(If you would like to receive Pastor Harris’ weekly sermons via e-mail, Click here)
Pastor Scott L. Harris
Grace Bible Church, NY
January 31, 2010
Mockery in the Last Days, Part 2
Turn again with me to 2 Peter 3 as we continue our study from last week about mockers, their danger and the foolishness of their mocking.
1 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior [spoken] by your apostles. 3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with [their] mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For [ever] since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God [the] heavens existed long ago and [the] earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
Back in chapter 1 Peter told them that he had not followed cleverly devised tales, but was an eye witness of Jesus, and furthermore, prophecy was not a matter of one’s own interpretation, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:16-21). (See: The Basis for Belief – 2 Peter 1:16-21) Peter had given them strong warning in chapter 2 about false teachers because they malign the way of truth with their own musings, thoughts and interpretations and through those things exploit others in their pursuit of their own desires. (See: There Shall Be False Teachers) Here in chapter 3 Peter is reminding them once again that he is not saying anything new, but only trying to stir them up to remember what they should already know from the prophets, the commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching of the apostles. Peter is faithful to the word of God.(See: Mockery in the Last Days, Part 1)
The Mockers – 2 Peter 3:3
There are many types of false teachers. Most tend to be subtle in their heresy which is why Peter had warned in 2 Peter 2:1 that they “secretly introduce destructive heresies.” That subtleness is one of the reasons they are so dangerous because people are lead astray while thinking they are still following God.
These mockers are not like that. They are blatant and bold. The word for mockers here, ejmpaivkth” / empaikt s, refers to one that ridicules and scoffs from the position of a supposed superior position or knowledge. These are not doubting skeptics who are uncertain, but arrogant people that cast aspersions on those with whom they disagree. They are confident even in their ignorance.
Peter tells us directly that the reason for their mocking is that they follow their own lusts. People who ignore the truth in order to live in their own make believe world are common because the quest to gain and have the things you desire is strong. The farther the disconnect from reality in favor of what is desired, the greater the delusion.
People are deluded about all sorts of things: relationships; their own knowledge, intelligence and attractiveness; their own physical health and fitness; their finances, how economics works and economies function; the danger of their diets, addictions and activities; the threats of enemies; what is moral and honorable; the consequences of belief; and in this case, the nature of God and the evidence of His past judgment.
Their Errors – 2 Peter 3:4
These mockers say, “Where is the promise of His coming? For [ever] since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” These scoffers have two major errors that feed their delusion.
First, they deny the truth of God’s prophecies. I pointed out last week some of the Old and New Testament prophecies concerning the promise of the coming of Messiah to judge the wicked and reward the righteous when He sets up His kingdom. Their mocking of God’s promises demonstrates a denial of the character of God and the fact of the many prophecies already fulfilled. The veracity of prophecies to be fulfilled in the distant future is dependent upon the fulfillment of the prophecies in the near future, which for those living after the ascension of Jesus as these mockers were, had already taken place. Each of the prophets I mentioned last week – Isaiah, Joel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel already had multiple prophecies fulfilled with 100% accuracy as required in Deuteronomy 18. Jesus and the apostles had also likewise proven their truthfulness so that the things they said would happen in the distant future could and should also be believed. These mockers deny God’s character and the proof of His promises because they did not want to acknowledge that Jesus will return as He said and the prophets and apostles have foretold.
Second, these mockers error in their premise that “all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” The phrase that is used in science today is that “the present is the key to the past.” This is the principle of uniformitarianism that underlies evolutionary geology. The reality is that the premise is not true. Even a cursory understanding of history reveals that things are radically different from the beginning of creation, and that the present is not the key to the past. The only thing that is stable and does not change is the character of God for He is the same, today, yesterday and forever (Hebrews 13:8).
There are many things that are claimed to be “scientific” which are in fact not based in true science, but are actually based on assumptions and speculation. It is not that assumptions and speculations cannot be helpful in putting together an experiment to test them, but great care must be given in making conclusions.
Let me give you a quick example. You will notice that there is a candle burning here. If I asked you how long it has been burning, how would you figure that out? You could find the person who lit it or an eyewitness to the event and ask them. That would be the historical research method which is the one God has used in the Bible to tell us about Creation. He was the eyewitness who told Adam what He did. That information was passed down until Moses wrote it down in the book of Genesis as he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. But how would you figure out the answer if you could not find an eyewitness.
Since the combustion of a candle is the result of a chemical reaction in which oxygen combines with the carbon chains in the wax to produce carbon dioxide we could make some measurements and then calculate some possibilities. First, determine the composition of the candle, which we can call the mother element. Second measure the current rate of burning. Third measure the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the room which we can call the daughter elements. Fourth calculate the time it would take for that ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide to change from the ratio found outside. But all that assumes a lot.
*It assumes the composition of the candle was consistent throughout. *It assumes the rate of burning has not varied. *It assumes the ratio of the daughter elements in the room when the candle was lit. *It assumes that no additional daughter elements were either added or taken away. The very fact that you are in the room changes that factor because you are taking in oxygen and giving off carbon dioxide yourself. In addition, you opened the door to come in which allowed some of the air in the room to be exchanged with the air outside.
All things continue as they always have, or the present is the key to the past, only if all the assumptions are true. But the assumptions are speculations that cannot be verified and are often made contrary to the evidence against them. It is like trying to calculate the length of time the candle has been burning though you have witnesses that have testified that an unknown number of people have been in and out of the room and the residue of a second candle are next to the first and there are used oxygen bottles in the closet.
What they Willfully Ignore – 2 Peter 3:5-6.
Peter tells us in verse 5 & 6 the evidence that proves their premise wrong. “For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God [the] heavens existed long ago and [the] earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.”
I pointed out last week that the Greek here means that they willfully ignore or forget both the Creation account and the Genesis flood. Just as Paul stated in Romans 1:18, these are people who “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” They become “futile in their speculations” and their foolish hearts are darkened so that in professing to be wise, they became fools.” (Romans 1:21-22).
I also pointed out last week that there was plenty of water above and below the dry land to cover the earth with water and destroy all life in “whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life” except for those on the ark Noah built just as is recorded in Genesis 6-8. The prophet Isaiah, the writer of Hebrews, the apostle Peter and Jesus Himself all attest to the truthfulness of the Genesis flood account.
I also previously talked about the multitude of flood myths around the world that correlate with what is stated in Genesis. As Dr. John D. Morris stated, “When two separate cultures have the same “myth’ in their body of folklore, their ancestors must have either experienced the same event, or they both descended from a common ancestral source which itself experienced the event.” Genesis is the record of Noah’s eyewitness account, but the story was also passed down to Noah’s other descendants. The story was changed over the generations into the myths that exist in multiple cultures around the world, but the kernel of truth of a flood remained.
Evidence of the Flood from the Natural World
For the rest of this morning I want to add to this weight of evidence that God did judge the world for its wickedness in the past by a global flood by examining what is seen in the natural world and what can be ascertained by science. With the coming of the modern age the eyewitness account of Noah was rejected in favor of the idea of believing only what could be demonstrated by the evidence in the natural world. The debate over Noah’s flood reaches its greatest intensity when it comes to the “scientific evidence” for it. This is the area in which the greatest “mocking” occurs.
Let me digress a moment. Some of you know my background, but many of you do not. Often when a preacher starts to make statements concerning science, people just turn him off thinking he does not know what he is talking about. He is a preacher is not a scientist. In my case, I am a preacher by trade and a scientist by training. I do not lack the credentials to speak on the subject of science.
Before I ever considered earning my Master of Divinity and becoming a full time pastor, I earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Agricultural Biology with a minor in plant pathology. Because I switched science majors, I went to college and university full time for 5 1/2 years earning 287 quarter units (~ 191 semester units). A regular B.S. degree is only 180 units, so I have the equivalent of 2 extra years of university training. I was required to take multiple courses in the hard sciences and was only one class shy each of earning a minor in chemistry and physics. My major required more entomology courses than the Entomology degree. Then there were of course all the various biology,botany, agronomy and soil science courses, plus geography and geology.
Let me add to this the fact that I did not start college as a strict creationist. I all I ever heard in the classroom was evolution with an earth 3-5 billion years old (the earth aged a lot from the time I was in grammar school to entering college), and the churches I had attended until I was 21 attempted to reconcile evolution and an old earth with the Scriptures. It was not until my third year of college that I heard or read anything that challenged me to consider a literal interpretation of Genesis and that there was plenty of science to back it up.
What opened my eyes? Two things occurred at almost the same time. The first was a challenge by a scientist at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to look at the real world around me and apply the science I had learned to the evidence for myself. He pointed me to some science journals and the book, The Genesis Flood, as resources. Second, I was challenged in the new church I was attending to let God be God. If He is omniscient and omnipotent then He can do anything He wants anyway He wants anytime He wants in keeping with His other attributes!
In my last two years at Cal Poly Pomona (California Polytechnic University, Pomona), I formed a branch chapter of Students for Origins Research (This eventually became Access Research). I have presented lectures and debated professors including the evolution teacher at Cal Poly. I feel very confident in my position. Why? Because the evidence, Biblical,historical and scientific, is on my side. However, it did take some time and serious study to learn the truth.
Most everyone here has grown up with a heavy diet of evolutionary philosophy for it dominates in all the public forums – school, government, museums, films and television programs. It permeates so much of our lives that it is difficult to consider the alternative even when the evidence is overwhelming. For example,we are told that anyone who denies evolution is not a real scientist and that evolution is necessary to tie the fields of science together. Really? The fact is that the great men of science that founded most of the fields of scientific study – Isaac Newton, Frances Bacon, Louis Pasture, Lord Kelvin, James Maxwell,Georges Cuvier, Robert Boyle, Johann Kepler, Carolus Linnaeus, Blasie Pascal,Michael Faraday etc, – all were creationists. (See: http://www.icr.org/article/163/ and http://www.icr.org/article/bible-believing-scientists-past/)
The same is true when it comes to the evidence from geology and palenotology concerning the Genesis flood. The actual evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of the flood and catastrophism and is contrary to long ages of slow geological formation and fossil deposition. However, the evolutionary hypothesis has become so dominate that it is difficult to consider the truth. What are some of these evidences? We could spend many hours for days on end examining them, but I am just going to briefly mention some of the more dramatic and then refer you to additional resources for further study at your own leisure.
If the premise is taken that Genesis is a faithful record of the past, there are many things we should expect to find as evidence of this unparalleled catastrophic event and the multiple catastrophic events that followed as the earth began to regain equilibrium. We already know from observation of local floods, tidal action, tsunamis and turbidity flows that moving water is powerful, and that massive amounts of water moving at high speeds is catastrophic. The Genesis flood would include massive amounts of water flowing downslope from the forty days of rain as well as massive amounts water moving in wave, tidal and turbidity flow action as the fountains of the deep burst open and those waters rose to cover the continents. Similar events would have also occurred after, though to a lower scale than the global flood, but immensely greater than anything occurring today. Here are some things that would be expected.
1. Large Areas of Regional Sedimentary Deposition. We would expect areas of water born sediments to be deposited over vast areas. River delta deposits had been thought the source of large sedimentary formations, but more recently turbidity deposits have been acknowledged that cover larger areas. Even so, the size of sedimentary formations is beyond anything that can be explained by current conditions on the earth.
Example: The Kaibab or Colorado Plateau occupies an area of about 250,000 square miles including most of Utah & Arizona with large segments of Colorado & New Mexico (slide). In addition, this plateau is thousands of feet thick being 3-4,000 feet at the Grand Canyon alone. All the rock layers within it – from the Tapeats Sandstone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon to the Pink Cliffs that cap Bryce – are sedimentary with some volcanic intrusions. The same is true for the Tibetan Plateau which covers about 750,00 square miles. There is no known mechanism within evolutionary theory by which these plateaus could have formed in their present state. There are no known places within the world where anything even remotely similar is forming today. Yet a universal flood can explain its deposition and uplift easily. Added to this is the fact that the Colorado plateau is part of six megasequences that can be traced across North America (slide). (See: answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n3/transcontinental-rock-layers)
The chalk beds that make up the famous White Cliffs of Dover (picture) in England can also be found in Ireland to the west, and to the east across Europe in France, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland and southern Scandinavia and they show up again in Turkey, Israel and Egypt. Chalk beds with the same fossils and distinctive strata above and below are also found in the USA from Nebraska south to Texas.
2. Sedimentary material transported over extreme distances. A flood encircling the globe would be expected to carry sediments great distances. Dr. Andrew Snelling points out two examples from his studies in the Grand Canyon and Colorado Plateau.
First, the Coconino Sandstone layer averages 315 ft thick in the Grand Canyon and covers an area of about 200,000 square miles, so it is not riverine in origin. Underlying it the Hermit Formation which is made up of silt stone and shale, so it could not be the source of the overlying Coconino sandstone. The sloping remnants of the sand “waves”point south indicating a water flow from the north, but the Coconino sandstone thins to zero to the north in Utah with the Hermit formation extending much farther north, so the sand had to have come from a source beyond that which was transported south over hundreds of miles or more in a wide plain.
Second, the Navaho Sandstone lies above the Kaibab Limestone and it is prominent in the areas around Zion National Park. An analysis of the zircon grains within the sandstone give distinctive indicators that can be used to trace to its source. In the case of the Navaho sandstone those indicators suggest an origin from the Appalachians of Pennsylvania and New York some 1,250 miles or more away. (See answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/sand-transported)
3. Rapid Deposition of Sedimentary Layers. The flood itself covered a period of just over a year from Noah entering the ark until the waters receded and he was able to leave. Massive amounts of sedimentation layers would have been formed during that time. It would have then taken hundreds of years or more for the earth to reach equilibrium during which time local and regional catastrophic floods would have eroded and redeposited materials quickly. Is the evidence supportive of quick deposition or accumulation over eons of time?
If the sedimentary accumulations were slow, there would also be weathering and erosion following the depositions that would be seen in the boundary layers with lots of topographical relief (hills and valleys). If the depositions were rapid, then there would either be no erosion or rapid erosion, either of which would leave boundary layers with flat, smooth surfaces. An examination of the rock layers in the Grand Canyon show only rapid deposition. (See: answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/no-slow-erosion)
(Picture) The boundary below the Tapeats Sandstone shows rapidly eroded and planed off bedrocks of various types upon which the Tapeats formation then lies. Its bottom layer is a storm bed of boulders mixed with sand. The unique internal features of storm beds are only made with rapid deposition such as occur in hurricanes and floods. This feature exists the length of the canyon.
The boundaries between the Mauve, Temple Butte and Redwall limestones all show rapid accumulation in a more unique way. The time differentials given by evolutionary geologists is as follows: 500-520 mya for the Mauv Limestone. 350-400 mya for the Temple Butte Limestone. 330-340 mya for the Redwall Limestone. Sixty to 150 million years are supposed to separate each formation,yet the boundaries are generally flat and featureless which are hallmarks of continuous deposition. However two unusual features are a few places in which channels are cut into the Mauv into which Temple Butte material is deposited and then capped by Redwall Limestone which then sits directly on both. Even more intriguing is that the boundary layer between the Muav and Redwall Limestones does not exist in some places because they intertonque so that the boundary is gradational showing continual deposition of both types, yet they are supposedly separated by at least 160 million years and the Temple Butte Limestone formation.
The boundary between the Hermit Formation Shale and the Esplanade Sandstone alternates showing the materials of both formations were being laid down at the same time period. The boundary between the Hermit Formation shale and the overlying Coconino Sandstone shows no erosion features, yet there supposed to be a five million year difference in their ages.
There are many more evidences such as cross bedding, ripple marks, and precipitates, but a final evidence of rapid deposition I will mention this morning are cross bedded fossilized trees. These occur in many places around the world in which the tree transects multiple rock layers that supposedly differ in age by hundreds of thousands to millions of years. The obvious question is how do you keep the trees from rotting or eroding while being buried? The answer is that you bury them with successive layers of sediment that are laid down over a very short span of time. (See creation.com/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth)
4. Massive Fossil Graveyards. Before we talk about fossil graveyards I need to make sure everyone understands that a fossil is simply the evidence of a once living organism – plant, animal, bacteria, etc. – that has been preserved in stone. Fossils include both biological material that itself has been mineralized into rock, or the impression of it has been left in what is now rock. It must also be understood that fossilization must occur rapidly or the biological material will rot and disintegrate. (See: creation.com/fast-fossils)
During the flood itself and the catastrophic events that followed it we would expect to find graveyards of fossils of two types. The first shows rapid burial in place. An example of this would be turbidity currents burying large quantities marine life. The Chicago Museum of Natural History has huge sheets of mudstone with fossilized fish all over them. http://geology.com/articles/tucson/slab-fossil-fish.gif) The rapid nature of the burial is seen in the fossil of a fish eating a fish (http://www.nps.gov/fobu/planyourvisit/images/fish-eating-fish_1.jpg). The fossil of an ichthyosaurus giving birth is another example (http://siriusknotts.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/rapid-fossils-ichthyosarus.jpg)
The second type of fossil grave yards are those formed when animals and plants are carried by water from other areas and then buried together such as at Dinosaur National Monument in Utah. (See: http://www.nps.gov/dino/index.htm) The Hanson Research Station in the Lance Formation of eastern Wyoming uses specialized GPS units to record the location and depth of each of the fossils they are recovering. Their work is showing that the fossil graveyard there was hydrologically sorted with the large bones such as femurs below the small bones such as teeth and bone fragments. (www.dinodig.swau.edu).
Here are a few more examples large fossil graveyards.
The Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon covers an area of about 10,500 square miles. Within it are billions of straight shelled, chambered nautiloids and other marine creatures. As previously pointed out, the Redwall Limestone was laid down rapidly. (Google: Redwall nautiloids images”) (http://www.physci.mc.maricopa.edu/Geology/FieldTrips/ColoradoRiver/2004Summer/ColoradoRiver_2004Summer_Images_640/CR_Leighty_053004_3756_Mile0348_NautiloidCanyon_Redwall_Ron.JPG)
I will quickly add here that marine fossils being found far inland and above current sea level is also evidence that in the past the sea levels were dramatically higher. This could have been true for an extended period after the flood until the uplift of the land masses and the sinking of the sea floors had stabilized.
In June 2007 an excavation for a railroad in the area of Lo Hueco, near the city of Cuenca, in western Spain resulted in what could be Europe’s largest dinosaur boneyard. By November over 8,000 fossils have been recovered in just the area being prepared for the railroad. They include at least 8 different species of dinosaurs including multiple Titanosauruses which had never before been discovered on the continent. It was reported that “their state of conservation is virtually unparalleled in Europe and challenges long-held beliefs about the way in which dinosaurs became extinct” (The Times, Nov., 29, 2007). (Google: “Lo Hueco fossil images”)
Dr. Snelling reports a fossil graveyard at Montceau-les-Mines, France, contains hundreds of thousands of marine creatures that were buried with amphibians, spiders, scorpions, millipedes, insects, and reptiles. (Google: “Montceau-les-Mines Fossil images”) He also cites more than 100,000 fossil specimens representing more than 400 species, including ferns, insects, scorpions, and tetrapods buried with jellyfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and fish, often with soft parts exquisitely preserved , have been recovered from a shale layer in the Mazon Creek area near Chicago. (Google: “Mazon Creek Fossil Images”)
5. Misplaced Geologic Formations and Fossils. This is the final evidence I want to mention today. A misplaced geologic formation is when older rocks appear on top of what are supposed to be younger rocks, and a misplaced fossil is when a fossil shows up in a geologic layer that is too old for it according to the evolutionary time scale. While it would be expected the flood and its aftermath to sort the rocks and fossils in a general order, it would also be expected that there would be exceptions to that order.
The Heart Mountain Thrust in Wyoming in an example of a misplaced geologic formation. Evolutionary theory demands that the supposed older rocks of this formation were some how “thrust over” the younger rocks it sits on top. However,there is no deformity of the rocks at the “slide” plane. Standard evolutionary geology provides no plausible answer, but catastrophism does since it provides both more energy and a watery environment for this to take place. Smaller examples of this have been observed in large volcanic blocks in the waters off of Hawaii. (See creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_3-4.pdf)
The more common misplaced geological formations are when older rocks as determined by their index fossils are sitting on top of younger rocks as indicated by their index fossils. These occur throughout the world and cause no end of headaches trying to explain them if the index fossils must occur in a particular order. But in a global flood and the events that would occur afterward we would expect anomalies from the general order and large scale reworking of some materials creating additional anomalies.
In a literature research project examining primarily micropalaeontological journals, John Woodmorappe put together a table of 200 stratigraphically-discrepant fossils. (See: creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_2/j10_2_279-290.pdf and Woodmorappe, J., 1982. An anthology of matter significant to creationism
and diluviology: Report 2. Creation Research Society Quarterly 18(4):201-233, 239.) These are fossils that are supposed to be too young to be in the rocks in which they were found. There are plenty of out of order fossils, ranging from angiosperm tracheids and vertebrate fish found in Cambrian rock (neither are supposed to be around until the Devonian) to modern human skulls (Calavaras, Castenedolo, Abbeville, Natchez, Calley Hill, Clichy and Olmo) in the Pleistocene and even Pliocene era rock, but these are rejected out of hand by those with faith in evolution. (See: Bones of Contention, Marvin Lubenow) A flood and the events following it easily explain the anomalies to the general order.
We could go on and on, but the point here is plain. There is a lot of evidence that is in direct contradiction to the evolutionary geology and in direct agreement that there was a world wide flood as described in Genesis in the days of Noah. If you are still resistant to what I have said, then let God be God and consider what you would expect to find if there had been a worldwide flood. Then start examining the evidence from that perspective.
Future Judgment – 2 Peter 3:7
What is the real reason these mockers reject the evidence for the Genesis flood. Peter tells us in verse 7 why they fear the truth. “But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”
Just as the flood was used by God in the days of Noah to destroy the ungodly, a day is coming when the same thing will happen again in the future, except it will be by fire instead of flood. The flood is the evidence of God’s judgment in the past and constant reminder He will judge again in the future. Mockers willingly ignore the evidence for the flood in order to ignore God’s judgment that will come in the future.
Are you ready for the future including God’s judgment? If not, you can be. Talk with me or any of our leaders and we would be happy to present the claims of Christ to you that you too can be saved.
Parents, you are responsible to apply God’s Word to your children’s lives.
Here is some help. Young Children – draw a picture about something you
hear during the sermon. Explain your picture(s) to your parents at lunch.
Older Children – 1) Write down all the verses mentioned. 2) Count how many
times mockers are mentioned. 3) Talk with your parents about the evidence for
THINK ABOUT IT!
Questions to consider in discussing the sermon with others. What do mockers
willingly ignore? What is the motivation of mockers? What are the two errors of
the mockers? Why is the idea that “the present is the key to the past”
fallacious? What evidence would you expect to find if there was a global flood
followed by hundreds of years or more of catatrophic events? Do your own
Websites for further information: These sites can be searched for
specific topics / subjects. Information in them can range from popular to
Recommended Books for further research on the flood and catastrophism:
The Genesis Flood, Henry M. Morris & John C. Whitcomb,
1961 ISBN: 0-87552-338-2
Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Andrew A. Snelling , 2009 ISBN:
The Geology Book, John D. Morris, Master Books, 2000,
The Geologic Column, John K. Reed & Michael J. Oard (Eds.), Creation
Research Society 2006
The Missoula Flood Controversy and the Genesis Flood, Michael J. Oard,
Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe , Steven A. Austin, Editor. 1994
Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood, Michael Oard, ICR 2002,
Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe, ICR 1996 .
Climates Before and After the Genesis Flood, Larry Vardiman, ICR
For comments, please e-mail