Ohio Is Proof of the Genesis Flood

Prepare to be blown away by this new evidence from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. At the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry, he just posted Sea Creatures in Ohio? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

When you think shells, fish, and other sea creatures, you probably don’t think of Ohio. After all, it doesn’t exactly feature seaside living! And yet there are fossils of sea creatures found throughout that state, as well as in many other landlocked areas. [Gasp!] The common evolutionary explanation was that, at some point, Ohio — the state neighboring us to the north — was covered in a shallow sea. But what if there’s a better explanation?

Whoa — hold on! Why wouldn’t there be fossils of sea creatures in Ohio? Even a casual glance at a map reveals that the state borders on Lake Erie. The Wikipedia article on Ohio says: “To the north, Lake Erie gives Ohio 312 miles (502 km) of coastline, which allows for numerous cargo ports.” And Lake Erie is but one of the five inter-connected Great Lakes, the largest group of freshwater lakes on Earth.

Anyway, Hambo says he has “a better explanation.” What could that be? He explains:

We find billions of fossils of sea creatures literally everywhere — from the tops of mountains to completely landlocked prairies. This phenomenon means that at one point the entire globe had to be covered with water. [The whole globe!] Evolutionists typically appeal to shallow seas or something similar at various stages throughout history. They certainly wouldn’t say that this happened all at once. But the Bible tells us otherwise.

Ooooooooooooh! What does the bible say? Hambo tells us:

The Bible describes a world-destroying global flood. [Gasp!] It would’ve ripped up miles of sediment, redepositing it in layers, trapping and burying organisms in those layers. And, of course, since this was primarily a marine catastrophe, the majority of the fossil record is made up of marine creatures.

Wowie — that explains everything! Hambo continues:

Well, you can discover some of these fossilized marine creatures yourself on a paleontological adventure [Link omitted.] with geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling and paleontologist Dr. Gabriela Haynes [AIG creation scientists], September 7, 2019.

The rest is all about that grand intellectual adventure which awaits you, dear reader. If you’re interested — and who wouldn’t be? — then click over to Hambo’s blog for the details.

Meanwhile, we have to adjust our thinking to accommodate the fact Ohio is proof of the Flood. This won’t be easy, but it’s the only way to avoid the Lake of Fire.

Copyright © 2019. 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

36 responses to “Ohio Is Proof of the Genesis Flood

  1. There are many times I wish that Kentucky was still covered by a flood.

  2. @ GreenPoisonFrog: if the Trumpian climate change deniers continue to plunge our world into a new 1930’s-style Age of Endarkenment, it’s only a question of time before Kentucky is indeed covered by a flood.

    The only consolation thereby is that Florida, and with it Disney World and Mar-a-Lago, will have previously been swept away.

  3. docbill1351

    And God sang:

    Why, oh, why, oh, why oh!
    Why did I flood Ohio?

  4. Karl Goldsmith

    geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling who still hasn’t published his grand canyon research.

  5. Wait, wasn’t the mythological flood caused by rain, which is fresh water, and doesn’t rain runoff from the land go into the ocean, not the other way round. Something else of which the AIG folks appear to ignorant.

  6. Eric Lipps

    We find billions of fossils of sea creatures literally everywhere — from the tops of mountains to completely landlocked prairies. This phenomenon means that at one point the entire globe had to be covered with water. [The whole globe!] Evolutionists typically appeal to shallow seas or something similar at various stages throughout history. They certainly wouldn’t say that this happened all at once. But the Bible tells us otherwise.

    So what if “the Bible tells us otherwise”? Is there any physical evidence whatever for a single flood which covered the entire planet, submerging the tallest mountains? The seas to which “evolutionists” refer existed at various times in Earth’s geological history, all of them long before humans existed.

    Waterworld was only a movie, Ken, and not a very good one.

  7. This has been addressed 500 years ago by no less a figure than Leonardo da Vinci. See the Wikipedia article “Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci” section “Geology” and Wikiquote article on “Leonardo da Vinci” section “Physical Geography”.

  8. Perhaps Hambo can provide examples of catastrophic floods that left sedimentary layers.

  9. Just when you think he’s about to provide you with evidence and scientific reasoning, you just get “But the Bible tells us….”

    Who above the age of 5 doesn’t see through this?

  10. Indeed, TomS – see also TalkOrigins.

    http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

    Creacrap: the art of repeating the same old clunkers ad nauseam.

  11. Laurettte McGovern

    Brilliant!W I’m convinced!!

  12. Mark Germano

    The flood explains the breathtaking wonder of the Grand Canyon, the majestic heights of the Rocky Mountains, the vast expanse of the Great Plains, and also Toledo.

  13. Let us not forget the “2nd law of thermodynamics”, the one that says that there is no natural cause of ordering.
    And keep in mind the hydrodynamic sorting of the drowned animals (mostly aquatic) into the differing geologic strata.
    Just in case we should forget the pervasive inconsistencies of creationism.

  14. Dave Luckett

    TomS places his finger on what I think is the most obvious and insurmountable difficulty: successive strata of sedimentary rocks contain fossils of completely different marine communities. There is no explanation for this fact except different floods, widely separated in time, plus evolution. It cannot be explained by one event.

    How this obvious and simple observation has not been noticed by creationists would defeat me, except that I have slowly come to accept that irrational people are not necessarily completely dysfunctional. Some dysfunction is actually protected by the environment they move in. Odd but true. I wonder to what extent that might be an insight into evolutionary theory itself?

  15. Ha! All the bedrock of Ham’s area of northern Kentucky and the Cincinnati region of Ohio is of the Ordovician Period, and indeed it’s loaded with fossils — brachiopods, cephalopods, trilobites, bryozoans, crinoids, pelecypods, horn corals — but not a single vertebrate fossil is to be found. I wonder how he would biblically explain the total absence of fish?

    Over my 27 years of teaching earth science in the Cincinnati area, the students in my classes amassed a huge collection of Ordovician fossils (they got extra credit for each one they brought in). No one ever found a shark’s tooth or even a fish scale; just the aforementioned invertebrates. Certainly no drowned mammals have ever been found in the Ordovician layers of limestone and shale, and not even a coprolite from the flushed contents of the Ark’s head.

  16. Oh — I forgot to mention gastropods. They’re not as common in the Cincinnatian as brachiopods, but they are there as well.

  17. And one of the arguments that creationists bring up is that there is no one place where there is the entire sequence known as the geological column. Forget the details, whether that is true, or why that would falsify evolution. It is true that there are many places, like the Cincinnati area, where there is only a part of the sequence. And the creationists know that.
    As @retiredscienceguy points out, that isconconsistent with it all being the result of the same Flood at one time, everywhere.
    Just business as usual for the creationists to have no regard for telling a coherent story. Lack of continuity, they would call the mistake in a movie. When the bad guy is clean shaven in some shots and has a beard in others.

  18. @TomS needs a slight correction: “Just in case we should forget the pervasive inconsistencies of creationism”

    should be: “Just in case we should forget one or two of the pervasive inconsitencies of creationism, because there too many to memorize”.

    @DaveL: how do you decide which difficulty is the most obvious and insurmountable? Is it just a matter of preference? If yes, no problem. I’m just curious. My favourite one is the combination “we only accept repeatable and observational science but reject radiometry”. Not only does the fact that “this obvious and simple” contradiction “has not been noticed by creationists” beat me, I love it’s blaring hypocrisy.

    “I wonder to what extent that might be an insight into evolutionary theory itself?”
    That rational thinking was not a necessary condition for the evolutionary success of Homo Sapiens, ie the exact opposite of Plantinga’s EAAN.

    @TomS: lovely metaphor.

  19. @FrankB
    Yes, I should have remarked on the persativeness of consistencies.
    And as you bring up the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, I am reminded of the Design Argument Against Supernaturalism, as pointed out by Paley: the hypothesis of design is inconsistent with an agency free of the constraints of nature. Paley pointed noticed one example: the vertebrate eye obeying the laws of optics. Plantinga didn’t notice that supernaturalism did not provide warrant for reliability. Indeed, the whole point of the supernatural being “anything goes”, contrary to design.

  20. Dave Luckett

    FrankB: It seems to me to be obvious that if successive layers of overlaying strata contain completely different marine ecosystems, they obviously cannot be evidence for one flood, but for as many as there are such layers; and furthermore, the completely different communities demonstrate change over time. This, to my mind, is more immediate than radiometry – the arguments there are somewhat more complex. Creationists who reject it say that they do so because they reject necessarily uniform decay rates. This, of course, is completely fraudulent, but it does require rebuttal from nuclear physics, to show why a given decay process cannot vary, whereas to compare the fossils in two separate layers of sedimentary deposits is far simpler.

  21. My point is not that creacrap rejection of radiometry is fraudulous. My point is that it flat out contradicts their “only obervational, repeatable science” mantra. Nothing complex here and not any understanding of nuclear physics necessary either.
    Btw I’ve no idea how to compare fossils in separate layers of sedimentary deposits; worse, I wouldn’t know how to separate them. AfaIc this is not that simple at all.

  22. This is typical of so many creationist rhetoric that goes wrong in so many ways. We can just go back over the history of geology to see how the idea of a global flood was eventually discarded. Mention, for example, William “Strata” Smith and his painstaking detailed geological map of England in the early 19th century. Contrast that with the superficialities of the creationists.
    If that were not enough, just a casual observer of many strata exposed for a highway through a hilly region can tell one that there was more than one event that was responsible.
    On the other hand, there is the history which has been discovered for Egypt and Mesopotamia starting in the 91th century decipherments of Hieroglyphics and Cuneiform. Or just try to explain the civilizations of the Americas in the short period after the traditional date of the Flood.
    And on and on.

  23. Why do these people revel in honoring a genocidal/homicidal/bovicide/cetacide/felicide/biocide/canicide/,etc. god? Maybe they should just post body counts and then ask ‘Whose god is greatest?”

  24. TomS:
    “And one of the arguments that creationists bring up is that there is no one place where there is the entire sequence known as the geological column.”

    And we can thank plate tectonics for that. But then, YECs deny plate tectonics; couldn’t have happened in just 6000 years, and God doesn’t mention it in the Bible, either.

  25. Like said god doesn’t mention bacteria or any ice age, you mean?

  26. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    ”We find billions of fossils of sea creatures literally everywhere — from the tops of mountains to completely landlocked prairies.” Can any geologist or student of geology tells us whether that is truthful and accurate?

  27. Ashley Haworth-roberts:
    ”We find billions of fossils of sea creatures literally everywhere — from the tops of mountains to completely landlocked prairies.”
    Can any geologist or student of geology tells us whether that is truthful and accurate?

    Yes, that’s pretty much true — and it could be what led to the Global Flood myth. However, we now know about plate tectonics, which is a much more logical explanation. Mountain ranges form as two plates collide, pushing the crust up. In some cases, such as the Himalayas, one crustal plate overrides another. Since crustal rock is less dense than the underlying mantle, it’s a bit like floating one slab of styrofoam atop another in a swimming pool. It’s the way the earth has limestone which formed as ocean sediment from billions of accumulated seashells now found thousands of feet above sea level.

    Of course, most uplift is much less intense than what formed the Himalayas. Thus, we find marine fossils in limestone and shale formations all over the world, whether at sea level or 29,000 feet above sea level.

  28. @Ashley Haworth-roberts
    As a sidenote, I think Ken Ham knows better, but still promotes the idea of “The Flood” depositing marine fossils all over the place because he personally has a huge monetary investment in promoting creationism. I get the feeling he’s a modern-day Elmer Gantry, taking the rubes for all he can get. There’s money to be made promoting that old-time religion.

  29. I have no doubt that finding fossils of sea creatures on mountains or just dry land led to the universal myths of a world wide flood. This is similar to the way dinosaur bones may have led to myths of dragons.
    So while Hambo thinks he’s gone full circle, it turns out he hasn’t even moved.

  30. @Troy
    I have wondered about that. It seems that fossils of sea creatures would suggest a flood. But what is the expert opinion on this?
    Yes, there are lots of stories about great floods, but are they about a world-wide flood? Even the Genesis story can be taken be simply taken as a case of hyperbole – there are several examples in the Bible where “all the world” is not meant to be taken literally.
    In the Ancient Near East, floods were well known, and it doesn’t take much imagination to think of a very big flood.
    I don’t know. I’m just curious.

  31. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    Thanks for the responses. Whilst ‘mega’ floods happen it would be unusual for hill or mountain tops to be covered as Genesis describes (mountains as high as Everest could not possibly get covered as there would not be enough water so the young earth creationists insist mountains were much lower than they are now 4,500 years ago – citing some translations of Psalm 104 verses 6-9 for this ‘teaching’).

  32. Psalm 104:4

  33. jimroberts

    @Troy
    I do not think that the early Mesopotamian flood myths, for instance those of Atrahasis or Utnapishtim, had anything to do with fossils of sea creatures. Would they even have been recognised as such? More likely, it seems to me, is that people living in a place where annual flooding was normal, even essential for the irrigation of the crops to support the population, would invent stories in which the normally life-giving flood was excessive and threatened to destroy life.

  34. jimroberts

    @Ashley Haworth-roberts: “mountains as high as Everest could not possibly get covered as there would not be enough water”
    For one, the original authors and redactors of the Noah flood story can have had no conception of mountains as high as Everest, so that wouldn’t have been a problem.
    But in their cosmology, there would in fact have been plenty of water, because the heavens and the earth were a tiny bubble of organisation in the infinite sea of chaos, as described in Genesis 1: flat earth, divided into land and sea, with chaotic water below, and protected by the firmament from the waters above. (This is confirmed in the New Testament by the forger of II Peter: “by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished”.)
    There is also no problem about where all the flood water would go. It simply drained into the infinite abyss of the waters under the earth.
    The kind of floods which Noah, Utnapishtim or Atrahasis survived made good sense to their original audiences. It is absurd to try to maintain belief in them in the light of thousands of years more evidence and understanding.

  35. @jim You’re right, it is possible to have multiple reasons a cultural flood myth could have originated. A culture that exists in the fertile though unpredictable flood plain between two large rivers certainly could have an epic flood as part of their lore.