Until the nineteenth century, as we have seen, geologists were aware of a great deal of evidence for a universal flood at the time of Noah. For example, Benjamin Silliman, head of the geology department of Yale University wrote in his Geological Lectures (1829):
Respecting the Deluge, there can be but one opinion: geology fully confirms the Scriptural history of the event . . . Whales, sharks, and other fishes, crocodiles and amphibians, the mammoth and the extinct elephant, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, hyenas, tigers, deer, horses, the various species of the bovine family and a multitude more, are found buried in diluvium at a greater or less depth; and in most instances under circumstances indicating that they were buried by the same catastrophe which destroyed them: namely a sudden and violent deluge . . . a skeleton of a whale lay on top of the mountain Sanhorn on the coast of the northern sea. . . . [The mountain] is three thousand feet high and there is no cause that could have conveyed the whale to that elevation except a deluge rising to that height.1
In 1833, James Parkinson discussed the formation of petroleum by the Deluge in a work entitled Organic Remains of a Former World--An Examination of Mineralized Remains of the Vegetable and Animals of the Antediluvian World: Generally Termed Extraneous Fossils. He wrote that the fresh vegetable matter of the coal strata was cut off from air and covered over by a layer of sediment in the Flood. This vegetable matter was converted into a black pasty substance. In the case of coal this paste eventually hardened and crystallized. In the case of petroleum the fermentation went further and converted the vegetation into liquid form. According to Parkinson, it was because of this fermentation process in coals that all traces of leaves and branches in the coal layers have been lost except on the upper surface, or "roof" of the coal, where the imprint of the leaves and branches, and sometimes logs, are often visible.
Near the city of Munden, Germany, at the top of a mountain 1150 feet in height, there is a large quantity of fossil wood, such that tree trunks were lying massed together, flattened by pressure from above. In the body of the same mountain are specimens of marble containing bivalves and other marine shells, including large shark teeth.
In 1837, George Fairholme published his New and Conclusive Physical Demonstration of the Fact and Period of the Mosaic Deluge, in which he describes some of the fossil remains at Big- bone Lick:
That the animals did not perish on the spot, but were carried and deposited by the mighty torrent, which, it is evident, once spread over this country, is probable from the circumstances of marine shells, plants, and fossil substances having been found not only mixed with bones, but adhering to them, and tightly wedged in the cavities of the skull. "Those holes where eyes did once inhabit" were often stopped up by shells or pieces of coral, forcibly crammed into them. . . . Although elephants are too unwieldy to climb the mountains in a wild state, and have never been seen, even on the lowest side of the hills that bound the plain, yet I am assured that their fossil bones are found in the highest elevations that man has attained in Tibet. . . . The bones of many different elephants were brought into contact; and on some oyster shells were matted.2
Fairholme made reference to "Dry Rivers," which were great, long, river valleys which now have only comparatively small streams flowing in them, but which give the impression of having contained vastly greater amounts of water at one time. He also pointed out that the "gradual passage from one sedimentary deposit to another as seen at the point of contact is perhaps the strongest proof that can be advanced of the uninterrupted and aqueous deposition throughout the whole formation of the earth's strata."3 The upper surface of almost every formation was still soft and moist when the superincumbent sediments were deposited upon it.
Fairholme also point out that "ripple-marks," or irregular, wash-board markings, which form on the sandy bottoms of streams, lakes and oceans in storms and other disturbances, and which disappear as quickly as they come, have been preserved in great abundance in the stratified layers of the earth in many kinds of stone. Some of these marks are small, evidently having been formed in shallow water, while others are immense, sometimes found to measure over twenty feet between ripples or waves.
Fairholme also considered the "reptile-tracks" in the stratified rocks to be proof of the speedy deposition of the sediments. So soft must the clay have been on which the steps were taken, that had the tracks not been covered and filled in almost instantly with a sedimentary deposit of some kind, they would have disappeared.
In 1830, Charles Lyell published the first volume of his Principles of Geology, advocating the uniformitarianism of Buffon and Hutton, who, in 1749 and 1788 had attempted to advance similar views, but had been met with little favor. However, by the time Charles Lyell began advancing his views, the academic world was ripe for them. Theological skepticism was gaining rapidly over faith. The higher critics were successfully undermining the authenticity of the Biblical documents, and scholars were accepting their conclusions uncritically, especially due to the prestige of many of the German schools that promulgated these views. Therefore, when Charles Lyell skillfully presented the old uniformitarian viewpoint, the world was ready to hear.
In 1838, George Young wrote Scriptural Geology, in which he pointed out that there were many unwarranted assumptions in Lyell's work, which had stated that knowledge of modern changes in the earth is the key that unlocks the door to knowledge of the past. Young pointed out that geological or physical changes on the earth may have been at times in the past of an entirely different sort, and they may have taken place at an entirely different rate. He opposed the idea, which was already spreading rapidly, that the fossils in the lowest strata are most unlike present, living forms, and that those in the highest strata are most similar to living forms. Young observed that in the lowest strata there were many forms identical with living types, and that in the highest strata, there were many forms that could not be matched with any living forms at all. These conditions would be explained easily on the Flood theory.
The high state of the preservation of fossil fish was another indication to Young of the Deluge, as opposed to uniformity. He wrote:
It is well known that scarcely any substance decomposes more speedily than fishes; so that when we find fossil fishes in a high state of preservation, we may be sure that the strata containing them were deposited so rapidly as not to allow them time to become putrid, till they were safely encased in their present matrix. Now, the fossil fishes in the carboniferous strata, in the magnesium limestones, in the lias, in the oolite, in the chalk, and in some of the tertiary deposits, are often found in the finest condition, with no part of their structure injured; while we know that fishes left dead on the beach, or on the banks of rivers, begin to decay in a few hours. . . . The proper cause of their fine preservation was their being so suddenly entombed in the strata.4
Another indication to Young of the Flood was the way in which the entombed remains of animals were pressed flat by the weight of higher layers:
Thus, the great crocodile in the Whitby Museum has evidently been crushed by the super-incumbent strata; the effect of pressure being visible, both on the head and the body, the bones of the one leg being practically sunk into those of the other. A fine specimen of ichthyosaurus in the Museum gives similar indications of violent pressure, the whole being crushed into a flat mass, and the ribs of the one side pressed across the spine, so as to form an angle with the ribs of the other side. . . . The elegant curvature of the spine shows that it was not the dead carcass of the animal that was embedded in the strata; it was not in the flaccid state of a dead and stranded fish, but must have been suddenly entombed alive; and, writhing in the agonies of death, it has twisted its body into its present handsome shape. . . . Similar instances have been noticed among the fossil fishes of Germany.5
In 1843, Robert Maxwell MacBriar wrote Geology and Geologists, in which he discussed and opposed the theories of Lyell, Smith, Cuvier, and others, and pointed out that their theories of geological uniformitarianism could be explained simply and without difficulties if one assumed the historicity of the Biblical account of Noah's Flood.
Opposition to the newly arising modern theory proved fruitless, however, since Flood geology was based upon the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures and therefore upon the supernatural, which is not the type of thing the world wanted. Therefore, henceforth, Flood geology was ignored or ridiculed.6
It should be obvious from the preceding historical discussion that the Flood geology of the early nineteenth century differs with modern uniformitarianism, not with respect to the factual data of geology, but with respect to the interpretation of those data.
Objections to the historicity of the Biblical account of Noah's flood often result from preconceptions about conditions that existed before the time of the flood. However, climactic conditions may have been different before the time of the Flood. Morris and Whitcomb wrote:
Arctic and desert zones may never have existed before the Flood; nor the great intercontinental barriers of high mountain ranges, impenetrable jungles, and open seas (as between Australia and Southeast Asia, and between Siberia and Alaska). On this basis, it is quite probable that animals were more widely distributed than now, with representatives of each created kind of land animal living in that part of the earth where Noah was building the Ark.7
Some people have wondered if it could have been possible to carry all of the known species of animals on the ark. In addressing this issue, Morris and Whitcomb have pointed out, first of all, that the Ark had a carrying capacity equivalent to that of 522 standard stock cars of modern railroads.8 According to the estimate of Ernst Mayr, probably America's leading systematic taxonomist, there are a total of 3500 mammalian species in the world, 8600 species of birds, and 5500 species of reptiles and amphibians.9 If this is so, then Noah would have had to bring two of each kind, or approximately 35,200 vertebrate animals on the ark. Noah was not required to take the largest or even adult specimens of each species, but even if he did, there would have been more than three times the necessary space for 35,200 animals, if the average size was that of a sheep. Reports of stock cars and railroads show that the average number of live animals to the carload is 25 for cattle, 75 for hogs in single deck cars, and 120 per deck for sheep. Thus, 240 animals of the size of sheep can be accommodated in a standard two-decked stock car. Therefore, 35,200 of them could be carried in 147 of such cars, but as we have seen, the ark's carrying capacity was equivalent to that of 522 stock cars of modern railroads.10
If it is objected that there are hundreds of varieties for each of these species, it should be pointed out that a great deal of diversification is possible within a species. For example, over 200 distinct varieties of dogs as different from each other as the dacshund and the collie have been developed from a very few wild dogs.11 However, no amount of breeding has ever brought about a new animal species.
Some people wonder how Noah and his family could have cared for all of the animals during the time of the Flood. One reasonable possibility is the remarkable factor of animal physiology known as hibernation, which occurs in every group of vertebrates except birds.12
Another objection sometimes raised against a universal flood during the time of Noah is that there would not have been enough water to cover the entire earth at that time. In answer to this, Morris and Whitcomb have written:
For such an objection to be valid, we would have to assume that there were no waters "above the firmament" before the Flood, and that the earth's topography was unaltered by the Flood. In other words, we would be assuming the truth of uniformitarianism in order to prove the impossibility of catastrophism! But if we accept the Biblical testimony concerning an antediluvian canopy of waters (Gen. 1:6-8, 7:11, 8:2, II Peter 3:5-7), we have an adequate source for the waters of a universal Flood. Furthermore, such passages as Genesis 8:3 and Psalm 104:6-9 suggest that ocean basins were deepened after the Flood to provide adequate storage space for the additional waters that had been "above the firmament" from the second day of creation to the time of the Flood, while mountain ranges rose to heights never attained during the antediluvian era.13
Another problem is that of animal distribution after the time of the Flood. For example, how do we explain that marsupials are found only in Australia, and in the Western Hemisphere? One possible explanation was given by A. Franklin Shull, Professor of Zoology at the University of Michigan:
The marsupials spread over the world, in all directions. They could not go far to the north before striking impossible climate, but the path south was open all the way to the tips of Africa and South America and through Australia . . . The placental mammals proved to be superior to the marsupials in the struggle for existence and drove the marsupials out . . . that is, forced them southward. Australia was then connected by land with Asia, so that it could receive the fugitives . . . Behind them the true mammals were coming; but before the latter reached Australia, that continent was separated from Asia, and the primitive types to the south were protected from further competition.14
Another possible explanation is that, in times of flood, large masses of earth and entwined vegetation, including trees, are sometimes torn loose from the banks of rivers and sept out to sea. Sometimes these masses can be found floating out in the ocean, far from land, still lush and green, with palm trees twenty to thirty feet high. Land animals may have been transported long distances in this manner. According to Mayr, many tropical ocean currents have a speed of two knots, amounting to 1,000 miles in three weeks.15
Frank L. Marsh has written as follows on this question: One glance at a world map will show that, with the exception of the narrow break at the Bering Strait, a dry-land path leads from Armenia to all lands of the globe except Australia. In the case of the latter the East Indies even today form a fairly continuous bridge of stepping-stones to that southern continent. As regards the Bering Strait, there is no doubt that a land connection once existed between Asia and North America. With the strait closed, the cold waters of the Arctic would have been prevented from coming south, and the Japan Current would have curved around the coast line farther north than today. The washing of those shores by the warm waters of this current would have produced a dry-land route that even tropical forms could have used.16
One argument that is frequently raised against the idea of a universal Flood is that the Flood waters would have moved massively back and forth across the earth and that the Ark would surly have capsized and its occupants would have been unable to survive. However, the Ark was more like a barge than a ship:
A model was made by Peter Jansen of Holland, and Danish barges called Fleuten were modelled after the ark. The models proved that the ark had a greater capacity than curved or shaped vessels. They were very seaworthy and almost impossible to capsize. . . . The stability of such a barge is great and it increase as it sinks deeper into the water. The lower the center of gravity the more difficult it is to capsize.17
1 Quoted by Byron C. Nelson, p. 85.
2 Quoted by Ibid., p. 93.
3 Quoted by Ibid., p. 100.
4 Quoted by Ibid., pp. 107-108.
5 Quoted by Ibid., pp. 108-109.
6 Ibid., p. 110.
7 John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1961), pp. 64-65.
8 Ibid., pp. 67-68.
9 Ibid., p. 68.
10 Ibid., p. 69.
11 Ibid., p. 66.
12 Ibid., p. 71.
13 Ibid., p. 77.
14 A. Franklin Shull, Evolution, 2d ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951), p. 60, as quoted by Ibid., p. 82. Shull is an evolutionist.
15 Morris & Whitcomb, p. 85.
16 Frank L. Marsh, Evolution, Creation, and Science (Washington Review and Herald Pub. Assoc., 1947), pp. 291-292, as quoted by Ibid., p. 86.
17 Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science & Scripture (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), pp. 230-231.
