Search This Blog

Thursday 30 July 2015

Understanding the Fideism: Part 1


1.1 Introduction
Fideism is the name given to that school of thought, to which Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed, which answers that faith is in some sense independent of, if not outright adversarial toward, reason. The physical and the metaphysical[1] knowledge commonly obtain by two primary sources. First, known as experience (sense perception) and second, known as reason, and then knowledge also obtain by some secondary resources, like, memory, testimony, and revelation etc. Obtaining the metaphysical knowledge by the sense perception (empirical) and reason (rational) is denied by fideists (fideist is one who argues for fideism). Because they argue that the matters of faith and religious belief are not supported by reason. Religion is a matter of faith and cannot be argued by reason. One must simply believe. Faith, not reason, is what God requires (Heb. 11:6). Fideists are skeptical with regard to the nature of evidence as applied to belief. They believe no evidence or argument applies to belief in God. God is not reached by reason, but only by faith. Therefore, theologians and philosophers have responded in various ways to the place of faith and reason in determining the truth of metaphysical ideas, morality, and religious beliefs. The focal point of the course paper will be Kierkegaard’s fideism (Soren Kierkegaard is one of the prominent figure in the philosophy, who strongly argued for the fideism) along with others philosophers and their descriptions on fideism.

1.2 Definitions
Fideism (from the Latin "fides" or "faith") is the view that religious belief depends on faith or revelation, rather than reason, intellect or natural theology.
According to Merriam Webster.com/Dictionary: Fideism is a reliance on faith rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth.
According to Absurdism: Fideism is a philosophy based on the belief that the universe is irrational and meaningless and that the search for order brings the individual into conflict with the universe.
According to Wikipedia: Fideism  is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths.

1.3 History of Fideism
The term “fideism” appears to have entered the philosophical lexicon by way of theology in the late nineteenth century. It was originally used in reference to a movement within Roman Catholic thought, also known as traditionalism, which emphasized, over against rationalism, the role of tradition as the medium by means of which divine revelation is communicated, and which was sometimes conjoined with a conservative social and political agenda. Although of late modern vintage, the term “fideism” has since been applied retrospectively to thinkers at least as far back as the second century C.E. Tertullian is frequently cited in this connection as a textbook fideist. Developing a theme articulated by Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians, Tertullian insisted that the truth of Christianity could be disclosed only by revelation, and that it must necessarily remain opaque to unregenerate philosophical reason. In a, Tertullian quoted passage he maintains (against Marcion) that the “biblical narrative of Christ's death and resurrection is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.”[2] However, the conception of Tertullian as anti-rational is not supported by contemporary scholarship.
1.4 Sources of Knowledge
1.4.1 Empiricism
Empiricism is the theory that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience. It emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, and argues that the only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori (based on experience). Most empiricists also discount the notion of innate ideas or innatism (the idea that the mind is born with ideas or knowledge and is not a "blank slate" at birth).[3]
In order to build a more complex body of knowledge from these direct observations, induction or inductive reasoning (making generalizations based on individual instances) must be used. This kind of knowledge is therefore also known as indirect empirical knowledge.
The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology, stemming both from the Greek word for "experience" and from the more specific classical Greek and Roman usage of "empiric", referring to a physician whose skill derives from practical experience as opposed to instruction in theory (this was its first usage).
The term "empirical" (rather than "empiricism") also refers to the method of observation and experiment used in the natural and social sciences. It is a fundamental requirement of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition or revelation.
Sir Francis Bacon can be considered an early Empiricist, through his popularization of an inductive methodology for scientific inquiry, which has since become known as the scientific method.
In the 17th and 18th Century, the members of the British Empiricism school John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume were the primary exponents of Empiricism.

1.4.2 Rationalism
Rationalism is any view appealing to intellectual and deductive reason (as opposed to sensory experience or any religious teachings) as the source of knowledge or justification. Thus, it holds that some propositions are knowable by us by intuition alone, while others are knowable by being deduced through valid arguments from intuited propositions. Depending on the strength of the belief, this can result in a range of positions from the moderate view that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge, to the radical position that reason is the only path to knowledge.
Rationalism relies on the idea that reality has a rational structure in that all aspects of it can be grasped through mathematical and logical principles, and not simply through sensory experience.

1.4.2.1 Intuition
Rationalists adopt at least one of three main claims:
Intuition/Deduction: Some propositions are knowable by us by intuition alone, while others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions. Some rationalists take intuition to be infallible, claiming that whatever we intuit must be true; others allow for the possibility of false intuited propositions. Some claim that only mathematics can be knowable by intuition and deduction; some that ethical truths can also be intuited; some more radical rationalists maintain that a whole range of metaphysical claims (like the existence of God, free will and the duality of mind and body) are include within the range of intuition and deduction.

1.4.2.2 Innate Knowledge
We have knowledge of some truths as part of our innate rational nature. Experiences may trigger a process by which we bring this knowledge to consciousness, but the experiences do not provide us with the knowledge itself, which has in some way been with us all along. Some rationalists claim that we gained this innate knowledge in an earlier existence, some that God provided us with it at creation, and others that it is part of our nature through natural selection.

1.4.2.3 Innate Concepts
Some of the concepts (as opposed to actual knowledge) we employ are part of our innate rational nature. Some would argue, however, that innate concepts are entailed by innate knowledge, because a particular instance of knowledge can only be innate if the concepts that are contained in the proposition are also innate.[4]
René Descartes is one of the earliest and best known proponents of Rationalism. He believed that knowledge of eternal truths (e.g. mathematics and the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of the sciences) could be attained by reason alone, without the need for any sensory experience. Other knowledge e.g. the knowledge of physics, required experience of the world, aided by the scientific method a moderate rationalist position. For instance, his famous dictum "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am") is a conclusion reached a priori and not through an inference from experience. Descartes held that some ideas (innate ideas) come from God; others ideas are derived from sensory experience; and still others are fictitious (or created by the imagination). Of these, the only ideas which are certainly valid, according to Descartes, are those which are innate.
Baruch Spinoza expanded upon Descartes' basic principles of Rationalism. His philosophy centered on several principles, most of which relied on his notion that God is the only absolute substance (similar to Descartes' conception of God), and that substance is composed of two attributes, thought and extension. He believed that all aspects of the natural world (including Man) were modes of the eternal substance of God, and can therefore only be known through pure thought or reason.[5]
Gottfried Leibniz attempted to rectify what he saw as some of the problems that were not settled by Descartes by combining Descartes' work with Aristotle's notion of form and his own conception of the universe as composed of monads. He believed that ideas exist in the intellect innately, but only in a virtual sense, and it is only when the mind reflects on itself that those ideas are actualized.
Immanuel Kant started as a traditional rationalist, having studied Leibniz and Christian Wolff (1679 - 1754) but, after also studying the empiricist David Hume's works; he developed a distinctive and very influential Rationalism of his own, which attempted to synthesize the traditional rationalist and empiricist traditions.

1.5 Four Principles of Ration Fideism By Dr. Marbaniang
1.5.1 Consistency is not the same as Conceivability
The rationality of Revelation requires the consistency of its content. However, the inability to conceptualize the Divine as reported by Revelation cannot be qualification for its rejection as being inconsistent. Conceptions are basically empirical. Therefore, an attempt to conceptualize the Divine is tantamount to doing empirical epistemic and not rational fideistic epistemic. To cite as an example, it is evident that the doctrine of Trinity must not be approached empirically. For that will only lead to frustration. Consistency, however, means that the revelatory content must not conflict with itself on any given point. However, this doesn’t mean that divine reality can’t find any conceptual analogy (though misty) in experience.[6]

1.5.2 Faith must Anchor in the Ultimate
Existential fulfillment must be anchored in the knowledge of divine reality. However, divine reality cannot attract faith unless it manifests itself as concerned with human reality. Unless God is concerned with humans, all human striving is pointless. Further, unless God reveals Himself to man, faith as nothing substantial to base itself on. Rational faith cannot build castles in the air. It needs a solid ground on which it can stand. Therefore, Revelation must give some ultimate basis in which faith can lay its anchor. Consequently, any Revelation that assumes ultimate reality to be a transcendent negative (as in non-dualism) or an immanent anything (as in pantheism or polytheism) offers no ground for rational faith. A transcendent negative equals nothing and an immanent anything is not only dispersive ground but also an attempt to pull oneself up by one’s bootstraps, for human reality is itself co-immanent with everything else. Therefore, Revelation must provide a content to the transcendent ideal. As seen earlier, two necessary anchoring attributes of the transcendent must be personality and concern without which a meaningful I-Thou relationship is impossible. To say that the transcendent cannot be known is to obstruct the epistemics of divine reality. Further, in that sense, Revelation itself is no revelation at all: it reveals nothing but that nothing can be known. Therefore, it is argued Revelation must provide a positive, yet transcendental anchoring ground for faith.[7]

1.5.3 Supernatural Phenomena do not Serve as Data for Rational Fideism
Faith may wish to be strengthened by phenomenal religious experience of signs, wonders, visions, and miracles. However, supernatural phenomena in, of, and by themselves have no revelatory content to serve as unambiguous data for rational fideism. Such phenomena can serve as data for empirical epistemics but not for rational fideism. Such empirical epistemics can ultimately lead only to some form of naturalism, even if qualified by the ideal of divinity. Further, there is no reason to doubt that the supernatural phenomena might be designed in such a way as to mislead humans. This possibility is heightened by the biblical proposition that the spirit-world is divided into two antagonistic kingdoms with a political system and strategies, of which one kingdom is all set for deceiving humanity to believe its lie. In such a case, it is almost or absolutely impossible for humans to really know whether he is being deceived or not. Thus, no supernatural phenomena, even religious experience such as visions of ‘God’, can be the grounds for the rational fideistic epistemics of divine reality.[8]

1.5.4 Rational Fideism is not Fusion Epistemics
On the other hand, it is harmony epistemics. The only fusion possible is at the dispensing of the other. Harmony is the gaining of value not from within the system of contingent being but from without. Fusion, it has been seen, either leads to the attribution of the transcendental attributes to the empirical world or the contentment with the empirical attributes as constituting reality. Thus, reason, as in non-dualism, looks at all empirical reality as illusion, while experience sees the pluralistic and contingent nature of reality as self-evident and regards the concept of rational or metaphysical reality nonsensical, useless, and in Hume’s words, consignable to the flames. Reason and experience cannot fuse together absolutely to form some new epistemics. However, they can be harmonized in their distinctions as distinct tones are harmonized in music.[9]



[1] A kind of knowledge or faith lies behind religious activities. It is the branch of philosophy concerned with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being and knowing, based on abstract reasoning, transcending physical matter or the laws of nature. Oxford University, Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Tenth Edition (USA: Oxford University Press, 2001),
[2] Philip Schaff, Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n .d), 412.
[3] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapid Michigan: Baker Books, 1999).  Dd  30.
[4] Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Prince Press, 2003), 31-33.
[5] Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 34.
[6] Domenic Marbaniang, Epistemic of Devine Reality (Bangalore: CFCC, 2011), 219.
[7] Marbaniang, Epistemic of Devine Reality, 219.
[8] Marbaniang, Epistemic of Devine Reality, 220.
[9] Marbaniang, Epistemic of Devine Reality, 220.

Domenic Marbaniang: Faith

Domenic Marbaniang: Faith: Faith is both propositional doctrine, teaching, way of belief (Rom.10:8) and personal   response to God's grace  (Rom.10:17) Facts about...

Domenic Marbaniang: 7 Reasons Why Jesus Was Chosen As the Lamb of God

Domenic Marbaniang: 7 Reasons Why Jesus Was Chosen As the Lamb of God: It was not just because He was sinless; for, even the Father and the Holy Spirit are sinless. 1. It was because all things were created ...

Wednesday 29 July 2015

Evidence For The Noah’s Global Flood From The Scientific And Geological Discoveries, Part 3


If the Genesis Flood, as described in Genesis 7 and 8, really occurred, what evidence would we expect to find?

3.1 Evidence from the Black Sea
The 1990's that geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman gathered clues pointing to an actual ancient flood in the Middle East about 7,500 years ago. Sediment core samples the scientists took from the bottom of the Black Sea revealed sections of once dry, sun baked land. These sediments were then covered by sections of uniform mud, strongly suggesting that these plains underwent a long ago influx of salt water. Though not worldwide, this cataclysmic event occurred at what could have been a locus of human activity at the time. In their 1998 book, Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries about the Event that Changed History, Ryan and Pitman suggest the Black Sea was once a much smaller, land ­locked freshwater lake, fed by ancient rivers, and surrounded by fertile plains. Neolithic people, Ryan and Pitman suppose, would have flocked to farm these Eden like plains to farm them while supplementing their diets with the lake's abundant shellfish. At this time ­ about 7,500 years ago ­ the global climate was still rapidly warming following the last Ice Age, causing the seas to rise. Ryan and Pitman hypothesize that, when sea levels rose beyond a critical point, the Mediterranean Sea overflowed, deluging the Black Sea basin with salty water and destroying the fertile plains around the once shallow freshwater lake. Any people living on those plains at the time would have witnessed what must have seemed like the wrath of an angry god. Based on the still northern flowing undercurrents of what we call the Bosporus Straits, Ryan and Pitman estimate the water rushed northward through this channel with force many times greater than Niagara Falls. As the waters rose about six inches per day, human settlements would have been washed away or under hundreds of feet of water within a year or so. Traumatized refugees from the flood must have told their story to shocked listeners. Inspired by Ryan and Pitman's work, Bob Ballard and an international team of specialized scientists and engineers took a small fleet of ships and remotely operated vehicles (ROV's) into the Black Sea seeking evidence of human habitation before the flood.

3.1.1 An Ancient Shoreline
In July of 1999, Ballard and his colleagues began mapping the floor of the Black Sea, looking for the once fertile plains. Going on Ryan and Pitman's estimates that sea levels rose roughly 150 meters during the flood, Ballard and his colleagues searched for what would have been the ancient coastline of the freshwater lake. Using sonar and global positioning system (GPS) to navigate, Ballard swept his ship back and forth through the target area, creating the first detailed profile of the sea floor. As the ship's computer processed the sonar data, the images scrolled across the ship's monitors. Precisely where Ryan and Pitman said it would be, the sonar images revealed a broad flat plain spanning some 20 miles from the present day coastline out to sea. Adjacent to this plain lies the ancient lakebed. Farther out, a sand bar echoes the shape of the original shoreline. The sonar imaging left little doubt the Black Sea had once been smaller. But there were still more pieces of this puzzle to be found.

3.1.2 Water from Fresh to Salty
On this same expedition, the scientists dredged the bottom of the Black Sea, bringing up­ among other things ­ a variety of seashells. Though analysis of those seashells would take some time, the results would turn out to be worth the wait. In November 1999, Ballard announced the conclusions to the world. Ballard and his colleagues had collected shells from nine separate species of mollusks, shell building invertebrates such as snails and clams. Expert analysis by Gary Rosenberg of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia revealed that seven of the species were saltwater mollusks, ranging up to 6,800 years old. The other two species, however, were extinct freshwater species that might have lived between 7,460 and 15,500 years ago. These two species proved this body of water must have been fresh until 7,460 years ago, providing more­ and incontrovertible evidence of an influx of saltwater from the Mediterranean Sea

3.1.3. Noah's Home Address
The ancient beach and the mollusk shells left little doubt that the Mediterranean Sea had flooded the Black Sea basin. But had people witnessed it? And how cataclysmic was the change? "It's not clear how rapidly it happened," says Brendan Foley, a student of Maritime Archeology at MIT's program for Science, Technology and Society. “But, if the flooding happened quickly, then there's a possibility dwelling sites were inundated and the sites would have been just covered with water and not beaten up by waves." With that hope in mind, the expedition searched for remains of human settlements in the fall of 2000. The garbage heaps and tools they discovered were significant finds. But for Ballard, the Holy Grail was the remnants of a dwelling ­ what Ballard and the others only half jokingly referred to as "Noah's House" ­ the surest sign of human presence. This time, Ballard and his colleagues sailed back and forth in 100­meter deep waters, over what would have been dry land before the flood, concentrating on channels carved by the ancient rivers that fed the once freshwater lake. Archaeologists familiar with the region suspect that the once dry land of river deltas would have been attractive real estate for the farmers who may have lived here before the flood.
Once again, Ballard's team hit pay dirt Foley refers to what the team calls "Site 82," a decidedly manmade structure submerged in 95 meters of water, nestled between the beds of two rivers that once fed the ancient freshwater lake. The researchers deployed the Rov called "Little Hercules" to obtain images of the promising site. Stunned scientists stared at the ship's monitors as the Rov sent back pictures of manmade wooden beams, ceramic shards and stone tools. Disappointingly, radiocarbon dating proved the wood to be too young to have been the actual walls and roof of "Noah's house." However, sediment samples collected from the site revealed what may be a stone foundation similar to other Neolithic dwellings found in the region. While scientists cannot say for certain that Site 82 was a Neolithic dwelling before the flood, the tantalizing possibility exists. Only further exploration will tell for sure.
During these voyages, Ballard and his colleagues uncovered still other artifacts that reveal much about other chapters of human history. Among these finds were four shipwrecks, almost perfectly preserved in the cold, oxygen less waters at the bottom of the Black Sea, where timbers would be safe from decomposing bacteria and wood boring worms. Expedition member and nautical archeologist Cheryl Ward recalls her first impressions of one of the wrecks. "There was no rope anywhere on the ship, which to me was an indication that this was probably much older than a couple of hundred years," says Ward. "Looking at the way that the ship itself was laid out, I started to think that this probably was about the same age as the other three shipwrecks that had been found, probably around 1500 years old." While 1500 years old is far from Biblical, little is known about shipbuilding in the Black Sea during this period. Ward wants to know which traditions these ships' builders were heir to­ local standards or older Greek ones passed down through generations. Moreover, the ships' cargo could reveal much about the people who sailed them. Were these ships full of goods to be traded, were they passenger ferries, or warships? "We'd be able to find all kinds of intimate details of the daily life of the people who were operating this little vessel," says Ward. In addition to learning more about the ancients, Ward also appreciates what these shipwrecks have to teach us about ourselves. "One of the things that modern people like to do is to think they're more sophisticated than people in the past," she says. "But every time we excavate a ship, what is proven is that the people who lived thousands of years ago were solving the same kind of problems and were just as clever as we are." The Black Sea and its cold, oxygen poor depths preserved evidence unlikely to have survived seven millennia anywhere else. The faithful need no proof of Noah's Flood, and conclusive proof of a flood is not evidence of God to the non­religious. Though Ballard's expeditions have yet to prove that Neolithic people witnessed the flooding of the Black Sea Basin 7,500 years ago, the shipwrecks, the tools, garbage and other artifacts have much to tell us about human history. Religious or not, we are all awed by the lives our ancient ancestors might have lived.

3.2 Scriptural Evidence
The Garden of Eden must have been a wonderful place to call home, a place with an ideal climate and setting, where man apex of God’s creation, could live in a covenant relationship with his Creator. The climate apparently was so mild that Adam and Eve were able to inhabit the garden on a daily basis completely unclothed (Genesis 2:25). It was truly a paradise setting. How long, however, did such a climate remain after man’s fall, or did it continue at all outside the Garden of Eden? Several pieces of evidence, both scriptural and scientific, point to the fact that indeed, the mild climate present in the Garden did continue, at least for a while (and most likely even up to the time of the Flood). In all likelihood, the antediluvian world was vastly different from the Earth of today. For example, we know from clear statements of Scripture (e.g., Psalm 104:8) that after the Flood, God caused the mountains to rise and the valleys to sink, evidently indicating that the mountains of the antediluvian world were not nearly as high as those of today. We also know from Scripture that on day two of Creation, God “divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament” (Genesis 1:7). It is the view of some scientists that there may have been a water “canopy” of some sort above the Earth (the same canopy, they suggest, that later would shower rain on the Earth for 40 days and 40 nights (Genesis 7:17 and 8:6). What effect(s) would this canopy have on the Earth’s climate if, in fact, it did exist?
The most immediate and obvious of these effects would be to cause a uniformly warm temperate climate around the earth. Such water vapor as is present in the atmosphere today has this specific effect of regulating the earth’s temperature. The inferred antediluvian vapor envelope would have produced this result in much greater degree, with a larger percentage of the sun’s incoming radiant energy being absorbed and retained and uniformly distributed over the earth than at present, both seasonally and latitudinally. The constant battle of “fronts” would be mostly absent, so that antediluvian climates were not only warm but also without violent windstorms.[1]
Interestingly, even evolutionists speak conclusively of a universally mild climate characterizing the Earth at one time. Speaking of the age of reptiles, for example, E.H. Colbert said:
Many lines of dinosaurs evolved during the 100 million years or more (according to the evolutionists’ timetable) of Mesozoic history in which they lived. In those days the earth had a tropical or subtropical climate over much of its land surface, and in the widespread tropical lands there was an abundance of lush vegetation. The land was low and there were no high mountains forming physical or climatic barriers.[2]
3.3 Necessity of the Ship
Was an Ark really necessary? All the time (more than 100 years), effort, and expense of building this enormous ship was wasted if it were only a local flood. Noah and his family, guiding a host of animals and other creatures, could have migrated to a higher area and waited for a local flood to flow out into the ocean.

3.4 Measuring the Flood Water
“One need not be a professional scientist to realize the tremendous implications of these Biblical statements. If only one (to say nothing of all) of the high mountains had been covered with water, the Flood would have been absolutely universal; for water must seek its own level and must do so quickly!”[3]
Critics, however, have been quick to point out that the phrase “all the high mountains” need not necessarily mean all the high mountains, for the word “all” can be used in a relative or distributive sense. A measure of the waters is now made by comparison with the only available standard for such waters; the mountains. They are said to have been “covered.” Not a few merely but “all the high mountains under all the heavens.” One of these expressions alone would almost necessitate the impression that the author intends to convey the idea of the absolute universality of the Flood, e.g., “all the high mountains.” Yet since “all” is known to be used in a relative sense, the writer removes all possible ambiguity by adding the phrase “under all the heavens.” A double “all” (kol) cannot allow for so relative a sense. It almost constitutes a Hebrew superlative. So we believe that the text disposes of the question of the universality of the Flood.
How deep, then, was this water “over all the high mountains”? The text indicates it was “fifteen cubits upward” that the water “prevailed.” This phrase obviously cannot mean that the waters went only fifteen cubits high (approximately 22 1 2 feet), for the phrase is qualified by the one that immediately follows—“and the mountains were covered.” The true meaning of the phrase is to be found in comparing Genesis 7: 19-20 with Genesis 6:15, where it is stated that the ark was thirty cubits high. The phrase “fifteen cubits” must then refer to the draught of the ark. The draught of a boat such as the ark is generally half its height. That is, when fully loaded, it sinks in the water to a depth equal to half the height. If the ark was thirty cubits high, and sank half of that, it would sink fifteen cubits. If the waters then prevailed upward “fifteen cubits,” that would be adequate to protect the ark as it floated on the waters all over the Earth for little more than a year. Therefore the ark would not hit any mountain tops during its journey. Psalm 104:8 speaks of God “raising up new mountains” after the Flood, it is likely that the mountains of Noah’s day were not nearly as high as the mountains that today. It seems probable that such mountains were much smaller than, say, such peaks as Mt. Everest or Mt. McKinley that are so well known to us.
A careful reading of the Genesis text indicates that the Flood lasted approximately a year.
The order of events as set forth in the first part of the eighth chapter of Genesis would seem, then, to be as follows: (1) after the waters had “prevailed upon the earth” 150 days, the waters began to assuage. (2) The Ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat the same day that the waters began to assuage, for the 17th day of the 7th month was exactly 150 days after the Flood began. (3) The waters continued to subside, so that by the 1st day of the 10th month (74 days later), the tops of various lower mountains could be seen. This would suggest a drop of perhaps fifteen or twenty feet a day, at least during the initial phase of this assuaging period. (4) The Flood level continued to fall for forty more days, so that Noah, no longer fearing that the Flood would return, sent forth a raven to investigate the conditions outside the Ark.[4]
3.5 High & Dry Sea Creatures
It is beyond dispute among geologists that on every continent we find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers which today are high above sea level. For example, we find marine fossils in most of the rock layers in Grand Canyon. This includes the topmost layer in the sequence, the Kaibab Limestone exposed at the rim of the canyon, which today is approximately 7,000–8,000 feet (2,130–2,440 m) above sea level.[5] Marine fossils are also found high in the Himalayas, the world’s tallest mountain range, reaching up to 29,029 feet (8,848 m) above sea level. The best explanation which we have of these sea creatures’ fossils appears above sea level that how they reached there? It is only the consequence of the great Flood of Noah because these rock layers in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges around the globe were deposited during the Flood.

3.6 The World’s a Graveyard
Rapid burial of plants and animals: after noting in Genesis 7 that all the high hills and the mountains were covered by water and all air-breathing life on the land was swept away and perished, it should be obvious what evidence we would expect to find. Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were buried rapidly and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime? Of course, and that’s exactly what we find. Furthermore, even though the catastrophic geologic activity of the Flood would have waned in the immediate post-Flood period, ongoing mini-catastrophes would still have produced localized fossil deposits. For example, billions of straight-shelled, chambered nautilus are found fossilized with other marine creatures in a 7 foot (2 m) thick layer within the Red wall Limestone of Grand Canyon.[6] This fossil graveyard stretches for 180 miles (290 km) across northern Arizona and into southern Nevada, covering an area of at least 10,500 square miles (30,000 km).[7] These squid-like fossils are all different sizes, from small, young nautilus to their bigger, older relatives. To form such a vast fossil graveyard required 24 cubic miles (100 km3) of lime sand and silt, flowing in a thick, soup-like slurry at more than 16 feet (5 m) per second (more than 11 mph [18 km/h]) to catastrophically overwhelm and bury this huge, living population of nautilus. Hundreds of thousands of marine creatures were buried with amphibians, spiders, scorpions, millipedes, insects, and reptiles in a fossil graveyard at Montceau-les-Mines, France. More than 100,000 fossil specimens, representing more than 400 species, have been recovered from a shale layer associated with coal beds in the Mazon Creek area near Chicago.[8] This spectacular fossil graveyard includes ferns, insects, scorpions, and tetra pods buried with jellyfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and fish, often with soft parts exquisitely preserved. Notice in many of these examples how marine and land-dwelling creatures are found buried together. How could this have happened unless the ocean waters rose and swept over the continents in a global, catastrophic Flood?

3.6.1 Exquisite Preservation
Such was the speed at which many creatures were buried and fossilized—under catastrophic flood conditions that they were exquisitely preserved. Many fish were buried so rapidly, virtually alive, those even fine details of fins and eye sockets have been preserved. Many trilobites have been so exquisitely preserved that even the compound lens systems in their eyes are still available for detailed study.

3.7 Transcontinental Rock Layers
On every continent are found layers of sedimentary rocks over vast areas. Many of these sediment layers can be traced all the way across continents, and even between continents. Furthermore, when geologists look closely at these rocks, they find evidence that the sediments were deposited rapidly. Consider the sedimentary rock layers exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon in northern Arizona. This sequence of layers is not unique to that region of the USA. For more than 50 years geologists have recognized that these strata belong to six mega sequences (very thick, distinctive sequences of sedimentary rock layers) that can be traced right across North America. The lowermost sedimentary layers in Grand Canyon are the Tapeats Sandstone, belonging to the Sauk Mega sequence. It and its equivalents (those layers comprised of the same materials) cover much of the United State of America. We can hardly imagine what forces were necessary to deposit such a vast, continent- wide series of deposits. Yet at the base of this sequence are huge boulders and sand beds deposited by storms. Both are evidence that massive forces deposited these sediment layers rapidly and violently right across the entire United State of America. Slow-and-gradual (present-day uniformitarian) processes cannot account for this evidence, but the global catastrophic Genesis Flood surely can. Another layer in Grand Canyon is the Lower Carboniferous (Mississippian) Red wall Limestone. This belongs to the Kaskaskia Mega sequence of North America. So the same limes tones appear in many places across North America, as far as Tennessee and Pennsylvania. These limes tones also appear in the exact same position in the strata sequences, and they have the exact same fossils and other features in them. Unfortunately, these lime stones have been given different names in other locations because the geologists saw only what they were working on locally and didn’t realize that other geologists were studying essentially the same limestone beds in other places. Even more remarkable, the same Carboniferous limestone beds also appear thousands of miles east in England, containing the same fossils and other features. The buff-colored Coconino Sandstone is very distinctive in the walls of Grand Canyon. It has an average thickness of 315 feet (96 m) and covers an area of at least 200,000 square miles (518,000 km2) eastward across adjoining states.[9] So the volume of sand in the Coconino Sandstone layer is at least 10,000 cubic miles (41,682 km3). This layer also contains physical features called cross beds. While the overall layer of sandstone is horizontal, these cross beds are clearly visible as sloped beds. These beds are remnants of the sand waves produced by the water currents that deposited the sand (like sand dunes, but underwater). So it can be demonstrated that water, flowing at 3–5 miles per hour (4.8–8 km/h), deposited the Coconino Sandstone as massive sheets of sand, with sand waves up to 60 feet (18 m) high.   At this rate, the whole Coconino Sandstone layer (all 10,000 cubic miles of sand) would have been deposited in just a few days! Sediment layers that spread across vast continents are evidence that water covered the continents in the past. Even more dramatic are the fossil-bearing sediment layers that were deposited rapidly right across many or most of the continents at the same time. To catastrophically deposit such extensive sediment layers implies global flooding of the continents.

3.8 Sand Transported Cross Country
Now it logically follows that, when the Flood waters swept over the continents and rapidly deposited sediment layers across vast areas, these sediments had to have been transported long distances. In other words, the sediments in the strata had to come from distant sources. And that’s exactly the evidence we find. The Coconino Sandstone, seen spectacularly in the walls of the Grand Canyon and it has an average thickness of 315 feet (96 m), covers an area of at least 200,000 square miles (518,000 km 2), and thus contains at least 10,000 cubic miles (41,700 km 3) of sand. Where did this sand come from, and how do we know? The sand grains are pure quartz (a natural glass mineral), which is why the Coconino Sandstone is such a distinctive buff color. Directly underneath it is the strikingly different red-brown Hermit Formation, consisting of siltstone and shale. Sand for the Coconino Sandstone could not have come from the underlying Hermit Formation. The sloping remnants of sand “waves” in the Coconino Sandstone point to the south, indicating the water that deposited the sand flowed from the north.[10] Another clue is that the Coconino Sandstone thins to zero to the north in Utah, but the Hermit Formation spreads farther into Utah and beyond. So the Coconino’s pure quartz sand had to come from a source even farther north, above and beyond the red-brown Hermit. Within this sandstone, we find grains of the mineral zircon, which is relatively easy to trace to its source because zircon usually contains radioactive uranium. By “dating” these zircon grains, using the uranium, lead (U-Pb) radioactive method, it has been postulated that the sand grains in the Navajo Sandstone came from the Appalachians of Pennsylvania and New York, and from former mountains further north in Canada. If this is true, the sand grains were transported at least 1,800 miles (3000 km) right across North America.[11] Yet the evidence is overwhelming that the water was flowing in one direction. More than half a million measurements have been collected from 15,615 North American localities, recording water current direction indicators throughout the geologic record. The evidence indicates that water moved sediments across the entire continent, from the east and northeast to the west and southwest throughout the so-called Paleozoic. This general pattern continued on up into the Mesozoic, when the Navajo Sandstone was deposited. How could water be flowing across the North American continent consistently for hundreds of millions of years? Absolutely impossible! The only logical and viable explanation is the global cataclysmic Genesis Flood. Only the water currents of a global ocean, lasting a few months, could have transported such huge volumes of sediments right across the North American continent to deposit the thick strata sequences which blanket the continent.

3.9 No Slow and Gradual Erosion
The dominant view today is that slow and gradual (uniformitarian) processes, similar to the processes we observe in the present, explain the thick, fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers all over the earth. These slow geologic processes would require hundreds of millions of years to deposit all the successive sediment layers. Furthermore, this popular view holds that slow weathering and erosion gradually wore away the earth’s surface to produce its relief features, such as hills and valleys. This view has a problem, however. If the fossil-bearing layers took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate, then we would expect to find many examples of weathering and erosion after successive layers were deposited. The boundaries between many sedimentary strata should be broken by lots of topographic relief with weathered surfaces. After all, shouldn’t millions of years worth of weathering and erosion follow each deposition? On the other hand, the cataclysmic global Flood described in Genesis 7–8 would lead us to expect something much different. Most of the fossil-bearing layers would have accumulated in just over one year. Under such catastrophic conditions, even if land surfaces were briefly exposed to erosion, such erosion (called sheet erosion) would have been rapid and widespread, leaving behind flat and smooth surfaces. The erosion would not create the localized topographic relief (hills and valleys) we see forming at today’s snail’s pace. So, if the Genesis Flood caused the fossil-bearing geologic record, then we would only expect evidence of rapid or no erosion at the boundaries between sedimentary strata. So what evidence do we find? At the boundaries between some sedimentary layers we find evidence of only rapid erosion. In most other cases, the boundaries are flat, featureless, and knife-edge, with absolutely no evidence of any erosion, which is consistent with no long periods of elapsed time, as would be expected during the global, cataclysmic Genesis Flood. If there were weathering, we would expect to see soils, but we don’t. Second, we find boulders and features known as “storm beds” in the Tapeats Sandstone above the boundary.

3.10 Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured
The fossil-bearing geologic record consists of tens of thousands of feet of sedimentary layers, though not all these layers are found everywhere around the globe, and their thickness varies from place to place. At most locations only a small portion is available to view, such as about 4,500 feet (1371 m) of strata in the walls of the Grand Canyon. Uniformitarian (long-age) geologists believe that these sedimentary layers were deposited and deformed over the past 500 million years. If it really did take millions of years, then individual sediment layers would have been deposited slowly and the sequences would have been laid down sporadically. In contrast, if the global cataclysmic Genesis Flood deposited all these strata in a little more than a year, then the individual layers would have been deposited in rapid succession, one on top of the other. When solid, hard rock is bent (or folded) it invariably fractures and breaks because it is brittle.   Rock will bend only if it is still soft and pliable, “plastic” like modeling clay or children’s Play dough. If such modeling clay is allowed to dry out, it is no longer pliable but hard and brittle, so any attempt to bend it will cause it to break and shatter. When water deposits sediments in a layer, some water is left behind, trapped between the sediment grains. Clay particles may also be among the sediment grains. As other sedimentary layers are laid on top of the deposits, the pressure squeezes the sedimentary particles closer together and forces out much of the water. The earth’s internal heat may also remove water from the sediment. As the sediment layer dries out, the chemicals that were in the water and between the clay particles convert into natural cement. This cement transforms the originally soft and wet sediment layer into a hard, brittle rock layer. This process, known technically as diagenesis, can be exceedingly rapid.   It is known to occur within hours but generally takes days or months, depending on the prevailing conditions. It doesn’t take millions of years, even under today’s slow-and-gradual geologic conditions.

Conclusion
The Bible records the true account of creation, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel. The more we find legends from cultures around the world that contain elements of these actual events, the more excited the Christian should be to connect these confirmations to the Bible’s truth. As people left Babel, they took their history with them. Therefore, we would expect to find cultures with this history of Creation, Catastrophe, and Confusion, and we would expect it to be corrupted, unlike the Bible, whose word will never pass away (Luke 21:33). In the Flood stories, there is almost complete agreement among practically all flood accounts: (a) a universal destruction by water of the human race and all other living things occurred; (b) an ark, or boat, was provided as the means of escape for some; and (c) a seed of mankind was provided to perpetuate the human race. Further, we find that the geologic evidence is absolutely in harmony with the Word of God. As the ocean waters flooded over the continents, they must have buried plants and animals in rapid succession. So, we know now that the Flood of Noah is not mere myth or fancy of primitive man or solely a doctrine of the Hebrew Scriptures. The record of the catastrophe is preserved in some of the oldest historical documents of several distinct races of men, and is indirectly corroborated by the whole tenor of the early history of most of the civilized races.




[1] John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Publisher, 1961), 240.
[2] E.H. Colbert “Evolutionary Growth Rates in the Dinosaurs,” Scientific Monthly,([n. p.], [n. p., 1949), 71.
[3] John C, The Genesis Flood,1-2.
[4] John C, The Genesis Flood, 7.
[5]  R. L. Hopkins, and K. L. Thompson, “Kaibab Formation,” in Grand Canyon Geology, 2nd ed., eds. S. S. Beus and M. Morales (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 196–211.
[6]  Steven Austin, “Nautilus Mass Kill and Burial Event, Red wall Limestone (Lower Mississippian), Grand Canyon Region, Arizona and Nevada,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. L. Ivey (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), 55–99.
[7]  Daniel Heyler and Cecile M. Poplin, “The Fossils of Montceau-les-Mines,” Scientific American, September 1988, 70–76.
[8] Charles Shabika and Andrew Hay, eds. Richardson’s Guide to the Fossil Fauna of Mazon Creek (Chicago: Northeastern Illinois University, 1997).
[9]  A. A. Snelling and S. A. Austin, “Startling Evidence of Noah’s Flood,” Creation Ex Nihilo 15, no. 1 (1992): 46–50; S. A. Austin, ed., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1994), 28–36.
[10] A. Austin, Creation Ex Nihilo 15, no. 1, 36.
[11] J. M. Rahl, and others, “Combined Single-Grain (U-Th)/He and U/Pb Dating of Detrital Zircons from the Navajo Sandstone, Utah,” 31.9 (2003):761–764; S. R. Dickinson and G. E. Gehrels, “U-Pb Ages of Detrital Zircons from Permian and Jurassic Eolian Sandstones of the Colorado Plateau, USA: Paleogeographic Implications,” 163 (2003), 29–66.