Archive for category Creation and Science

Weird Science

I know I said I would try and not write about science and theology much, but as hard as I tried I found myself in the presence of young earth creationists (YEC) again. I honestly thought that my walking away from most of the bridges in my life that led to the YECs would have gotten me away from them for a while, but I was wrong. I don’t want to sound mean or condescending in this article so Ill merely sketch out my view on YEC and end it before my frustration with them gets the better of me.

From early childhood most of us Christians are taught the familiar creation story in Sunday school, church service, and various other events. We are taught that in the first day God created the heavens and the earth. We are taught that by the end of the week, the earth as we know it came into being in its full glory. The flora and fauna we see today were present at the end of the creation week and that 168 hours before hand there was nothing.

As charming as this story is, most of us grow up and goto school and university to learn what science has to say about the matter of creation. Science has come to the conclusion that the universe came into being 13.7 billion years ago and that the earth and sun formed from galactic dust. Life then emerged on our planet and evolved into what we see today. It is when confronted with this knowledge that a certain, select group of individuals decide to hold their hands to their ears and scream loud enough so they cant hear what is being said. In their screams they yell that the earth is 6000 years old, that creation happened as stated in the bible, and that science is a godless, heathen thing to be distrusted with every fiber in your being.

These people are young earth creationists. In short, as their name suggests, they believe creation happened strictly as stated in the first chapter of Genesis and that the earth is incredibly young. YECs believe that creation took literally six 24 hour periods and at that point earth was fully formed with all life that is present today, present then.

The modern creationist movement was born during the restoration movement in the late 1700s when the protestant churches broke with anything that resembled Catholicism or the church of england (who had both been active in the sciences for the previous two hundred years) and instead turned to a strict, individual interpretation of the bible as an answer to all questions; Not just all theological questions, ALL questions. Since then, through the explosion of understanding in geology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, etc. the creationists have stuck to the same unerring belief: that the bible is infallible in all things and that creation happened in 6 days.

To keep up with scientific advancement, YECs have had to develop their own branch of theoretical arguments. As such, the first theory they developed was that science was the enemy of the church and of god. This is the backbone and solid foundation of their belief system. It states that science is out to draw people away from God and into a godless way of life. That God is not all powerful and that science is full of atheists wanting nothing more than to disprove god’s existence. The second theory of YEC is that the bible is the sole answer for scientific questions. they state that Genesis 1 is the only source for answers to the question of how the universe began and that anything that says otherwise is in direct contradiction to god. The third theory is that the earth is 6000 years old. This date is based on the work done by James Ussher in 1648 when he compiled all the genealogies in the bible to ascertain how long ago adam and eve were created.

Unfortunately, to put it bluntly, YECs are dead wrong and nearly all counts. Since numerous books, videos, and other media have been made to disprove YEC on multiple levels, I will not bore you with the ridiculous amount of arguing that it would take to debunk each and every one of the YEC tenants. Suffice to say that YEC is an idea that is, simply put, ignorant.

Science is indeed real. In fact, the modern day would not be possible without the efforts of the men who also discovered how the universe works. And more surprisingly, nearly every scientific discovery up until about 1880 was made by a Christian. Even the original theory of the big bang was proposed by a Catholic priest and was fought with fury by atheist physicists as too theological to be true.

The question of how old the earth was first arose with the advent of thermodynamics (the study of head) and the observation that the earth was cool, but volcanoes were not. in 1779 a french scientist created a small globe the made of the same composition as the earth and watched its rate of cooling. Based on this, he put the date at 75,000 years. The age of the earth was further brought into question with the discovery and extensive examination of fossils and rock strata. How were fossils made? Why were they in layers? These questions lead to basic geology and to uniformitarianism (the theory that the earth has been changing in a uniform way throughout its life). This view on the world was largely spawned by creationist views that the world is unchanging in any major way and has always been as it was. As such, men of science (mostly clergymen and Christians) set about looking at rates of erosion and came to the conclusion that it may be that the earth was older than Ussher had set the date at. The figure was about 100,000 years.

Was does this mean? This means that men of science independently trying to verify the bible’s literal meaning ended up verifying the opposite. And since science’s most basic tenant is to throw out information if proved otherwise, science decided to divorce itself from religion so as not to get tangled up in theological matters. Does this mean that science decided there was no God? NO! It merely discovered that God was a being and a force that could not be proven from studying the natural world. The question for science as to god’s existence was moot. It didn’t matter if he existed or not, their aim was to understand how nature around them worked.

God is real as well. Genesis was not a lie either. Genesis was never meant to be a science lesson. Remember, it was written by moses who more than likely was shown the creation by God himself. Now, Im guessing here but I don’t think that if God was going to show someone something it would last the complete set of billions of years. I doubt it would have lasted the full week either. What moses was shown, and what he wrote down, were probably the highlights of the creation process and laid out in a stage by stage process. The Hebrew word “yom” used in the Torah to say “the first day” is also translated as “era” or “generation”. The translation can then be subject to question. Even Genesis 2:4 says “These are the generations of creation…” (KJV). Thus the “day” can be opened up to the interpretation of “era”. God has no time limit as Paul stated, “A day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.”

But even as this is just one argument out of many, why does it matter? Why should anyone care how old the earth is? Why should Christians and YECs be bound to one view over the other? The reasons are simple.

First, YEC confines God to being a “god of the gaps”. This means that they place God where ever science does not have an answer. Electricity was once just an “act of god”. So were various weather phenomena. As science discovered the workings of these gaps of knowledge God was pushed out of them. As such, YECs build these gaps of knowledge into pillars of faith that crumble when challenged by what rightfully fills the gaps. It also confines God to their personal interpretation of Genesis 1. There are many ways to read Genesis 1, especially with all the translations of the bible out there. Each YEC picks a version and then sticks with that one, confining God to 7 days. When challenged, a YEC will sometimes state “you limit God by saying that he couldn’t have done it all in 7 days!” They, however, are limiting God by saying that doing it in 7 days was the ONLY way he could.

Second, YEC makes the bible into something it is not. The bible was never meant to be a science book. It is a book of theology. Genesis 1 was put there to tell us only “God created everything” not to tell us how he did it. There is also only 1 chapter in the whole of the bible that deals with anything remotely near science. If God had wanted to tell us exactly how he created the world he would have given us math and details. He instead devoted the entire bible to understanding his nature and left the science to his curious creation for its own discovery.

Third, YEC forces a wedge between religion and science. It makes the two mortal enemies. Thus it says you must belong in one camp or the other and that by joining one means you must reject the other. Young Christians are being forced to take sides. As a result many young people are leaving the faith to pursue science when there is absolutely no need to do so. Religion and science have always gone hand in hand until 1880 when Darwin produced “on the origin of species”. Each scientific discovery was heralded as better understanding of how magnificent god’s creation was put together. Even Darwin’s theory was met with general “so thats how God did it” before the fireworks went off with the English church over the issue.

Forth, YEC makes Christianity look utterly ridiculous to outsiders and those on the doubting side of faith (yes, everyone doubts at some point). For such a large section of the Christian population to reject science so outrightly makes us all look foolish and untrustworthy. Jesus himself told us to go into all nations and make believers. Rejecting basic natural laws does not allow us to be taken seriously by anyone. Even for non-YEC Christians, like myself, this problem can hit personally. Talking to curious atheists about Christianity always brings up the subject of why to they have to reject science to join our faith. We are ridiculed by the press and intellectuals as backward, mentally challenged freaks because of the outspoken YEC community. And because of this, many who could find Jesus, wont.

YEC is not going to go away because of anything I say no matter how much I would love for it to. However, I feel that this discussion should not even be happening. It is a disgrace that I have to watch what I say about the age of the sun, or the creation of the moon, or how genetics work around YECs for fear of their pure hatred for science coming back to call me a heathen and believer of “silly theories with no evidence”. It is shameful for me to not be able to speak of my faith for fear of being told that believing in something that believes the earth is 6000 years old is tantamount to believing in something that holds “the moon is made of green cheese” as a chief tenant.

YEC has become a horrible disfigurement on the back of Christians everywhere. Unfortunately there’s little I can do about it. All I can do is write what I think in hopes that maybe, just maybe, a YEC will look at this page and begin questioning their belief. Rejecting YEC does not mean rejecting god, it only means rejecting a belief that men should forgo the gift God gave them of being curious.

I will leave you with this. From Saint Augustine’s 415 A.D. work, “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” chapter 19:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

No Comments

The Great Divide

The war isn’t going to end anytime soon. I think thats become apparent in the last series of articles that I’ve posted over the last few months. Science and religion seem to be at odds with one another despite however much I wish they weren’t. So far in this series, I have been focusing on the evangelical Christians and the fundamentalist Christians and their steps that have kept the virtual divide not only open, but widening in their wake. I have not said much about the other side of the fence though. That is, I haven’t made any strides to talk about how science as a community is helping to keep this divide between itself and religion open and widening. So in this last article focusing on science for a while, Id like to present something more personal as I find myself more and more on the science side of the chasm that separates us.

divide1.jpgI am often asked by people of both camps what my true beliefs are. I can firmly say that I have no idea. It is true I was raised a Christian but not as an evangelical one. That is, I wasn’t brought up with God and spirituality permeating every facet of my life. To me, God was simply there, just like air is there, just like the sun is there. It was one of those facts that just seemed to be without forcing itself into matters that had nothing to to with church. And so, without the constraint of religion interjecting itself into anything other than my spiritual life, I was free to study science as much as I wanted without finding myself at odds with my creator.

In fact, as the more I learned about creation and the universe as a whole, as well as how it all worked, I began to appreciate more and more how God had crafted such a universe that would give rise to us. I began to understand something fundamental that separates my form of Christianity from the evangelical fundamentalists. That fact I found out is probably the definition that divides Christians into two major camps, which I will get to in a bit. I realized that God did not create the universe because he loved us. He created the universe and then he loved us. In other words, he did not create the universe for our meager little species on some backwater planet, rather, the universe was created and we came alone, whether by natural phenomena or not, and God decided to show us love. Our species on a no name planet out back of nowhere received love from the creator of the universe.

divide2.jpgThis fact forces me at least to view Christianity’s creation standpoint from one of two camps. Those who think we are special, and those who think we aren’t special. To those who think we are, it frames their whole worldview, from their politics to their social life. To those who think humanity is special see their religion as the specialists of the special. In other words, they see Christianity (or islam or whatever) as the people who are chosen from the special people and therefore are above everyone else. This does not mean they are egotistical; though some undoubtedly are, but rather that they have some obligation to show everyone else how humanity is special and that we should all just know that we are the chosen of creation. The other side of this are those of us who see humanity as nothing special in terms of nature, but rather we are special only because God love us out of all of creation. I believe, as I think others do, that creation came first and that we came about in some manner God ordained but were not necessarily thought of before it all started. Therefore, we may have just been an after thought and God decided that maybe we could truly love him. I don’t know if thats a fact or not, but it would make us more humble if it were. Humility is the fact that governs these camps. One has humility because they are told to, the other just has it.

So how does this tie in with science? To me, the connection seems simple, science, by and large, is much like the second group I mentioned. They believe that humanity is nothing special, but not because of anything theological, simply because they can see how everything works and empirically deduce that if it happened here, why not somewhere else? That is to say, why should earth be the only planet out of countless trillions of planets with life on it? It is this empirical method that sets them apart from the first group I mentioned: the evangelicals. Evangelicals seem to like everything told to them, where as scientists want to find everything out. This difference is the second source of the divide, only between not just Christians.

divide3.jpgGive a true scientist a bucket of water and they will want to know what its made of, why does the water spin differently than the bucket if you spin the two, why does water behave that way, why why why? Scientists are fixed to a scheme of solving problems through observation. And on their side of the fence this is their source of the divide, though to be truthful, it’s of no fault of their own. Scientists want to measure and test. You by definition cannot measure or test god. Therefore God is not part of science. This does not mean scientists to not believe in god, some do, but it does mean God does not factor into experiments or theories. Why should he? If humans announced they could test God or measure him, how arrogant would we be? We would be admitting level with omnipotence. Scientists will admit their true goal in life is simply to describe how the world around us works. They do not postulate on why the universe is here or what our purpose in life is. They leave that to philosophy.

As one of a scientific mindset, I have no problem separating God from science because God does not factor into gravity, or air, or temperature. God is not a natural being, if he was, he wouldn’t be god. So I can see the scientist’s argument where “leave to Caesar what is Caesar’s” or “leave to God what is God’s.” God only factors into why were are here and where we are going. To say otherwise just doesn’t make sense. But I can see the point the evangelicals make too. They say science is atheistic and hostile to religion. To some extent, they are right. Science is at its basest level, skepticism. God is untestable so he’s also unverifiable. It’s hard to convince a skeptic to believe in something inherently unprovable. Despite what the bible says, you still must have faith in God to believe the bible. Faith in the unknowable disturbs scientists.

divide4.jpgBut scientists could use some yelling at from those of us in the middle. Just as I yell at the young earth creationists all the time, I should really spend more time yelling at the scientists and those of the scientific mind set like myself. But the major difference between the yellings at is the fact that to move creationists to the center you only need to get them to think analytically and not accept everything at face value. On the other hand to move a scientist to the middle require to get them to give up just a shred of analytical thought, something even I have a lot of problems doing. As analytical people we tend to miss the forest for the trees. Science gets bogged down in the details and sometimes misses the overall picture, especially when its not related specifically to science. It’s like looking at the old cliche of the pocket watch in the desert. The scientist would take the watch apart, see how it worked, note how the pieces were made and what from, try to find out when the watch was made, etc etc. He becomes so engrossed with finding these things out; I think he misses the bigger picture. He doesn’t once stop to think, who made it and why is it out in the desert? And if he does, the could use the old cop out, “well thats for the philosophers to debate.” That’s true, but for the person of the scientist I don’t think its good enough. Not to sound like an evangelist, but as a person, are you letting your lab coat dictate your personal beliefs in the spiritual? Just because they are untestable does not mean they do not hold merit. Some scientists have tried to evade the issue altogether by suggestion religion and spirituality are somehow biological. Maybe, but spirituality is not a natural phenomenon, at least in my mind, and should at least be given some credit. Because of our spirituality and our ability to envision something so much bigger than ourselves such as god, we identify ourselves are separate from the animals. I know there are other reasons scientists would say we see ourselves separate, but you have to admit, spirituality is something we can definitely point to as “human.”

Scientists may see things the way those of us in the middle ground see things, as far as how humanity is nothing special. However they either cant, or wont ask the important questions that are personally applicable to them. Its all well and good you know how the first cells might have formed from folding proteins, but will that help your personal life? Its great you know the universe is expanding, but will that help you in death? So many scientific friends I know are afraid of death because they believe in no god. But not because they are afraid of hell, they are afraid of mortality being the finality of existence. They are scared of not existing and all that entails: a missed opportunity to make a mark on civilization. In some ways this view of spirituality not pertaining to them or not being intelligent thought is the key to why they help split society.

divide5.jpgTheir side of the divide is to look down on those who use faith too much. Granted some of us use faith where faith is necessary, but we don’t use it to facilitate every aspect of our lives simply because we are told something by a preacher. Unfortunately, a vast majority of Christians are like the evangelicals. As a result they fuel the stereotype of Christians being anti-intelligent bible thumpers. Science looks down on them because they don’t use any thought at all for their worldview. Science on the other hand perpetuates its own stereotype of being ivory tower people who refuse to look at anything other then facts and trying to discredit religion (even though they don’t directly) by scoffing at those who are in religion. And in-between there are those of us who look at both sides and shake our heads. Science discriminates against religion because they don’t like faith-based assumptions. Religion discriminates science by making claims that go beyond the scope of what religion teaches (i.e.. creation science). As a result, both camps refuse to talk to each other and have taken to throwing mud. So many souls and so many minds could be saved here if they just got along.

In the end, there’s not a whole lot I, nor probably any one person, can do about it. Science people will continue to hate Christians because of the lot that tries to wedge the two apart. Christians will continue to hate scientists because science wants to be skeptical of everything, including god. In the end, I don’t think either side is “right” but if I had to pick one thats more right than the other, id pick the scientists simply because I’m sure there is a way to prove God through logic at least, not necessarily experimentation. The evangelicals only offer canned arguments and irrationality. But I think, really, that if the two sides at least agreed to disagree on a few little issues than both would benefit monumentally from each other. That’s just my opinion though.


And the Floodgates Opened

I think its about time that I put my money where my mouth is and actually show you all how I would discount some of the Creationist claims that I so adamantly speak out against. Sure I’ve argued so far that their logic is flawed, that they take things out of context, and that they in general don’t have a leg to stand on, but I haven’t actually proved any of their arguments wrong using the good old scientific method I harp on so much. Well this week I’ll show you exactly how I go about it by debunking one creationist claim and bringing into question the held viewpoint on another related issue.

The topic of the day, if you didn’t guess from the title, is the Flood from the book of Genesis. For those of you who don’t know the story of Noah and the Flood heres a paraphrased version: Noah gets a call from God saying “Hey, the earth sucks so I’m wiping it clean and starting over. But I like you, so build a big old boat and put you, your family, and a whole mess of animals on it so you float while others..well… don’t.” So Noah builds the boat, does what he’s told and sure enough the earth is flooded with rain and torrents and such for forty days and nights which seemingly cover the earth and wipe out all land life. So then after this, waters recede Noah lands on a mountain and God says “Hmm.. I don’t think I’ll do that again. Heres a rainbow to show my promise to not to that anymore.” The End. ((Genesis 6-8 (New King James Version) ))

Now the problems with this story are enormous. but mostly only if you take the English version of the story totally literally down to the last word. Now most people don’t (even though they say its a myth which is also wrong) but there is a fine group of people who like to take Genesis (and not much else of the Bible) literally to the maxtreme: the Creationists. Specifically Young Earth Creationists.


The problem is not only the existence of the Flood itself but the myriad of geological and biological “problems” that they seem to try and solve with it. ((“Claim 581: Carving the Grand Canyon,” The Talk.Origins Archive. Continental drift? Flood. Mountains? Flood. Fossils? Flood. David Lee Roth? Well you get the idea. One of the weirdest tenants they hold is that evidence of the Flood and also a geological “anomaly” used accredited to the Flood is present in the Grand Canyon. ((Ken Ham, “Grand Canyon,” Creation, March 1996, 28, This is somewhat ironic, as a side note at least, because after Ussher (the guy who came up with the age of the Earth as about 6,000 years old) the biggest shifts in the age of the Earth were made by guys like Comte du Buffon, WI’lliam Smith, and Charles Lyell who pointed out features like the Canyon were evidence of somewhat uniform processes in the Earth that could be measured and gave the Earth an age of well over 200,000,000 years. ((“Age of the Earth,” Wikipedia.


In any case, back to the Canyon. The Grand Canyon is a gorge carved out of the desert floor of Arizona by the Colorado River. As the river cut through the rock, straight down, the sides of the chasm would fall into or slide down into the river and were washed away, hence the immense width of the gorge. The rocks in the Canyon have been dated using radiological dating in a range with the youngest, most top layer being around 200 million years old to the bottom layers being about 2 billion years old. ((“Grand Canyon,” Wikipedia, The Canyon itself is attributed to being in total, 75 million years with the onset of the Laramide orogeny, the uplifting event in which the Rocky Mountains formed. The Canyon didn’t begin cutting though until about 5.3 million years ago when the Gulf of California opened and allowed drainage into the ocean, lowering the Colorado River’s base level from where it had been (around the elevation of the Canyon top) to sea level. Most of the cutting though has occurred in the last 2 million years. ((“Geology of the Grand Canyon Area,” Wikipedia,

From then on it has been a matter of the river trying to reach sea level. As it flows downwards it takes rock sediment with it. This sediment bumps and grinds the river bottom as it goes, very slowly eroding the bottom out and lowering the river.

On average this process is about 1 inch of river erosion downward per year. Although it is known that it has sped up and slowed down greatly depending on the climate and the rock strata is is currently cutting through. A very wet climate and a very soft sand stone could net several times more than a dry climate and a granite layer.

Now, Creationists have claimed that the Canyon is evidence of one of two things that are related to the Flood. One is that it is the source of one of the springs where water gushed forth from the Earth to flood it. However, this seems extremely unlikely since there is no geological evidence at all to suggest water channels beneath the Canyon nor a giant reservoir to hold such an amount of water (even if it was only a contributing amount) to flood the earth. The second theory is that the Canyon was gouged out as the Flood waters receded into the pacific ocean from the high elevation it was at. Now this is much more plausible than the other idea, but it still sounded like made up garbage to me, so I decided to do a little math and find out for myself.

So here’s my scientific method for proving them wrong. First I form my hypothesis. “The amount of water needed to form the grand Canyon is more than all the Flood waters in Genesis combined.” Thats one heck of a statement, but its one I’m going to try and prove. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But if I’m right, thats one point for me and one drawing board for the Creationists. So how am I going to prove this crazy idea? Simple, lets set up a simple thought experiment.

We know by measurement how deep the Canyon is and we can observe in laboratory conditions how long it takes for running water, like the Colorado, to erode different types of rock. So we know around the average amount of time it takes to carve out so much rock. As already stated this is something like 5.3 million years. But to be fair and more accurate, lets say it only takes 2 million, the smaller number mentioned above. Next, we ask ourselves, well how much water has flown through the Colorado River to produce the Canyon we see today? This is where the math comes in. From measurement we know the average (or the mean, as I’ll continue to use) flow of the Colorado before it is diverted by the Hoover Dam is 1,206 cubic meters per second of water. ((“Colorado River,” Wikipedia,

So how much is that a Year?

1,206 m^3/s * 60 s/min * 60 min/hr * 24 hr/day * 365.25 day/yr = 38,058,465,600 m^3/yr

Quite a bit of water. Now lets take that number and multiply it by the 2 million years needed for that mean flow to carve the Canyon at the mean rate of erosion.

38,058,465,600 m^3/yr * 2,000,000 yr = 76,116,931,200,000,000 m^3

Thats 76.1 quintillion cubic meters of water moving through the Colorado river on average every 2 million years. Now, lets see how much water was available during the Flood. If that number is close to this number we just got, we can assume that the Creationists might have an argument (assuming the entirety of the Flood would move through the Canyon). If the number we get is significantly less then we assume their argument has no merit. If it is significantly more we assume their argument has more merit than the geological erosion theory. So let’s figure this out.

Dry Earth

To calculate the amount of water on the earth in the time of the Flood we need two things: the radius of the earth without the water and the radius of the earth with the water. Now we know from satellite data and other means of measurement that the mean radius of the earth is 6,372.795 km. ((“Earth,” Wikipedia, To keep this simple, lets use meters. So, 6,372,795 m. Now from the English Biblical account the Flood covered ALL land. Now assuming Everest was the tallest mountain then and was at the same height it is now (which it wasn’t, it would have been shorter) we will say that that could be the radius of the earth plus the water. We will keep the Everest elevation as how high the waters reached: 8,844.43 m above sea level. ((“Mount Everest,” Wikipedia, So the Flood water in our experiment is 8,844.43 m deep.

To figure out how much water that is we will calculate the volume of the earth without the water (Vd) and subtract that figure from the volume of the earth with the water (Vw).

Rd = 6,372,795 m (earth’s mean radius)

Rw = Rd + 8,844.43 m (water depth) = 6,381,639.43 m (earth’s radius plus all that water)

Vw = 4/3 * Ï€ * Rw^3 – 4/3 * Ï€ * Rd^3

Vw = 4/3 * Ï€ * (6,381,639.43 m)^3 – 4/3 * Ï€ * (6,372,795 m)^3

Vw = 4/3 * Ï€ * 259,894,319,491,000,000,000 m^3 – 4/3 * Ï€ * 258,815,239,616,000,000,000 m^3

Vw = Ï€ * 346,525,759,320,000,000,000 m^3 – Ï€ * 345,086,986,153,000,000,000 m^3

Vw = 1,088,642,779,760,000,000,000 m^3 – 1,084,122,740,550,000,000,000 m^3

Vw = 4,520,039,210,000,000,000 m^3

Flood Water Volume

So the volume of the Flood water given this model (which is very biased towards the Flood theory) is some 4.52 sextillion cubic meters of water. This is about 59.4 times the amount of the Colorado has drained in 2 million years. This number was not at all what I was expecting, but I will have to live with it. However, before the Creationists start feeling proud of themselves, let’s look at one more piece of information.

The Colorado River drains an area of 629,100 km^2. So we can assume that during the Flood it would have drained about that much area as well, although it may have drained more. The surface area of the entire earth is 510,065,284.702 km^2. So the area being channeled through the Canyon is only .1233% of the total surface of the earth. If you want to get technical and say that only land drains water, that bumps the number up to .4223% of the total land area. So either way you cut it, the mount of water actually going though the Colorado’s draining area is about 19,092,081,070,100,000 m^3 at most. Thats only 25% the water needed to carve out the Canyon.

Flodded Earth

End Result? Not enough water in the Flood to carve out the Grand Canyon in its totality. At most, the Flood could have carved out a quarter of the depth and some could argue that the deluge that ensued could have cause a catastrophic carving out, but I doubt that would have accounted for more than half. In any case you’re left with half a Canyon with one million years of cutting left to do. And remember, this experiment was tilted in favor of the Creationist viewpoint. I could have used the 5.3 million years instead of the 2 million years. This would have netted 165% more water needed to carve out the Canyon. You can do the math yourself.

So there you have it. My method to debunk Creationist claims. I went through it just as I would any other scientific claim. Hypothesize then Test then Re-evaluate the hypothesis. And I even disproved my own hypothesis. There was more water in the whole of the Flood than there was moving through the Colorado River in the last 2 million years. Even so, the greater hypothesis, that the Flood carved out the Grand Canyon is still highly doubtful. Even if it had carved it out, it would only have carved a portion of it leaving a majority of it left to be cut. Which would take several thousand years longer than the Ussher length of 6,000.

So does this disprove the Flood in its entirety? Not really. This is but one example of the Flood’s effects being discounted, but it does not totally invalidate the story of Noah. As I said at the beginning of this post, I would try to bring into question one of the chief tenets of the Flood story. That is, I don’t believe the Flood was ever world wide.

There are many reasons behind this idea. First and foremost, so much geological evidence discounts that a global flood of such proportions ever really took place. There just isn’t any clear cut evidence that supports this. In fact most of it points to the opposite. If there was such a flood, on a global scale, there should be rock layers laid down in its wake of all the dead animals and plants. This is explained by the creationists as all the fossils we see in the geological record. However, this doesn’t sync up. If the Flood created the fossils along with the layers they are in, then the animals and plants within the strata would all be in a single, huge band of rock all muddled together. You can see this for yourself.

Take a bucket. Add some clay to the bottom of the bucket, this will be the preexisting bedrock. Next, add some sand and maybe some army men and little toy dinosaurs. These will be all the soil and people and animals that were alive before the Flood. Now dump another bucket full of water into the first bucket. Once the waves clear notice how the things you placed on top of the clay are now situated. All muddled together. This is how the things at the time of the Flood would have ended up during and after the Flood. Therefore the strata would be a muddle as well. But it is not. We see certain animals and plants at certain levels of rock. We see them in the same levels all over the world. We can see layers of ash from volcanic eruptions and also a thin layer of the element iridium that was deposited on the earth 65 million years ago when an asteroid hit the earth near the Yucatan Peninsula.

The fact is, there is no solid proof of a global Flood. However, that does not mean the I was wrong. In fact, it is probably still spot on. The first five books of the Bible, or the Torah, was written in ancient Hebrew. The words were translated into mid-modern Hebrew, then to Greek and then to English. Some words were translated somewhat incorrectly. The most blaring of these (besides the word for “day” in Genesis 1) is the word for “earth” in the Flood story. The Hebrew word is “×¢ ר א” (pronounced “eretz”), which does mean Earth. ((R. Laird Harris and Gleason L. Archer, Jr. and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1981),167-8)) However, it also means “city,” “the country,” or “the land.” So you can translate the story as “And God covered the Earth in flood waters” or “And God covered the land in flood waters.” A major transition from one to the other.


The fact is, we don’t know exactly what the ancient Hebrews thought this word meant in this context exactly. What we do know is that there was a major catastrophic flood about 5600 BC which engulfed the entire fertile crescent. Known as the Black Sea deluge, it was a major event at the end of the last ice age and around the time of Noah, close even in YEC standards. The deluge was cause by a huge lake in what is now where the Black Sea is. ((“Black Sea Deluge,” Wikipedia, This lake was held back by the remains of a great glacial dam. This dam, due to the warming up after the ice age of the earth, melted and unleashed a huge torrent of water that covered over 155,000 km^2. This theory has its skeptics, but it seems that this may be the source of Noah’s Flood and also of the story of Gilgamesh.

Is this the story of the Flood? An ice dam breaking and flooding the “country”? Perhaps. Personally, I don’t think the story of Noah is a myth but I do think its been not only taken out of context of its original meaning, but it has also been Disneyfied and spread as gospel truth in that form. One day we may discover that Noah was the source of the Gilgamesh story or that the ark was not on present day Mount Ararat or that the Flood was indeed corroborated by some nameless scribe who wrote down seeing his civilization vanish as waters rose and their highest peaks were consumed. But until that time, we have to rely on the Bible as a document of salvation and not as a science book.


Uncaused First Cause

Read the rest of this entry »

No Comments