Seeing Noah’s Flood in geological maps

posted in: Big Picture | 41
Geological section of Goondiwindi map (v/h = 8)
Geological section of Goondiwindi map
v/h = 8.
Click image to enlarge.
I was working with the electricity industry in Mineral House, Brisbane, when I first developed the biblical geological model. The library of the Mines Department was just one floor below my office and I would regularly pore over their geological maps in my lunch hour.

The geological cross section for Goondiwindi (300 km west of Brisbane) extends from west to east and is typical of the sort of information provided. I’ve included only about 75% the width of the section. The vertical scale on the section is exaggerated. If it was shown in proportion it would be too narrow to see the detail. In the image here I’ve squashed the section even narrower to fit better on your browser. The vertical exaggeration is 8 times.

The need for this vertical exaggeration illustrates the first feature of the sedimentary layers shown on the map. The layers are relatively thin compared with their lateral extent, a feature that Derek Ager, in his book “The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record”, described as characteristic of sedimentary strata all over the world. These layers extend for nearly 2,000 km to the west into the Northern Territory and South Australia (see map here). Such a wide lateral extent of strata is not a prediction from geological uniformitarianism but it is a prediction for sediments laid down during Noah’s Flood: “It is expected that the structures formed during the Inundatory stage would be of continental scale” (see Geological Environments).

Although the sedimentary layers dip down to the west on the exaggerated diagram, they are in fact almost horizontal in the field. Note they sit on a basement that is intensely deformed. In other words, there is a clear geological demarcation between the sedimentary strata and the underlying basement. Notice the total thickness of all the sedimentary layers is more than 2 km at the western side of the section. On the map the layers are labelled with letters indicating their names: e.g. the symbol Jlh stands for Jurassic, lower, Hutton sandstone. The first letter refers to the geological system: C means Carboniferous, P = Permian, R = Triassic (actually it is a T and an R joined together), J = Jurassic and K = Cretaceous.

I concluded that these strata were deposited during first part of Noah’s Flood as the waters were rising but toward the time when they were reaching their peak (see my classification of the Great Artesian Basin). The flow of water spread the sediment over vast geographical areas. Certain strata in these layers contain footprints of dinosaurs (temporarily stranded as they tried to escape), which means the layers were deposited before the waters had reached their peak and all air-breathing animal life had perished (Genesis 7:20–24).

Initially I wondered if the deformed basement beneath the strata had been deposited during Creation week. However, these strata contain fossils, which is why they have been classified as Carboniferous and labelled with a C. It’s because of this I concluded that they were earlier Flood deposits. The deformation was a consequence of the tectonic activity during the first part of that event.

Look across the horizontal land surface and you can see that the blue strata are sloping upwards to the east and that they have been truncated, or shaved off, at the surface. That is a feature that is predicted from the global Flood (see “Flat topped landforms” under Classification Criteria). The land surface was eroded as the floodwaters flowed in vast sheets back into the ocean.

This geological cross section for Goondiwindi reveals a clear sequence of geological processes that are easily linked to the sequence of events that occurred during Noah’s Flood. This is a preliminary overview, of course, and the ideas need to be checked and tested with ongoing research. But it illustrates how that, from this section, it is easy to develop a geological history of the area using a biblical perspective.

41 Responses

  1. Steve Bown

    Interesting and expected.
    My recent journey through the Kimberleys in WA was made so much more interesting with a flood perspective. It didn’t take any huge leap of faith and crazy theories to see how the flood cut & moved the soft rock, whilst leaving the hard. The Kimberleys look almost unchanged since the flood, with the soft ‘beehives’ of the Bungles still intact, the conglomerate with its fossils clearly visible just where expected. Geology with a Biblical understanding is really quite exciting.

  2. Brendan O

    Thanks for sending this through. Its fascinating. My wife and I are just travelling through the USA at present and today we have done Zion national park and Bryce Canyon. It’s fascinating looking at all the (micro)strata and seeing how it was all laid down.
    It’s awe inspiring to think that all of it was covered in water once and laying down the layers that we see today. I also look at the small rivers that cut though the canyon and find it mind boggling that people think that it had carved out the canyons as we see them today.

  3. I welcome your observations regarding this question. Lots of evolutionists will grudgingly admit that there is evidence of major large flooding events in the past, but argue that although most of the world has such evidence, that it “must have been” separate different events each separated by millions of years.

    In other words no matter how strong the evidence for Noah’s world wide flood, they cling tenaciously to their alternative view. And this in in spite of the multiple fossil evidence as high as we can go on most of the world’s highest mountains.

    Perhaps there are some facts that clearly refute their claims although it seems that that most are just dogmatic, stubborn and so bigotted about the matter that nothing is likely to reach the thinking of such people.

    Thanks for including me in those to whom you have sent your message.

    May God continue his blessing on you and the great work of CMI.

    Laurie Appleton.

  4. Robert L

    The thin covering of the Permian and younger horizontal sediments is hardly relevant given it overlies the strongly deformed Carboniferous strata which are presumably part of the Lachlan foldbelt which forms the eastern margin of the continent. How could the dinosaurs have survived that? Doesn’t this interpretation just ignore all of the complexity of the geology of the foldbelt?

  5. Hello Robert,
    The folded basement is part of the New England foldbelt, which is like a Queensland equivalent to the Lachlan foldbelt. The dinosaurs had to have been somewhere else when the basement was being laid down. They could have been carried to the area by ocean currents, similar to what happened to people during the Indian Ocean tsunami. The sediments may be thin when compared with the basement, but they are still huge deposits—kilometres thick.

  6. […] Seeing Noah’s Flood in geological maps by Tas Walker […]

  7. Ron Dean

    Greetings Tas .

    Isn’t this a wonderful world , full of democratic opinions , that we are born onto . We are fortunate , to be born to parents and grandparents , who worked to earn and protect , this freedom of opinion for us . It is a wonderful thing , that an individual , has free will , to choose how that they perceive our history .

    [Snip; sorry but this comment is too long.]

    One day , back in the Graden , we made a mistake . Now , may our species , show ourselves worthy , to be invited back in ?

    With Love for all , sincerely Ron.

  8. never heard such crap in my life, where do you get such rubbish from. I suggest you read a proper book on the evolution of the earth and stop fooling yourself that that it was created by some wizard in ths sky. best regards from Norman Sinclair, Aberdeen Scotland. member of the scottish huminist society.PS get real there is no god.

  9. LadyGreenEyes

    This is just what we would expect. The establishment is hard-headed, and in denial. My dad said decades ago that the scientific community was too bent on proving themselves right to be considered real scientists anymore. Don’t prove the theory, just shove it down our collective throats, and label all that say they are wrong as “nuts”. They can’t accept the truth.

  10. Hi Norman,
    And best regards to you also.

    I have read many books on the evolution of the earth. I had to do so as part of my university degree, and I had to pass exams on the subject too. You don’t like the idea that God can do amazing things. But evolutionists just pluck miracles out of the air—presto—and call that science.

    Miracle 1: The big bang—there was nothing and then it exploded.
    Miracle 2: Non-living chemicals came together to form the first living, self-replicating cell.
    Miracle 3: Single cells came together to form the first multi-celled organism.
    Miracle 4: Asexual organisms developed sex.
    Miracle 5: Single celled organisms diversified into every living thing on earth.

    Just think of what is involved in each of these evolutionary claims. Become a real skeptic … of evolution. Then you will be doing what the Bible says: “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” (1Thessalonians 5:21)

  11. Thanks Dr Tas Walker for this explanation of the floods effects shown by the maps you interpreted for us. I just wish to say that the greatest obstacle to acceptance of our awesome Gods creation is not that what we believe is scientifically unacceptable, no the explanation is far simpler than that or I would not be able to understand, Its this, The moment that we declare that we belive in God as creator of all things just as his word records, we are bound by any logic of man that exists to acknowledge Him as God, as Lord and Judge over our lives and we must surrender our independence and be obedient to Him, thats the stumbling block, not learning, not science none of these other excuses hold water.

  12. This is typical creationist clap-trap. Even a high school geology student could see the holes in it. But why rely on evidence if you have faith, right?

    As for the miracles, this is hilarious.

    Miracle 1: The big bang—there was nothing and then it exploded.

    The big bang was not an explosion. It was nothing (correct) which is split into forces of equal opposing values. IE, if you took the energy (including mass using E=mcc) of the universe, you would find it is equal (based on our scientific estimates) to the gravitational force binding the universe. In other words, the universe remains “nothing” just in a diversified form. Why did this happen? Look to the quantum principle. Causality is only something seen on large scales (ie the classical physics) it is not certain at small scales. Thus, the universe coming into existence from nothing does not appear to be “miraculous”.

    Miracle 2: Non-living chemicals came together to form the first living, self-replicating cell.

    Yeah – but that took about a billion years of chemical reactions. If you took all the elements on the planet (at their basal state) and let them mix together, there is a 1:1 probability of a self replicating chain eventually forming.

    Miracle 3: Single cells came together to form the first multi-celled organism.

    The prokaryote to eukaryote link is fairly well understood, it was simply a result of individual cells having stickyness and evolution pouring on the rest.

    Miracle 4: Asexual organisms developed sex.

    This one is fairly well understood as having occured over a long period of time allowing for small changes between co-reproducing members of the same species. In fact, the algae volvox cateri has demonstrated the ability to transition between sexual and asexual reproduction in the laboratory.

    Miracle 5: Single celled organizims diversified into every living thing on earth.

    Evolution actually explains this <— well, you would get that if you understood evolution.

  13. Hello cwight,
    Yeah, that is what Richard Dawkins keeps saying too—people don’t understand evolution. Yet when he was asked about Miracle #2 he said no one knows how chemicals came together to form the first living cell. Perhaps you should email him and tell him how. He is even thinking that the first life was seeded by aliens. Methinks that all this scientific mumbo-jumbo that you go on with, like nothing dividing into equal and opposing values and cell stickyness, is a smoke screen.

  14. What a load of absolute rubbish. Typical creationalists thinking the physical world revolves around humans, a species which has been around for a minute fractions of time in the age of the universe. Faith is just a cop out for actually producing an explanation for their claims. Wake up and smell the coffee guys.

  15. Johan Smit

    Hi cwight,

    Regarding your take on miracle 2 that it takes a billion years of chemical reactions between all the elements on the planet to form a living, self replicating cell. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t sound too scientific to me. Has it been measured, observed for even a hundred years?

    Now, I haven’t tried it, but I’m sure if you mix them all together you would reach a state of equilibrium sooner than 1 Ga without life forming?

    Now about that 1:1 probability statement of yours (of life forming naturalistic) – it has never been scientifically proven, so why do you sound so convinced? . . . Unless you have an unwaivering FAITH in it happening as described.

    So, as you rightly said, “But why rely on evidence if you have faith, right? “

  16. hello,
    quite interesting discussions going on… but the billions of years popping up every now and then (in arguments), when things can’t be explained by the evolutionists seems to me not a very scientific way to reason key arguments away…
    kind regards to all
    Elfrieda

  17. Hi Matt,
    Your beliefs about the age of the earth and when humans first appeard on it depend on a mistaken view of the so-called ‘fossil record’. The fossils do not represent evolution over millions of years but the order of burial during Noah’s Flood. So, you need to think through the geology and Flood issues.

  18. SOMETIMES WE OVERLOOK THE OBVIOUS AND RELY ON TH OLD GRECIAN CONCEPTS OF THE SPECIFICS FIRST AND THEN THE GENERALITY. TAKE SOME GENERALITIES AS THESE. WHAT OF THE EARTHS POPULATION BACKWARD FROM NOW? WHEN WOULD IT ZERO OUT? TAKE ALL THE LANGUAGES OF THE EARTH AND SEE THEIR ORIGINS. TAKE THE ANIMALS and plants and look for their origins. WHAT ABOUT THE ICE DUMP ON THE POLES AND THE EARTH SHIFT TO 23 1/2 DEGREES. 20,000 SPECIES OF INSECTS AND NO EVOLUTIONARY CHAGES EVER FOUND LEST RADIATION ENTERS THE PICTURE. OIL WAS ONCE THOT TO BE ANIMAL, BUT NOW NOT SO. THERE IS NO COMPLETE COLUMN OF EARTH TO SUPPORT THE SUPERPOSITION THEORY NOT EVEN THE GRAND CANYON. SORRY BOYS, YALL WHO PURSUE EVOLUTION. OLD GEOLOGY PROF HERE..THE EVOLUTION THEORIES ARE EIGHT AND NONE HOLD ABSOLUTE WATER THAT IS IF YOU ACCEPT A FOOT OR TWO OFF THE TARGET AS A HIT. ONE DOES NOT TAKE OR GIVE A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS HERE OR THERE. SCIENCE IS EXACT AND MUST STAY THAT WAY. ASK ANY DOCTOR. THINKING IS STRAINING, IS IT NOT?

  19. Peter Burger

    Tas,
    The bible makes no reference to any reordering of the Earth’s surface by the flood so why assert there was?
    Some facts to ponder are:
    a. Clays of different types occur in sediments of all ages. They are not merely ground up rocks, so how do clays form?
    b And in Australia, even older than your New England “early flood” Carboniferous “basement” are the huge volumes of Proterozoic and Archean rocks which include a high proportion of sediments, with some individual formations 10’s of kilometres thick and derived from still older sediments.
    c. The delicately banded, chemically deposited Banded Iron Formations, some traceable for 100’s of kms, developed in Archean and early Proterozoic times but not subsequently.
    d. Some Australian Proterozoic sediments contain evaporites while the Cambrian has trilobite (but no dinosaur) tracks.
    e. High-purity limestones (e.g., the Nullarbor)can only develop in sand and clay free waters. Australia has some superb fossil coral reefs but formed by corals of a different biological order to those of the current Great Barrier Reef.
    f. There are numerous sedimentary basins spread over the full range of ages throughout the world, each with a different sedimentary and deformation history.
    f. Some Australian pre-Mesozoic rocks are metamorphosed, some not: some Archean to greenschist facies but some Proterozoic to granulite facies. But Papua New Guinea has metamorphosed Tertiary sediments!
    g. In Australia a thick weathering mantle, the product of a humid climate, stable landmass,an oxygen and carbon dioxide charged atmosphere and microbial activity, was developed over much of the continent. This included your “flood rocks”. Only isolated remnants of this mantle remain on the higher areas of the east while in WA streams incised canyons to 100m deep through this mantle. Although this erosion event still continues, the canyons were mostly infilled by swamp sediments (including lignite) which were in turn weathered. Post canyon infill events include deposition of the Nullarbor limestone and widespread evaporite (salt and gypsum) accumulation.
    h. Australia has numerous meteorite craters, some with diameters of many tens of kilometres, some buried by younger sediments, some not. The Lake Acraman Impact structure is approx 90kms diameter and there is debris from it 560kms away in the sedimentary pile of the Flinders Ranges. Did that rock the ark?
    Open your eyes Tas!
    Peter

  20. Hello Peter,

    The Bible says the waters of Noah’s Flood covered every high mountain under heaven, and that they took over 200 days to recede from the earth. How do you propose that happened without leaving any geological evidence?

    You have brought up eight more issues dealing with how geological evidence is interpreted, and I guess this evidence is supposed to prove the Flood never happened. Some of these issue I can answer easily, others I can only offer suggestions without doing a deal of research. Here are my brief comments.

    • a. Clays? A Flood explanation simply needs for them to have formed quickly. Clays can form chemically and chemical reactions do not necessarily need lots of time.
    • b. Huge volumes of sediment? Huge compared with us but compared with the diameter of the earth they are relatively thin. Flood geologists need to think big.
    • c. Banded iron deposits confined to Archaean? The Flood catastrophe involved a definite sequence—breaking up of the fountains of the great deep initially, waters rising, waters falling, crust stabilizing. We would expect to see a progression.
    • d. Evaporites? That is an intepretation, and not a good one. Recent research published in the Journal of Creation suggests a magmatic origin for these salt deposits makes good sense. Trilobite tracks? You would not expect trilobites and dinosaurs to live in the same environment so why expect their tracks to be preserved together? The Creation Answers Book has a whole chapter discussing the issue of the order in the fossil record.
    • e. Nullabor limestones? From their relative stratigraphic position these likely formed late in the Flood. That would have been a unique environment and the limestones would reflect this. However, I’ve not studied these limestones.
    • f. Sedimentary basins and their deformation history? I can’t see any problem with this happening quickly. Rapid sedimentarion. Tectonic movements in the earth’s crust.
    • g. Australia’s thick weathering mantle? ‘Weathering’ is a uniformitarian interpretation. This ‘mantle’ is very unusual. Why did it only happen at a specific time in Australia’s geologicl history? I’ve long suspected it is related to the Recessive stage of the Flood but I have not studied this in detail. I’m sure that by looking at this evidence from a Flood perspective would reveal some interesting insights.
    • h. Meteorite craters? Those that are well preserved must have occurred post-Flood, or very late in the Recessive stage. Otherwise the receding floodwaters would have eroded them away.

    Now that I have provided these answers, I am sure that you can come up with another eight problems, and then another eight after that. You are a trained geologist and you have lots of experience. The fact is that philosophically you are ‘begging the question’. Logically, you cannot use the geological evidence in this way to ‘disprove’ the Bible. That is because the geological ‘evidence’ you have raised has been developed by assuming the Bible is not true. In other words, the conclusions you are presenting have been reached by assuming the thing to are trying to prove.

    Peter, you could develop geological answers to these ‘problems’ yourself. You have the training, the experience and a sharp mind. And they are very interesting geological problems. I get very excited at the insights that emerge when I apply the biblical model to new ‘problems’.

    I would really love to see geologists be more open minded about this and to try applying this model in their geological work. I’ve not encountered very many encouraging signs from the profession to date but I hope that things may change. I don’t claim to have all the experience and knowlege and I do not claim that my interpretations will the the final word. But I would like geologists to be a little more open on this issue. So, in the good old Australian tradition, why not “give it a go”—just for interest’s sake?

  21. Tas,

    How old do you think the universe is then?. Do you think it was created with us in mind?..Do you believe in the possibility of life existing somewhere else apart from the earth?. If so do they have a copy of the Bible too?

  22. Tas,

    So is the whole fossil record the result of Noah’s flood also?..

  23. Hi Matt, Yes, the fossil ‘record’ is the result of Noah’s Flood, except for the small portion that was formed post-Flood.

  24. Matt,

    How is it possible to work out how old the universe is? Without an eyewitness account we can only speculate. People who believe the universe formed of its own accord need billions of years of time for that idea to be plausible. That is where concept of billions of years comes from.

    However, the Bible presents itself as a historical record and there are genealogies that go back to the first man and woman. From these we understand that 6,000 years have passed since the world was created.

    Was the universe created with us in mind? Yes! Ephesians 1:4 says ” He chose us … before the foundation of the world …”

    Does life exist somewhere else appart from earth? I don’t think so. See Alien life and UFO q&a.

    Do you have a Bible? It’s worth a read.

  25. Gordon H

    Thanks for these, Tas – fascinating stuff

    More and more I am able to see the flood in the geology and geography around me as I travel.

    This was especially so on our big trip last year (as your correspondent mentioned about NW WA), but also in some particular places in Qld, especially the staircase range and other areas around Rolleston and Emerald.

  26. Robert Saunders

    Since the evidence absolutely proves that no global inundation ever occurred, any supposition that there was such a thing is based on an incorrect interpretation of evidence. See, for example:

    1. Lambert et al, Dust-climate couplings over the past 800,000 years from the EPICA Dome C ice core. Nature, vol. 452, 3 April 2008, p. 616.

    2. Moran et al, The Cenozoic palaeoenvironment of the Arctic Ocean. Nature, vol. 441, 1 June 2006, p. 601.

    3. Bintanja et al, North American ice-sheet dynamics and the onset of 100,000 year glacial cycles. Nature, vol 454, 14 August 2008, p. 869.

    4. Luthi et al, High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000-800,000 years before present. Nature, vol. 453, 15 May 2008, p. 379.

  27. Hi Robert,

    You have just cited four papers by uniformitarian scientists. Uniformitarians assume the never was a Flood. Thus, their interpretations of evidence never mention the Flood. They simply concluded what they assumed. Read some articles by creation scientists on these topics and you will get a different perspective.

  28. The evolution/creation argument is enduring in this age.
    Both camps claim that the other is ignorantly wrong, citing that the other is basing their argumentation on some few massive assumptions as a start point.
    I wonder if it’s possible for anyone in this era to really stand far enough back from their pre-suppositions to ever evaluate the mass of evidence without being attracted to either of the conclusions prepared for us by Moses and Darwin.
    Peace.

  29. Jess Floren

    Tas,

    I like what you said that some scientists merely concluded what they assumed. Isn’t this circular reasoning and thus fall into a logical fallacy?

  30. Colin Mitchell

    Very intersting debate. I especially valued Tas Walker’s cross section diagram of the strata. Even layering coupled with wide extent of these ared certainly strong arguments for flood deposition.

  31. There is no place from where the water in noah’s world wide flood could come from and nowhere where it could go. Thus we can see that this flat each mythology has no part of modern geology

  32. The TILTED aspect to the MONOCLINE show huge displacements in elevation. No way water could have tilted these deposits.

  33. Hi Basia,
    Your comment submitted on November 21, 2010 at 12:06 pm:
    There are very simple answers to those questions. Have a look at these articles:
    Where did all the water come from?
    Where did all the water go?

  34. Hi Basia,
    Your comment submitted on November 21, 2010 at 12:07 pm:
    The tilted monocline, the displacements are huge compared with the size of a human, but they are very small when compared with the diameter of the earth. The Flood was a huge tectonic catastrophe.

  35. Hi Tas

    Three questions:
    1. Do you exclude the possibility of local catastrophes before the flood leaving fossil records?
    2. How would one distinguish between sediments from before the flood, during the flood and more recent sediments from after the flood. Is it possible to distinguish them?
    3. Are the layers (epochs) of the “geological column” really worldwide? Or are they actually different sediments that are simply grouped together in the evolutionary perspective because of their relative depth / fossils found in them? I.e. On pictures I have seen showing the geological column, marine animals are frequently shown below land animals. But we would not expect them to occur in the same geographical areas! Are they found in the same geographical locations? If not, how can we know that they are not simply different layers from the same period at different locations?

    IIRC you are a geologist yourself? Why not write some scientific papers where you look at specific geological formations and give both the evolutionary and the flood interpretation? If you could get it published, it might work wonders for geologists to see which explanation makes more sense. I think that convincing the scientists (and no, I don’t think it will happen overnight), rather than only the people outside the field, will in the long run be more productive. Most scientists are only familiar with the evolutionary viewpoint and interpretation. It takes a real mind-shift to even consider the flood as a possible explanation. I think that only a constant exposure to both interpretations will help them make this mind-shift to compare the real evidence instead of simply dismissing the flood explanation outright.

    Jos.1:8

  36. Hi Chavoux,
    Your comment submitted on November 23, 2010 at 5:23 pm:
    1. Yes there could have been local catastrophes before the Flood, but it seems doubtful that any of these deposits have been preserved.
    2. There is a whole range of criteria that can be applied to distinguish sediments before, during and after the Flood (see Geological environments and processes). Nevertheless, there is still considerable debate among creationist geologists on this issue.
    3. Remember that the fossils are found where they were deposited, not where the animals lived. Layers can be traced for long distances (see the discussion on the Goondiwindi sheet) but they are not traceable on a global scale. The correlation over that distance is by similar fossils.

    Why don’t I publish in mainstream geology journals? Read Geologists discuss and realise this is just the in-house magazine. Have you watched the movie Expelled? Read my item on Peer-reviewed creation-science journals, which mentions the censorship and opposition from those who control those publications. Check out the attitude of the Geological Society of London. I am very pleased for the opportunity to publish on this blog and in creationist literature.

  37. Stevan Dimitrijevic

    Hi TAS
    I love Chavoux’s idea. It well known that censorship against creation in mainststream geology is more active than in totalitarian regims against political oposition (Iran, Mianmar, North Korea.etc). It would be a great challenge to uniformitarians to publish a book that exposes both views in a sort of neutral way and challenges the reader to decide for himself. Such approach can be shown to be available from creacionist camp only. It may prompt some to see that they are fed only with one side of argument and deprived for other. It should help them start to search.

  38. Hi Stevan,

    You are correct that creationists have published many books using the two sided approach: e.g. The Young Earth by John Morris and Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe edited by Steve Austin. Just last year I wrote an article for a geological magazine in the UK called Deposits. The editor asked me for an article about the Moeraki Boulders, New Zealand based on my article on this blog. The article I sent to the magazine included the evolutionary, long-age interpretation as well as the creationist one. When I received the proofs to check, the creationist interpretation had been edited out. I asked them about it and they said that they were afraid to mention the creationist view because of a backlash from readers. I insisted that the article also remove the evolutionary interpretation and have the visible facts only, which they did.

  39. Hi!
    Google search has helped me to find your blog. So interesting! Tnx!
    Good luck in your research from team of researchers from Russia, we have found Noahs Flood in the Caspian Sea 🙂
    See at: http://paleogeo.org/flood_en.html

    Response by Tas Walker:
    Hi Andrey,

    Interesting article. Fascinating work. However, as the last paragraph says, this is not Noah’s Flood:

    The Ponto-Caspian Flood is not the Noah’s Flood as described in the Bible. The relation may be only indirect. The collective memory of the mankind retained the events for thousands of years; later it was written in ancient Aryan scriptures, such as Rigweda and Avesta, and only later the concept of the Flood was adopted by ancient inhabitants of Mesopotamia and came from them to the Bible.

    There is no relationship between this flood and Noah’s Flood.

    First, the dates quoted are too old because they have not been corrected to account for the carbon reservoir shock of the global Flood. This event would be post-Flood, possibly related to the melt-back of the post-Flood ice sheets. The dates should all be less than 4,500 years.

    Second, the speculation about “collective memory” is just that—speculation. The characteristics of Noah’s Flood described in the Bible do not match the flood described in this article. See The Black Sea flood definitely not the Flood of Noah for a critique of a similar claim about a local flood.

  40. Geological mapping today is being greatly assisted by the application of remote sensing. This involves obtaining information through the analysis of data acquired by a device not in contact with, or remote from, an object or area in question. Data comes in the form of aerial photos, multispectral satellite imagery and radar imagery.

  41. […] I have mentioned before, I look at sections like these and interpret them using biblical […]