Noah and the Great Flood of Genesis 6-9

Thursday, June 4, 2026

Neanderthals were not a different species

“… some human populations such as Australian aboriginals indeed share with archaic humans like Neanderthals a robust skull with pronounced brow ridges, which [led] Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley (in Lyell 1863), to compare

them with Neanderthals”.

Günter Bechly

This comes as no surprise whatsoever to me (Damien Mackey).

See e.g. my articles:

Neanderthals need to be re-written

(5) Neanderthals need to be rewritten

Messing with the Neanderthals

(5) Messing with the Neanderthals

Neanderthals could speak

(5) Neanderthals could speak

See also Dr. Jack Cuozzo’s book (Buried Alive).

We read at:

New Evidence for Human Nature of Neanderthals | Science and Culture Today

Fossil Friday: New Evidence for the Human Nature of Neanderthals

_{Günter Bechly}

_{February 2, 2024}

The reconstruction of Neanderthal appearance and behavior has quite a checkered history. After an initial controversy over whether the fossils really represent ancient humans or just malformed modern humans, Neanderthals were described in 1864 as distinct hominin species, Homo neanderthalensis. For a long time they were considered as brutish cavemen with a club and almost gorilla-like appearance.

Then the scientific opinion shifted and Neanderthals were more and more recognized as human-like and even as geniuses of the ice age (Husemann 2005, Finlayson 2019), based on an avalanche of new evidence for complex human behavior (Nowell 2023, Vernimmen 2023). We now know that Neanderthals used fire (Angelucci et al. 2023), buried their dead (Balzeau et al. 2020, Dockdrill 2020), created stone circles (Jaubert et al. 2016, Callaway 2016) and bone tools (Soressi et al. 2013), made jewellery from eagle talons (Radovčić et al. 2015, Rodríguez-Hidalgo et al. 2019) and used feathers as body decoration (Peresani et al. 2011, Finlayson et al. 2012), made cave art with paintings and engravings (Rodríguez-Vidal et al. 2014, Hoffmann et al. 2018a, Marquet et al. 2023), played music with bone flutes (Turk et al. 2018), used ochre as pigment (Roebroeks et al. 2012, Hoffmann et al. 2018b) and sophisticated fibre technology (Hardy et al. 2020), produced flour from processed plants (Mariotti Lippi et al. 2023), dived for seafood (Villa et al. 2020), cooked food and self-medicated with herbal painkillers and antibiotics (Hardy et al. 2012, Weyrich et al. 2017), and even produced glue from birch bark with a complex chemical procedure (Blessing & Schmidt 2021, Schmidt et al. 2023).

New Anatomic Data

But it is not just new evidence for Neanderthal behavior that overturned our previous crude image of Neanderthals as dumb brutes, but also new anatomic data. Contrary to earlier beliefs, more recent studies have demonstrated a fully upright posture with typical human spinal curvature called lordosis (Haeusler et al. 2019). The latter authors concluded that “after more than a century of alternative views, it should be apparent that there is nothing in Neandertal pelvic or vertebral morphology that rejects their possession of spinal curvatures well within the ranges of variation of healthy recent humans.”

There even exists compelling new evidence for hearing and speech capacities (Conde-Valverde et al. 2021), which “demonstrates that the Neanderthals possessed a communication system that was as complex and efficient as modern human speech” (Starr 2021).

Correlated with this fundamental rethinking of Neanderthals (Nowell 2023) in terms of their anatomy, culture, and mental capabilities, their classification has also changed over time. At first they were considered as a different species, Homo neanderthalensis, then they were just considered as a subspecies of modern humans, Homo sapiens, and since the late 1990s again as “an unambiguously demarcated morphospecies” (Tattersall & Schwartz 2006; also see Harvati et al. 2004, Márquez et al. 2014, and Wynn et al. 2016). The new field of paleogenomics brought insight into their DNA (Green et al. 2010), which was considered as sufficiently dissimilar to warrant a separate species status again (Clarke 2016), even though there was also evidence for hybridization and genetic admixture with modern humans (Meneganzin & Bernardi 2023). Paleogeneticist and Nobel laureate Svante Pääbo (2014) called the controversy of the species status of Neanderthals as unresolvable, because of the arbitrariness and fuzziness of species concepts (also see Meneganzin & Bernardi 2023, Nowell 2023, and Stringer 2023). The controversy still continues as is evident from a recent article titled “Are Neanderthals and Homo sapiens the same species?” (Heidt 2023), which discusses the fact that “scientists have been vollying the question back and forth for more than a century”. Nowell (2023) wrote: “From their initial discovery until today, Neandertals have shifted between “being recognized as human or being pushed to the constitutive outside of humanness,” what Drell (2000, p. 15) describes as “the oscillating dichotomy of Same and Other.”

Of course, the undeniable evidence for significant and common genetic admixture (Kuhlwilm et al. 2016, Villanea & Schraiber 2019, Callaway 2021), which makes up 1-4 percent of the modern human genome (Reilly et al. 2022), would suggest that Neanderthals and modern humans shared a common gene pool and belonged to the same biospecies. Even the skeptic and ID opponent Michael Shermer (2010) agreed in an article for Scientific American that the genomic evidence suggests that our Neanderthal brethren were not a separate species. Strong reproductive isolation barriers that limited the amount of introgression were proposed by Overmann & Coolidge (2013), but many experts remain unconvinced. Paleoanthropologist Bence Viola from the University of Toronto said (quoted in Vernimmen 2023): “Homo sapiens clearly recognized Neanderthals as mating partners, which suggests they thought of them as humans — maybe ‘the weird guys living behind the mountains,’ but still, fellow humans.”

But what do we make of the anatomical differences between Neanderthals and modern humans? Don’t they support a separate species status? Actually, this would not follow even if the differences lay outside the range of variability of modern humans, because that is also the case in many other subspecies of living animals. However, some human populations such as Australian aboriginals indeed share with archaic humans like Neanderthals a robust skull with pronounced brow ridges, which [led] Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley (in Lyell 1863), to compare them with Neanderthals.

Of course this also had some typical Darwinist racist connotations. Just like Neanderthals, native Australians were considered primitive and inferior. Nevertheless, the similarities are real and have been confirmed by modern anatomical studies (e.g., Wolpoff & Caspari 1996), which concluded that “the interpretation of Neanderthals as a different species is very unlikely.” ….

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

Neanderthals could speak

“As well as archaeological artefacts, researchers also point to similarities

in their vocal anatomy with modern humans and their known cognitive abilities. Neanderthals had larger brains, on average, than modern humans and while

this doesn’t mean they were necessarily smarter, it does suggest they were

a highly intelligent species - just like us”.

Will Newton

This comes as no surprise whatsoever to me (Damien Mackey).

See e.g. my articles:

Neanderthals need to be re-written

(5) Neanderthals need to be rewritten

Messing with the Neanderthals

(5) Messing with the Neanderthals

Friday, May 15, 2026

Ebla tablets attest accuracy of Bible

“Perhaps one of the most significant discoveries within the Ebla archives is

the presence of a creation account that bears a striking resemblance to the

biblical account of creation. According to reports, the Ebla Tablets contain

the oldest known creation account outside the Bible, predating the

Babylonian creation myth by some 600 years”.

Edward D. Andrews

Sadly, the Syrian government, in its desperate attempt to portray the site of Ebla (modern Tell Mardikh) to the scholarly world as a purely Syrian entity, has thereby divested it of anything that pertains to the biblical world of the Hebrews (Israelites):

Bible-affirming Ebla hampered and censored by Syrian authorities

(6) Bible-affirming Ebla hampered and censored by Syrian authorities

Scandal of Ebla

(6) Scandal of Ebla

Edward D. Andrews here (2024) gives us a totally different picture – the correct one!

What Can the Ebla Tablets Teach Us About Biblical History and the Early Genesis Accounts? - Updated American Standard Version

The discovery of the Ebla Tablets has opened new avenues for understanding the ancient world, especially in terms of biblical history. Unearthed in modern-day Syria in the mid-1970s, these ancient clay tablets—dated to the third millennium B.C.E.—offer crucial insights into the social, economic, and religious life of the Eblaite civilization. More significantly, from an apologetic standpoint, they seem to provide evidence that parallels and confirms aspects of the early chapters of Genesis. As we explore the content of these tablets and their implications, it becomes clear that they strengthen the historical credibility of the biblical record.

The Historical Context of the Ebla Tablets

The Ebla Tablets, discovered in the ancient city of Ebla (modern Tell Mardikh), are believed to date from around 2580–2450 B.C.E., according to Giovanni Pettinato, or from 2400–2250 B.C.E., according to Paolo Matthiae.

These dates are significant because they place the tablets in a period predating other known written records by hundreds of years. However, from a biblical perspective, we must carefully examine these dates in light of the timeline provided in Scripture.

According to the Bible, the Great Flood occurred in 2348 B.C.E. (Genesis 7:6-10), an event that would have dramatically reshaped the ancient world. Given this, the Ebla Tablets would have to date after the Flood, providing us with valuable insight into the post-Flood civilizations and the cultural and religious environments in which early biblical figures lived. This is an important consideration because the information on the tablets provides historical corroboration for the early chapters of Genesis, particularly regarding the existence of certain cities and names mentioned in Scripture.

The Cities of Ur, Sodom, and Gomorrah: Confirmed by the Ebla Tablets?

One of the most intriguing aspects of the Ebla Tablets is the mention of cities that are also found in the Bible, such as Ur, Sodom, and Gomorrah. These cities play significant roles in the biblical narrative. For example, Ur is the birthplace of Abraham (Genesis 11:31), and Sodom and Gomorrah are infamous for their destruction due to their wickedness (Genesis 19:24-29).

The fact that these cities are mentioned in the Ebla Tablets provides additional historical grounding for their existence.

Critics have often argued that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is more mythological than historical, but the mention of these cities in non-biblical sources from such an early period suggests that they were, in fact, real locations. This aligns with the biblical account and supports the view that the early Genesis narrative is rooted in historical fact, not mythology. The Ebla Tablets also show that these cities were significant enough to be documented in ancient administrative records, further underscoring their historical importance.

The Mention of Names from Genesis: Adam, Eve, and Noah

Another compelling aspect of the Ebla Tablets is the reported mention of names found in the book of Genesis, including Adam, Eve, and Noah.

These are, of course, central figures in the biblical narrative, representing the first man and woman created by God and the patriarch who built the ark to survive the Flood.

The mention of these names in ancient non-biblical texts lends credibility to the historicity of these individuals. While critics of the Bible often argue that Adam, Eve, and Noah are mythological figures, the fact that their names appear in a completely separate ancient record suggests that these individuals were known and remembered by civilizations outside of Israel. The Ebla Tablets, therefore, provide external corroboration for the existence of key figures in the early Genesis narrative.

Creation Accounts: Ebla’s Version and Genesis

Perhaps one of the most significant discoveries within the Ebla archives is the presence of a creation account that bears a striking resemblance to the biblical account of creation. According to reports, the Ebla Tablets contain the oldest known creation account outside the Bible, predating the Babylonian creation myth by some 600 years.

This is crucial because it demonstrates that the concept of a monotheistic Creator was present in ancient cultures long before the rise of polytheistic mythologies. The creation tablet from Ebla speaks of a single being who created the heavens, moon, stars, and earth. This parallels the Genesis account, which begins with the words, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

The Ebla account also describes creation ex nihilo, or creation from nothing, stating, “Lord of heaven and earth: the earth was not, you created it, the light of day was not, you created it.” This echoes the biblical description of God creating light by simply speaking it into existence (Genesis 1:3).

The fact that the Ebla creation account is older and less mythologically embellished than later accounts, such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish, suggests that the Genesis account represents the original and most accurate version of the creation story. This supports the idea that the Bible transmits historical facts without the mythological corruption seen in other ancient texts.

Implications for the Evolution of Religion: Monotheism Before Polytheism

The Ebla Tablets also have significant implications for the study of the evolution of religion. For many years, scholars following the evolutionary model of religion—championed by figures such as Charles Darwin and Julius Wellhausen—argued that monotheism evolved from earlier forms of polytheism and henotheism. According to this view, primitive humans initially believed in many gods and only later developed the concept of a single, all-powerful Creator.

However, the evidence from Ebla directly challenges this hypothesis. The Ebla Tablets show that monotheism existed in the third millennium B.C.E., long before the rise of polytheistic religions. The creation account from Ebla, which speaks of a single Creator, demonstrates that monotheism was the original belief system of humanity. This aligns with the biblical account, which teaches that the belief in one God—Jehovah—was present from the very beginning of human history. Genesis 1:1 affirms that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” indicating that monotheism is the oldest form of belief, not a later development.

This has profound apologetic significance, as it refutes the idea that the Bible’s monotheistic worldview is a late theological development. Instead, the Ebla evidence supports the view that the earliest chapters of Genesis are historical and that monotheism was the original belief of humanity. The Bible’s depiction of the early worship of one Creator is not only theologically accurate but historically confirmed by the Ebla discoveries.

Baal and Other Pagan Gods in the Ebla Tablets

The Ebla Tablets also mention various pagan gods, including Baal, a prominent figure in the religious practices of many ancient Near Eastern cultures. Baal is often mentioned in the Bible as a rival god to Jehovah, and the worship of Baal is condemned throughout the Old Testament (e.g., Judges 2:13; 1 Kings 18:21). The fact that Baal is mentioned in the Ebla Tablets demonstrates that the worship of this false god was prevalent in the ancient world.

This aligns with the biblical narrative, which frequently warns the Israelites against adopting the pagan practices of the surrounding nations. Deuteronomy 12:29-31 specifically commands the Israelites not to follow the abominable practices of the nations they dispossess, which included the worship of gods like Baal. The mention of Baal in the Ebla Tablets thus provides additional historical context for understanding the religious environment in which the events of the Old Testament took place.

The Ebla Tablets and the Great Flood

While the Ebla Tablets do not directly mention the Great Flood, the timing of their creation places them in the post-Flood world. The Bible teaches that the Flood occurred in 2348 B.C.E. (Genesis 7:6-10), and the Ebla civilization flourished shortly thereafter. This means that the people of Ebla would have been among the early post-Flood civilizations, descendants of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

The existence of a thriving civilization like Ebla so soon after the Flood is consistent with the biblical account of the rapid repopulation of the earth. Genesis 9:1 records that after the Flood, God commanded Noah and his sons to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” The development of sophisticated cities like Ebla, complete with a complex administrative system and written records, demonstrates that human civilization recovered quickly after the Flood, in accordance with God’s command.

Destroying the Critical Belief in the Evolution of Religion

As mentioned earlier, the discovery of monotheism in the Ebla Tablets dismantles the critical belief in the evolution of religion from polytheism to monotheism. For many years, the idea that monotheism evolved from earlier polytheistic or henotheistic beliefs dominated religious scholarship. This belief was rooted in the theories of 19th-century thinkers like Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary model influenced not only the study of biology but also the study of religion, and Julius Wellhausen, who applied an evolutionary framework to the development of religious beliefs in the Old Testament.

However, the Ebla Tablets provide clear evidence that monotheism predates polytheism.

The creation account found in the Ebla Tablets demonstrates that the belief in one God existed in the third millennium B.C.E., long before the polytheistic religions of Mesopotamia and Egypt gained prominence. This aligns with the biblical teaching that humanity originally worshipped one God—Jehovah—and that polytheism is a later corruption of this original belief. Romans 1:21-23 explains how humanity “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things,” a description of the descent into idolatry after the Fall.

Ebla’s Contribution to Apologetics and Biblical History

The Ebla Tablets are not just a fascinating archaeological discovery; they also provide powerful evidence that supports the Bible’s historical reliability. The parallels between the Ebla creation account and the Genesis creation narrative reinforce the idea that the Bible preserves an ancient and uncorrupted account of the origins of the universe. The mention of biblical cities and names in the Ebla Tablets also confirms the existence of these places and individuals in the ancient world, lending further credibility to the historical accuracy of the early chapters of Genesis.

Moreover, the evidence of monotheism in the Ebla Tablets dismantles the critical belief in the evolution of religion and supports the biblical teaching that the worship of one God is the original belief of humanity. This has significant implications for Christian apologetics, as it affirms that the Bible’s depiction of early human history is accurate and that the earliest form of religious belief was monotheistic, not polytheistic.

In summary, the Ebla Tablets provide valuable evidence that confirms the historical reliability of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis. They offer insight into the cultural and religious environment of the ancient Near East, demonstrating that monotheism existed long before the rise of polytheistic religions and that the biblical account of creation is the original and most accurate version. For Christian apologetics, the Ebla Tablets are a powerful tool in defending the faith and refuting critical theories that seek to undermine the truth of God’s Word.

Sunday, March 22, 2026

Genesis Flood a catastrophism differing from Grand Canyon and Mount Saint Helens

“What MSH [Mount Saint Helens] demonstrates is not that the

fossil forests at places like Yellowstone were deposited by a giant water flood,

but that they were deposited in a volcanic environment like MSH”.

Kevin Nelstead

This 2020 article needed to be written:

What does Mt St Helens teach us about Noah’s flood? Almost nothing. – GeoChristian

What does Mt St Helens teach us about Noah’s flood? Almost nothing.

All I got from Mt St Helens (MSH) in the days following its May 18, 1980 eruption was a few pretty sunsets. I was an undergraduate student in my first year at the University of Utah, and most of the ash cloud passed far north of Salt Lake City. MSH became more significant for me a few years later as a geology graduate student at Washington State University, where my research project involved analysis and correlation of Cascade Range tephra (volcanic ash) layers buried at various levels in the Quaternary Palouse Loess of eastern Washington. Some of these tephra layers correlated to ancient eruptions of MSH, dated around 13,000 and 36,000 years ago.

Fortieth Anniversary

Due in part to easy accessibility, the 1980 eruptions of MSH have been studied more closely than just about any other explosive volcanic eruption in history. Geologists have learned a great deal about certain types of volcanic deposits from this natural laboratory.

Young-Earth creationists (YECs) claim that Mt St Helens has provided many proofs that Noah’s flood could have been responsible for Earth’s sedimentary rock layers, fossil record, landforms, and more. May 18, 2020 marks the fortieth anniversary of the 1980 eruption of MSH, and I would like to look at what some of these YEC claims are, and whether the claims are valid. Three YEC arguments I will look at are:

Rapid formation of volcanic sediments at MSH show that Earth’s sedimentary rock record could have been deposited during Noah’s flood.
Rapid canyon formation at MSH establishes that other canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, could have formed during Noah’s flood.
Logs associated with Spirit Lake demonstrate that fossil forests and coal in the geologic record could have been formed by Noah’s flood.

It turns out that each of these arguments is of limited validity. The MSH eruptions had an impact on geological thinking at a time when geologists were becoming more aware of catastrophic events in Earth history, but this does not confirm the claims that YECs make about MSH.

MSH and Rapid Sedimentation

The May 18, 1980 eruption of MSH did not involve extrusion of fountains or rivers of lava flowing over the landscape. Instead, this was an explosive eruption, ejecting volcanic ash particles high into the atmosphere, as well as ground-hugging pyroclastic flows that blasted northwards from the volcano.

Pyroclastic flows consist of fast moving, hot volcanic gases mixed with blobs of molten material, volcanic glass, minerals, and rock fragments. This material may be hotter than 400°C (750°F), flowing across the landscape at hundreds of miles per hour. As the hot cloud of material slows down, grains settle out of the current, forming layers with sedimentary structures such as graded bedding and cross-bedding. This is sort of a hybrid between a volcanic and sedimentary process, producing what are known as volcaniclastic deposits. Another type of deposit from this eruption was volcanic mudflows known as lahars. Lahars form when precipitation or snowmelt mixes with loose volcanic ash to make a thick slurry of material that may flow tens of miles away from the volcano.

YECs have used these deposits as evidence that rapid, catastrophic processes can lay down sediments with features that are common in Earth’s sedimentary rock record. If MSH could create layers of rock complete with cross bedding and graded bedding in a short amount of time, why couldn’t the entire sedimentary rock record, many thousands of feet thick in places, have been deposited by a much larger catastrophic event, namely Noah’s flood?

The deposits of MSH do indeed show that volcanoes can do a lot of geologic work in a short amount of time. It did not take the 1980 eruptions of MSH to demonstrate this, and no geologists were taken by surprise. Any good volcanologist or sedimentologist will be able to recognize similar volcano-associated rocks in the rock record. Volcaniclastic rocks are common, and are thousands of feet thick in places. Rocks in some of the northern areas of Yellowstone National Park, as well as surrounding areas to the north, east, and southeast, are composed largely of volcanic rocks of the Absaroka Volcanic Supergroup.

These rocks are older than and unrelated to the volcanic rocks of the more recent Yellowstone Caldera. The Absaroka rocks include lahars (mudflows), andesite lava flows, pyroclastic flows, and more coarsely crystallized rocks associated with magma chambers. By studying the flows, magma chambers, and associated dikes, geologists have concluded that some of the volcanoes must have been stratovolcanoes the size of the major Cascade Range volcanoes, such as Mt Shasta or Mt Rainier.

Studying the products of the 1980 eruption of MSH has helped geologists understand these ancient volcanic rocks better.

How much contribution has the study of MSH had to the understanding other types of sedimentary rocks? Just about none. This is because most sedimentary rocks in the geologic record are quite unlike the volcaniclastic rocks produced by catastrophic processes at MSH. Most sandstones and conglomerates are nothing like the deposits of MSH. Yes, many sandstones have sedimentary structures such as cross bedding and graded bedding, but these are known to form in many non-catastrophic settings. Other sedimentary rocks have even less resemblance to anything associated with MSH. Most limestone is formed by biological processes, such as the secretion of calcium carbonate shells and other hard parts by invertebrate organisms. Most shale must have been deposited in quiet environments, as clay does not rapidly settle out from agitated water. Evaporite rocks (rock salt, gypsum, etc.) also have no analogs at MSH.

The conclusion is that most rocks in the sedimentary rock record were formed by processes that must have been quite different than what happened at MSH in 1980, and many layers were deposited in settings that have little to do with catastrophism. MSH tells us little about how most sedimentary rocks of the geologic rock record originated.

MSH and the Rapid Formation of Canyons

In addition to depositing pyroclastic and mudflow deposits, there are erosional features associated with eruptions of MSH. In 1982, rapid snowmelt led to severe flooding at MSH, which carved a 100-foot deep canyon north of the gaping crater in just a few days.

This canyon is known informally as Step Canyon, and YECs claim it is a 1/40^th scale version of the Grand Canyon in Arizona. YECs then argue that if snowmelt at MSH could lead to the rapid erosion of Step Canyon, then certainly the much larger Noah’s flood could have carved the Grand Canyon in a short period of time as well.

There are multiple problems with this reasoning. It sounds impressive to say that there is a 1/40^th-scale version of the Grand Canyon, but this ratio is misleading. At its deepest point, Step Canyon is a little over 100 feet deep, which is roughly 1/40^th the depth of the Grand Canyon, so perhaps that is where YECs get that ratio. For much of its length, the Grand Canyon ranges from 5 to 10, and up to about 18 miles wide. The canyon at MSH is less than 0.1 miles wide, which is about 1/50^th the width of the narrower sections of the main part of the Grand Canyon. Finally, the Grand Canyon is about 275 miles long, whereas Step Canyon at MSH is about 4 miles long from the crater to its intersection with Engineer’s Canyon. The National Park Service says that the volume of the Grand Canyon is 4.17 trillion cubic meters. I made a rough estimate that Step Canyon at MSH has a volume of about 40 million cubic meters. This means that the volume of the rapidly formed MSH canyon is about 1/100,000^th the volume of the Grand Canyon, which is not quite as impressive to readers as saying it is 1/40^th the size.

A second difficulty for the YEC claim is that the Grand Canyon was carved through thousands of feet of solid rock, including crystalline metamorphic and igneous rocks at the bottom of the canyon. Most of the erosion at Step Canyon at MSH, on the other hand, was through unconsolidated sand and gravel. It should be obvious that comparing erosion through sand and gravel to erosion through schist and gneiss is comparing apples and oranges.

A final challenge is that Step Canyon at MSH developed on a steep slope, which facilitated rapid erosion. The average gradient of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon is only 8 feet per mile. Step Creek, on the other hand, drops 2300 feet in 4 miles, which is about 575 feet per mile. Erosion on a steep, unconsolidated slope is certainly going to be far more rapid than erosion along a low-gradient streambed in erosion-resistant rocks.

While the rapid erosion of canyons at MSH is impressive, it falls far short of providing an effective model for carving the giant canyons of the world in only a few months’ time.

MSH and Fossil Forests

The pyroclastic flows associated with the May 18^th eruption downed or burned trees up to 19 miles (31 km) from the volcano. A large number of trees ended up floating in Spirit Lake, where many continue to float on the lake surface forty years later. Some of the trees are floating in a vertical position rather than horizontally. The trees of MSH have provided a good analog for understanding fossilized trees in some ancient volcanic deposits. The Absaroka Volcanic Supergroup mentioned earlier contains abundant petrified trees in some areas, such as at Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone National Park. Many of these petrified trees are upright, which used to be interpreted as meaning that the trees were buried where they grew. Now, largely due to studies at MSH, we understand that trees can be ripped out of the ground, transported, and deposited in an upright position at a distance from where they grew.

[Creationists] have claimed that this is powerful evidence that a giant catastrophe like Noah’s flood could have deposited the forests at Yellowstone. This is a great overstatement. What MSH demonstrates is not that the fossil forests at places like Yellowstone were deposited by a giant water flood, but that they were deposited in a volcanic environment like MSH. The Absaroka rocks are clearly volcanic in origin, with features I described earlier. These petrified trees were transported and buried by the local catastrophes of eruptions at stratovolcanoes, just as the trees at MSH were transported and buried by the eruption of a volcano.

YECs also claim that dead tree material is accumulating at the bottom of Spirit Lake at MSH, and that this will turn into peat, which is a precursor to coal. Perhaps this will form peat, or a peat-like deposit, but there are plenty of other non-catastrophic environments where peat is accumulating faster than at Spirit Lake. The world’s coal deposits as a whole, however, have little in common with the floor of Spirit Lake, which is not a very large lake. Most coal is found in sequences of sandstone, siltstone, and shale that give every appearance of being swampy environments such as river floodplains or deltas. The closest thing to a catastrophe in these environments would be a normal flood or channel migration. No MSH-sized catastrophe is needed.

MSH and the Bible

As an old-Earth Christian, I accept the Bible as the trustworthy and authoritative Word of God.

I not only believe that God created the universe from nothing, I believe that Noah’s flood was a real, historic event. I do not accept the idea that the story of Noah is some sort of inspired myth, but that it really happened.

YECs claim that MSH helps “prove” that a global Noah’s flood really occurred, and that the Bible is true. I think this effort is misguided for three general reasons. The first of these is that, like many inerrancy-affirming Old Testament scholars, pastors, and scientists, I am not convinced that Genesis 6-9 even requires a global flood like the YECs envision. Entire books have been written on this subject, but the case for some sort of local (though still large) flood can be summarized as 1. The story is told from the perspective of Noah on Earth’s surface, not in orbit around spheroidal planet (which the Hebrews may have had no concept of), 2. The vocabulary in the flood account is more ambiguous in Hebrew than it is in our English-language translations, and 3. Universal language in the Old Testament is frequently hyperbolic. In other words, “all the earth” seldom literally means “all the earth” in the Old Testament.

A second reason why I do not think all these YEC attempts to explain Earth history are valid is that the flood account in Genesis tells us nothing about the geological work of Noah’s flood. The Bible makes no claims about the origin of sedimentary, igneous, or metamorphic rocks. It makes no claims about the origin of the fossil record. It makes no claims about the eruptions of stratovolcanoes, the carving of canyons large or small, or the deposition of fossil forests. The entire YEC flood geology story, exemplified by their claims about MSH or the Grand Canyon, is built on extrapolations from the text of Genesis, rather than on actual exegesis of the text.

Finally, YEC flood geology does not provide a credible model for explaining the origin of features of Earth’s crust. I have shown that the eruption of MSH tells us little or nothing about the origin of sedimentary rock layers, canyons, or fossil forests. Most sedimentary rocks are nothing like deposits formed by volcanic eruptions, the canyons at MSH do not demonstrate that Earth’s large canyons could have formed quickly, and MSH provides a model for petrified forests in volcaniclastic rocks, but not much else.

What claims does the Bible make about the work of Noah’s flood? None, really. The truthfulness of the Bible does not depend on whether or not MSH provides a model for Noah’s flood. In reality, MSH provides a model for understanding certain ancient volcanic eruptions, but not much else. YEC claims about MSH and the Noah’s flood are based on unwarranted extrapolations from the text of Genesis rather than exegesis of the text of Genesis.

Grace and Peace