The Flood! The Flood! The Flood!

YES, dear reader, we have the proof at last, using the time-honored version of the scientific method which is unique to creationism and which never fails:

1. Select a conclusion which you already believe is true.
2. Find one piece of evidence that possibly might fit.
3. Ignore all other evidence.
4. That’s it.

Today’s splendid example of cutting-edge creation science comes to us from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s found in this article at their website: Canadian ‘Mega’ Dinosaur Bonebed Formed by Watery Catastrophe. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

Canadian scientists have found a massive dinosaur fossil graveyard in Alberta containing so many bones that it calls into question the standard stories of slow and gradual dinosaur fossil formation. No mere river flood could account for so many casualties. So, the researchers proposed that the cause was something much more violent.

We found credible news articles about this fossil discovery, so ICR isn’t making it up. See, e.g.: World’s biggest dinosaur graveyard found in Alberta: scientists in the Vancouver Sun.

Thus reassured, we read on in the ICR article:

But where did the water come from that could cause such mayhem? The researchers proposed a “tropical storm model,” in which hurricanes must have washed water up onto a shallow coast. That hypothesis shares some similarities to the flood model proposed by creation scientists, but how well does each fit this fossil data?

Yes, they’ve got a point. There are “some similarities” between a tropical storm and a global flood. Both involve water, for example. We continue:

The standard dinosaur fossilization story holds that the reptiles were crossing a stream and got caught in a rising river. But no rising streams today deposit fossil graveyards. Tropical storms, however, are known to drive water ashore and devastate landscapes, washing over whatever animals lie in their paths. The tropical storm model may be an improvement over the flooded stream scenario, but it is equally true that today’s hurricane storm surges don’t produce fossil graveyards either!

Another good point — today’s hurricanes don’t produce fossil graveyards. Here’s more:

And warm oceans are required to generate these weather patterns, hence the term “tropical” in “tropical storm.” Canada is not very tropical, and even if it was once 2,500 miles further south, any ancient tropical storm similar to today’s tempests might pile up carcasses, but would not bury them deep enough to keep them from rotting before they could fossilize.

Canada isn’t tropical! And hurricanes don’t bury carcasses. This is incredible! Moving along:

The basic description of the historical account provided in Genesis, which is corroborated by hundreds of legends, depicts rising waters that eventually washed over all of the earth’s continents before running into today’s deeper ocean basins. Such a universal deluge fits the facts of the Canadian mass kill with the fewest logical leaps.

At last we have a theory that fits the facts! One final excerpt:

It makes more sense to interpret this fossil graveyard as a result of one of the many tsunami-like waves that gradually pulsed over the continents during the course of the year-long Flood event, when “the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.” [Footnote to Genesis 7:19.]

We’re convinced! Oh, wait — just for laughs, let’s see what was said in the Vancouver Sun:

More than 76 million years ago, ancient Alberta was a lush tropical coastal area and the Hilda bonebed provides evidence that the region was periodically subject to catastrophic tropical storms that could drown thousands of large animals.

[…]

Geological data shows that hurricane-like storms could dump between four and five metres of water on the area. As the flood waters rose, the slow, dumb-witted creatures would have probably been unaware of the danger until it was too late. The flat, featureless landscape would have given them no high ground and no escape.

When the flood overtook them “they would have tread water for a while, like cattle would do. But they would have tired very quickly and drowned,” Eberth said. Their remains would have then piled up as the water receded and been picked over by predators who had the good sense to get out of the way of the flood.

Well, dear reader, the choice is yours. Whom to believe — godless evolutionist scientists, or the bible?

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

30 responses to “The Flood! The Flood! The Flood!

  1. I wonder where all the other dinosaur bone beds are, that were caused by the world-wide event. It seems logical if a world-wide biblical flood best explains the Alberta find, then we should also find large bone beds everywhere we look, all dated to the same time in geological history. But we don’t. I think we have a missing link here…

  2. Ed says:

    I wonder where all the other dinosaur bone beds are, that were caused by the world-wide event.

    [* BEEP *] Lake of fire! Next?

  3. Gabriel Hanna

    I’m actually much more curious about where all the water came from, and where it went afterward.

  4. Gabriel Hanna wonders: “… and where it went afterward.”

    I once had a creationist explain it to me. The water went into the ocean. It’s all so simple, really.

  5. Gabriel Hanna

    SC, thought you were going to say “Lake of fire” to that one too, and I had a witty rejoinder ready.

  6. Gabriel Hanna says:

    SC, thought you were going to say “Lake of fire” to that one too, and I had a witty rejoinder ready.

    Okay, okay. Lake of fire!

  7. Gabriel Hanna

    Now it’s been built up too much and it won’t be funny.

  8. There’s nothing lower than a blogospheric tease.

  9. As Professor of Creationist Mocking I will be the judge of what’s funny and what’s funny-peculiar.

    So, pony up the Witty Rejoinder ™, please.

    Now for illustration consider this:

    “Dembski and a penguin go into a bar …” Doesn’t even need a punchline. Penguins are Laff Riots and even make a story about Dembski funny.

    Versus this:

    “Casey Luskin walks into a pet store to buy some wood shavings …” . Funny-peculiar, see the difference?

  10. Doc Bill says:

    So, pony up the Witty Rejoinder ™, please.

    Yeah. And it better be good.

  11. retiredsciguy

    ICR writes,
    “…the historical account [of the Flood] provided in Genesis, which is corroborated by hundreds of legends…”

    !!!

    Wonder if it ever occurred to the geniuses at ICR that the reason other cultures have their own myths of a flood might have to do with early people finding so many fossil seashells high up on dry land? Absent any understanding of crustal upheaval and plate tectonics, how else would they explain such an anomaly?

  12. retiredsciguy

    Gabriel Hanna says,
    “I’m actually much more curious about where all the water came from, and where it went afterward.”

    Although they didn’t know it at the time, the water came from a swarm of comets, and afterward fissures opened up in the seabed, the water flowed into the earth’s hollow interior where it was evaporated by The Lake of Fire.

    Now, Gabe, we’re dying to hear the clever rejoinder!

  13. retiredsciguy says:

    Now, Gabe, we’re dying to hear the clever rejoinder!

    I think he’s got something going which ties the two laws of thermonuclear dynamics to the Lake of Fire.

  14. I’m sorry I’m not the one with the witty rejoinder that has everyone on the edge of their seat, but I do have a comment. I think you all missed the key piece of evidence that ICR provided. Did you realize that,

    The basic description of the historical account provided in Genesis, which is corroborated by hundreds of legends,

    Did you get that?!? HUNDREDS of legends back up this claim! HUNDREDS! Why, that’s… that’s… oh, crap, I need Gabriel’s help here with a witty ending.

  15. Gary says: “I need Gabriel’s help here with a witty ending.”

    I’m sure he’ll come through and dazzle us all.

  16. re: “Wonder if it ever occurred to the geniuses at ICR that the reason other cultures have their own myths of a flood might have to do with…”

    Who says those shells were anything organic? Isn’t it amazing how magic/free-floating-potential-whatsits materialized this rock into shapes just like shells?

    Sure, they might guess organic origins and a flood to move stuff around, but maybe it’s also that people often live around rivers and sometimes the rivers OH GOD A GREAT LAKE OF FIRE I CAN SEE IT

    IT’S

    IT’S FILLED WITH FLAMING PUNCH

  17. Bob Carroll

    You all missed it! Gabriel’s second statement above *was* his witty rejoinder.

  18. Gabriel Hanna

    It appears that I get far more responses when I APPEAR to have something to say, than when I actually do say something.

    How depressing.

  19. Hey Gabriel! You said, “I had a witty rejoinder ready.” That sounded to me like you actually DID have something to say rather than just APPEARing to do so. Don’t tell me you have been lying to us!

  20. Geeze, Gabriel, imagine the responses you’d get if you had NOTHING to say!

    Uh, that’s “What’s a creationist” for 500, Alex. Which means that Luskin must have a staff just to handle his fan mail.

  21. Gabriel Hanna

    @RogerE:You said, “I had a witty rejoinder ready.” That sounded to me like you actually DID have something to say rather than just APPEARing to do so.

    That doesn’t follow at all. You have no way to know whether or not I had the rejoinder ready; you only know I said I did, and thus I APPEARED to have something to say. In addition, I DID have something to say, but without a time machine there’s no way to prove it.

  22. @ Gabriel. Huh? What the heck does that mean? You are right in that I have no way, other than what you told us, to know whether or not you had a rejoinder ready. Just as I have no way of knowing whether or not you actually wrote the comment or any other comment that appears with your name. I wasn’t trying to PROVE anything. I was just reiterating what you had said in a previous comment (that is, if it was really you).

  23. Gabriel Hanna

    @RogerE: Huh? What the heck does that mean?

    Did you ever read “Through the Looking Glass”?

    …The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks’ Eyes.'”

    “Oh, that’s the name of the song, is it?” Alice said, trying to feel interested.

    “No, you don’t understand,” the Knight said, looking a little vexed. “That’s what the name
    is called. The name really is ‘The Aged, Aged Man.'”

    “Then I ought to have said ‘That’s what the song is called’?” Alice corrected herself.

    “No you oughtn’t: that’s another thing. The song is called ‘Ways and Means’ but that’s only
    what it’s called, you know!”

    “Well, what is the song then?” said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.

    “I was coming to that,” the Knight said. “The song really is ‘A-sitting On a Gate’…

    My comment is in the same spirit. Some find it amusing, but others find it annoying.

  24. Was that the Witty Rejoinder ™ or did I miss it? It APPEARS I may have missed NOTHING in which case I didn’t …

    Oh, these irreducibly complex threads hurt my brain which I appear to have. Maybe.

    Gabriel, do you want me to buy your book? Do you take Visa?

  25. Doc Bill asks:

    Was that the Witty Rejoinder ™ or did I miss it?

    Sorry, you had to be there. Next time pay closer attention.

  26. The flood! The flood!
    My stuff’s now in the mud!
    Oh God! My God!
    You’re such a vengeful stud!
    You killed! You drowned
    the whole of human crud!
    The flood! The flood!
    And rabbits chew the cud!

  27. (sorry folks. Curmie’s title inspired me, and one must not ignore the muse, ya know?)

  28. LRA, that was splendid verse. Most inspirational.

  29. Indeed. I thought so too Curmie.

    (LOL!!!)

  30. retiredsciguy

    Gabriel, hey, lighten up a little, ok?

    Your genius is certainly recognized by all of us who regularly read Curmy’s blog; it’s just that we can appreciate it more fully when it comes with a light touch.

    I mean everything I’m writing in this post sincerely, especially the reference to your genius.