More Flood Stuff – part 1, Flora and Fauna

More Flood Stuff – part 1, Flora and Fauna

In my researching for my last flood post ( I found much more that I wanted to comment on and so left the bits that were not specific to animal evolution for another post.

The more I look at creationist claims, the more I see a dependence on the flood story. The flood account is crucial to the creationist because of the evolutionary argument and how it dictates global geology. Every discussion on the age of the world and animal evolution will at some point include the story of Noah, his ark and the flood that saved them. As such, the flood account is of huge importance to the creationist and so it shouldn’t be surprising that there are a lot of words dedicated to the subject.

With that out of the way, let’s hit the myth some more.

Oh look a dinosaur

AiG takes a stab at the dinosaur issue ( and brushes off their fate as little more than ‘oh dear they, they failed to survivce’. Of all the different species of dinosaur, are we supposed to simply accept that not one managed to live long enough after the flood to be described by later generations? The AiG article criticises scientists for being curious over their fate and for admitting that we don’t yet know the full story and for continuing to try to solve those mysteries. To AiG its simple, they existed but they don’t now and that’s because the world is sinful and man isn’t perfect so those the flood didn’t kill died anyway. Who needs curiosity when there is a simple answer? I’m guessing lions, crocodiles and eagles were luckier in the lottery of God’s judgement.

I find the AiG explanation both dismissive and depressing. Are they not at all curious over where the post flood dinosaurs went and how they died out?

It is precisely because of suggestions like that, that secular scientists point at creationists and accuse them of not doing any science. Those accusations are justified because all AiG does is critique scientific results and frame their objections in a creationist tone. In the AiG article I have linked to above, there is actually no scientific study, just conjecture, objection and bible references.

Oh the Plants, what of the plants

Recently there has been a lot of rainfall in my part of the UK; rainfall to such a level that many farms in the area have been underwater for 2 months or more. Near my house there is some open land that was underwater for months last winter and then again this winter. As I write this the standing water has almost all gone and some areas are now dry enough to walk on again. There are patches of rotten grass and shrubs. Plants do not do well when underwater for months at a time.

The idea that, after a year under a global sea, trees would be able to blossom again to the point a bird could take a leafy branch only weeks after being exposed to air again is simply impossible. For that to work the tree could have only been fully submerged for a few weeks, certainly not months. A tree submerged for that period of time would have died and been unable to grow again. This is the same for pretty much all plants. The land near me will survive and grass and shrubs will grow again quickly, that’s because there are plants close by which have not been submerged and, being spring, there will be seeds and pollen in the air to take up the place of the dead plants. Also, the water on this land is fresh, not salty. A global ocean would still be a salty ocean and that is even more devastating to submerged plants.

If we take the flood story at face value and assume that the earth was fully flooded at the end of the 40 days of rain and then it slowly began to drain away, then the draining needed to happen rapidly for the world to not be utterly devoid of useable vegetation. However, many creationists accept that the ark would have been afloat for about a year. This means that in order for high up vegetation to survive, the water would have had to keep rising after the rain stopped in order for the submerged time to be drastically reduced. This requires interpretation of the events because there is not enough detail in the story to know for sure. AiG are shameless in their adding of detail where it suits them ( You will see in the article that they confidently state that plants must have had built in survival mechanisms, more incredulously they roll out the tautology that of course plants survived because we see plants today. Neither of these are satisfactory explanations.

To address the salt water issue, the AiG article above posits that the seas were less salty at the time of the flood and became more salty post flood. I’m not sure if they also mean they were less salty before the flood. This might have had an effect on the ability of plants to survive a prolonged period underwater, but the period of time is still far too long, even for fresh water. As already stated, plants today don’t last more than a few weeks under water.

Have they since evolved to become less tolerant of being submerged?

The other problem for the salinity argument is that today we see fish that live in salty water and fish that live in fresh water. Both types can be sensitive to changes in the levels of salinity which means the mildly salty water of the global flood would have killed both types of fish. Presumably those fish have evolved since the flood and are now less able to live in water with those salinity levels and require either fresh water or more salty water.

The arguments for the flood are deeply flawed and simply do not hold together either logically or scientifically.

Stand by for part 2, geology and fossils.

7 thoughts on “More Flood Stuff – part 1, Flora and Fauna

  1. Pingback: More Flood Stuff – part 2, Rocks and Fossils | Confessions Of A YEC

  2. Here’s an example of a flood discussion, at a forum that I frequent:

    Why the Flood Never Happened

    The main creationist contributor posts under the name “Faith”, and she has dominated the discussion. (I mostly watched this one). What’s amazing is her complete certainty that she is right about everything.

    • Thanks for the link Neil, that was a long thread so I could only browse a few posts. It was interesting to see the comments on the Grand Canyon because it was visiting there that confirmed for me that I had been wrong about creationism all along.

  3. It is fairly well established by science that salt is being added to the oceans each year, correct? If so then it is fairly apparent that the oceans MUST have been ‘less salty’ in the past than they are now, right? Why do you scoff at such an apparently correct premise?

    • My point on salinity is that for a global flood to happen, there would be immediate and dramatic changes to ocean and river salinity. One getting more so and the other less. This would be a problem for fish and other animals and plants living in them at that time.

  4. Maybe. Depending on how salty the ocean was at the beginning of the flood. If the earth is young, the oceans at that point may have only been accumulating salt for a fairly short time to begin with. All ocean creatures may have initially enjoyed basically a freshwater environment, and they could have slowly adapted to slowly increasing levels of salinity as time has gone on.

    In fact at the current rates of salt accumulation, wouldnt there be a zero point for salt long before the billions of years that supposedly have transpired?

    • I have done a little bit of checking on historical salinity levels and, if I have understood correctly from the various sources I have browsed, there doesn’t appear to be figure by which the oceans are getting more salty over time. There is reference to temperature having an effect on salinity, but I could find nothing that stated that the oceans are getting more salty by x amount year on year.

      However, it is agreed that the minerals that make up ocean salinity do come from the rocks, it is more complex than that of course, but essentially that’s where it comes from.

      Logic would indicate then that the oceans were less salty in the past, the question then becomes, were they ever fresh and how long ago? I don’t see why we should assume they were fresh, as the water arrived it would have immediately started dissolving the rock it was in contact with so why assume there was a period when the water was fresh?

      Since there is no accepted level by which the oceans are getting more salty, I don;t see how there can be a clock you can wind back to either 4000 years or 4 billion and get a date for the oceans having no salt. There are too many variable.

      If the oceans were provably less salty 4000 years ago, how would that prove (or disprove) creationism or an old earth?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s