Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
Did Noah experience a local flood which left only a few sediment layers, as floods do today? God’s record is clear: the water covered the entire globe and killed all the animals on earth. Such unique conditions are the only way to explain worldwide fossil-bearing layers thousands of feet deep.
Geologists repeatedly discover the catastrophic effects of local flooding on the earth’s surface, resulting in the same conclusion each time: that substantial amounts of water can have the same geological effect in a short period of time (even laying down rock layers) that hypothesized millions of years of slow water flow would have.
Like people today, almost certainly the people of Noah’s day were busy enjoying the pleasures of life and did not believe or care that judgment was coming. In 2 Peter 2:5, Noah is described as a “
preacher of righteousness.”
Psalm 104:6–9 sheds important additional light on the geological effects of the Flood. “The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them” (vs. 8).
Are current, slow geologic processes the key to understanding earth’s past, or was history marked by a global, earth-shaping catastrophe?
Flood legends abound globally across many distinct cultures. These legends point to the reality of the global Flood and the integrity of the account in Genesis.
Was the Genesis Flood merely a localized event or was it a global catastrophe that judged and destroyed the world of that time?
How should the Ice Age, glaciers, and wooly mammoths be understood within the framework of the Bible’s history?
The purpose of the articles in this series is to raise ideas about Noah, his world, the Ark, and the Flood in ways that most people have not considered before.
The Flood is impossible because one of the Grand Canyon’s layers was deposited in a desert. Or so evolutionists claim. Do the facts back them up?
These beautiful bows remind me of my parents’ teaching of what the Bible says about God’s purpose in giving us the rainbow.
We do not reject any evidence that is found, whether it is an ancient tool or fossilized bones. What we often reject are the interpretations of this data.
There are at least three problems with Hugh Ross’ local flood model which render it physically impossible. This is in addition to numerous biblical issues.PDF Download
Dr. Danny Faulkner analyzes Dr. Walt Brown’s determination of the date of the Flood within his hydroplate model using the orbits of two comets.PDF Download
Have you ever been “tongue-tied” when asked to provide geologic evidence that the Genesis Flood really did occur, just as the Bible describes?
Who cares about the details of the Flood? This flippant attitude opened the door for attacks on the historicity of Genesis.
Genesis records the details of the Flood in a sequence we would not expect. That’s for a reason.
Geologists are uncovering evidence that meteors struck the earth throughout the Flood. Could they even have played a role in starting the Flood?
Critics assert that two different dates are given for when the earth was dry after the global Flood. Michael Belknap, AiG–U.S., explains.
Two tropical cyclones were simulated with the NCAR WRF model to determine if warm sea-surface temperatures would cause them to intensify into hypercanes and follow similar storm tracks as the originPDF Download
Abruptness of ancient oceanic alterations fit the Flood.
A hypercyclone was simulated over the Arabian Sea to test enhanced precipitation over the Middle East and explain evidence for greater vegetation in the past.PDF Download
Old-earth creationists such as Hugh Ross claim Psalm 104:6–9 refers to the Creation Week, but a closer look shows otherwise.
Certain features of the “Upper Cretaceous” period correspond closely with the biblical account of the Noachian Flood around day 150, and uniformitarian explanations for “chalk” are inadequate.PDF Download
The uniformitarians believe that the couplets in the Green River Formation are varves, but evidence militates against this interpretationPDF Download
Amid the otherworldly Death Valley of California, geologists are seeing a 1941 stream diversion carve out the land before their very eyes.
This is a series of articles explaining the evidences from geology for the Genesis Flood.
It is important to compare the differences in these two flood accounts in order to examine their relationship.
everal years ago, John Reed and I presented the northern Gulf of Mexico Basin as an example where several vertical kilometres of sedimentary strata covering hundreds of square km were deposited.
We did not, and do not, propose that 'most of the fossils found on the earth were buried by post-Flood catastrophes'.
From our perspective, the fossil record into the Cretaceous and further, testifies strongly to God's act of judgment on this world.
Any scientific understanding of the Biblical Flood must address the hydrology and sedimentation that occurred during the Flood and in subsequent years as the Earth settled down.
Argument for an impact bombardment event surrounding the Flood that began with the onset of the Flood and continued for some time, trailing off into the post-Flood period.
Geologic evidence of the Middle East and the globe, combined with Scripture, indicates that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is very late in the Cainozoic.
The Flood/post-Flood boundary in the geologic column can be determined by investigating geophysical evidence in light of Scripture’s record of the Flood.
Applying the explosive pyroclastic volcanism model to the formation of coal deposits, it is entirely feasible that all the coal seams were formed by the conditions during Noah's Flood.