGGED AND
BURIED DURING THE YEAR-LONG FLOOD. And for Austin to ignore this vital
piece of evidence is very, very bad.
Robinson notes the internal contradiction between the post-Cretaceous flood
model and their explanations of various strata. Austin has suggested that
the Coconino Formation represents the flood waters encroaching onto land.
This presents a problem. First Robinson sets up the problem:
"The tracks in the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon illustrate a
related point. The formation belongs to the Permian system, more than half
way up the geological record, and according to Brand, some of the tracks
appear to have been made by tetrapods moving up the slopes of sand waves
under water. Because of the angle of the cross-beds, which indicate dune
heights of 10-18 m, Austin et al. Have concluded that the tracks were
formed under 54 m of water by amphibians attempting to reach higher ground
during the Flood. The current speeds are estimated to have been over 90 cm
per second." ~ Steven J. Robinson, "Can Flood Geology Explain the Fossil
Record?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69, p. 50
Then Robinson slams shut the internal inconsistency:
"If the Hermit and Coconino Formations represent the deposits of Flood
waters as they encroached upon the land, how is it that immediately beneath
the Hermit Formation we find sediments thousands of feet thick which must
also be ascribed to the Flood? If the Permian marks the point in Arizona
where the sea transgresses onto the land, why are the deposits beneath the
Permian not all considered pre-Flood deposits? In practice, Austin et al.
Argue that the Flood waters reached Arizona as early as the Lower Cambrian.
The Hermit and Coconino Formations must therefore have been laid down
after Arizona was submerged, and the presence of tracks at those levels is
more problematic than they suppose." ~ Steven J. Robinson, "Can Flood
Geology Explain the Fossil Record?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal,
10(1996):1:32-69, p. 50
Concerning biogeography, Robinson agrees with many of the criticisms of the
global flood.
"The oldest marsupials so far discovered come from the Early Palaeocene of
Bolivia, the oldest ground sloths from the Oligocene--also in South
America. How, if the Flood ended after the Cretaceous, could these
slow-moving animals have reached places so distant from the Ararat
mountains so soon after they left the Ark?" ~ Steven J. Robinson, "Can
Flood Geology Explain the Fossil Record?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical
Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69, p.51
**
"These problems can be satisfactorily answered only if the Flood year is
understood as ending much earlier, before the Permian. According to the
chronology advocated by this author, the Flood took place c. 2970 BC and
the Jurassic commenced c. 2900 BC, so that the Upper Carboniferous, Permian
and Traissic periods would have occupied approximately 70 years. The
fossil record left by the reptiles in those 70 years is outlined in Figure
11. The curcial question is: is the record consistent with such an
interpretation?" ~ Steven J. Robinson, "Can Flood Geology Explain the
Fossil Record?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69, p. 52
Unfortunately, this still is not enough time for sloths to travel. Sloths
shiver at 80 degrees F and to travel from Ararat to South America would
require much shivering.
Robinson chides Woodmorappe for his ad hoc explanations of biogeography:
"Woodmorappe asserts that they were responsible even for the fauna of
Madagascar, which, however, was already numerous enough in the Miocene to
have left discoverable fossils. Colonists from the Ararat region, he says,
used the island as a major stopping point. This too is mere speculation,
incapable of explaining anything." ~ Steven J. Robinson, "Can Flood Geology
Explain the Fossil Record?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal,
10(1996):1:32-69, p.54
And Woodmorappe's explanation wouldn't work for an entirely different
reason; Madagascar was not inhabited by man until around 500 AD or so.
Robinson then goes on to note the types of deposits found in the Mesozoic
and Cenozoic rocks that could not have been deposited in the global flood
(citing our own David Tyler).
"In situ organisms and structures are common enough in the Mesozoic to
constitute a refutation of the post-Cretaceous model by themselves. Those
relating to terrestrial organisms are particularly noteworthy, because they
are just the sort of direct evidence one would look for in order to test
whether certain rocks are Flood rocks. A few examples follow.
"In the Jurassic of northern Europe plant roots are said to be 'prolific',
and not all can be dismissed as debris introduced with the sediment. Tyler
has described six root horizons from the Middle Jurassic of Yorkshire,
concluding that the Equisetites plants in question colonised the sediments
as pioneer species; the passing of the upright roots through bedding planes
was inconsistent with an allochthonous origin." ~ Steven J. Robinson, "Can
Flood Geology Explain the Fossil Record?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical
Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69, p.59
and
"How many times did the sediments have to surface above the water during
the Flood in order to account for the tracks? There are reptilian tracks
in the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone and dinosaur tracks in the Jurassic
Morrison Formation, the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Group and Upper Cretaceous
Mesaverde beds and Laramie Formation. In the altter case alone there are
seven distinct horizons. In a Cretaceous locality in China there are 160
successive horizons." ~ Steven J. Robinson, "Can Flood Geology Explain the
Fossil Record?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69, p. 60
and
in situ marine fossils
"The oyster bed at the unconformity between Carboniferous limestone and
jurassic oolite in Somerset has already been mentioned. The oysters--at
least two generations of them---grew insitu, for they are cemented to the
hardground in life, and the contours of their shells are adapted to those
adjacent." ~ Steven J. Robinson, "Can Flood Geology Explain the Fossil
Record?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69, p. 61
and
"The example from Somerset is far from unique. Fursich studied 36
hardgrounds and related phenomena from Jurassic localities (mostly Middle
Jurassic) in England, France, Germany and Poland, the development of
which--taken together--must have required many years to develop." ~ Steven
J. Robinson, "Can Flood Geology Explain the Fossil Record?" Creation Ex
Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69, p.61
Robinson shows that invertebrate fossils couldn't be transported by the flood:
"To suppose that the invertebrates were conveyed thousands or even hundreds
of miles from original locations on the pre-Flood sea floor is not
credible, for several reasons. Firstly, because actual evidence of
long-distance trasportation is minimal. Secondy because there is no
mechanism by which the fauna of many different contemporaneous ecological
zones could end up stacked one on top of another. And thirdly, by the
middle of the Mesozoic the original sea floors had all been destroyed as a
result possibly of platetectonic subduction. This late in the Phanerozoic,
all invertebrates must represent orgainism which grew and reproduced after
the Flood began." ~ Steven J. Robinson, "Can Flood Geology Explain the
Fossil Record?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69, p.61
Robinson concludes by referring to my series of Creation Research Society
Quarterly papers from the early 80's:
"To explain the fossil record by reference to the global Flood
memorialised in Genesis and numerous other traditions is a scientific
theory because it is open to refutation. The post-Cretaceous version of
that theory is falsifiable and, as long ago as Morton's papers, I submit,
has been falsified. Its predictions are not borne out. Its fragile tower
of mechanisms such as ecological zonation, hydrological sorting, the
differential ability of organisms to escape the encroaching Flood waters,
tectoncially associated biological provinces and so on cannot be sustained.
'Every scientist knows that a position that endlessly multiplies
assumptions, hypotheses, and rationalizations for non-fitting data is nota
good position.'
Nor is it a good position when one has to call for the data to be
re-ordered before one can explain them. Froede writes:
'By creating and maintaining our own timescale we can determine how local
sites 'fit' into our young earth Flood model.'
The inverted commas are just. Impugning the reality of the geological
column--its fossil succession and the chronological significance of that
succession--continues to be the refuge of a Flood model that does not
work." ~ Steven J. Robinson, "Can Flood Geology Explain the Fossil Record?"
Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(1996):1:32-69, p. 64
As a personal note, I am amazed that my 1980's papers are still being cited
more than a decade after their publication and after my change of
viewpoint. Austin, Baumgardner, Wise and others are among those who have
cited my papers this decade. They were not well received at the time and
the fact that the Creationists of the 80's didn't want to deal with the
problems they raised, was one aspect of my rejection of Young-earth
Creationism. I finally decided that they weren't interested in dealing
with the world as it is. In general they were dealing with the world as
they wanted it to be. Robinson is definitely dealing with the world as it
is, even if his suggested solution is as unworkable as those who he
corrects.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm