How many global floods do evolutionists believe in?

Glenn Morton has identified 26 locations of the geologic column on the planet. These are said to comprise the 10 to 12 periods of earth history and are scattered literally around the globe. See the world map below. But how can the same column be separated by as much as 8000 to 10,000 miles and across almost every continent without something geo-cataclysmic to tie them all together?

Evolutionists think that the geologic column bolsters their model, but they need to think again. How do they explain the appearance of the same 10 to 12 geologic layers at such diverse points on the globe?

I believe in one global Flood. How many global Floods do evolutionists believe in?

#1 is the complete Geologic Column in North Dakota

The entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:

  • The Ghadames Basin in Libya
  • The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
  • The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
  • The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
  • The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
  • The Adana Basin in Turkey
  • The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
  • The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
  • The Carpathian Basin in Poland
  • The Baltic Basin in the USSR
  • The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
  • The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
  • The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
  • The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
  • The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
  • The Jiuxi Basin China
  • The Tung t’in - Yuan Shui Basin China
  • The Tarim Basin China
  • The Szechwan Basin China
  • The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
  • The Williston Basin in North Dakota
  • The Tampico Embayment Mexico
  • The Bogata Basin Colombia
  • The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
  • The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

Robertson Group, 1989;
A.F. Trendall et al , editors, Geol. Surv. West. Australia Memoir 3, 1990, pp 382, 396;
N.E. Haimla et al, The Geology of North America, Vol. L, DNAG volumes, 1990, p. 517)


None. Local floods aren’t global floods.

The continents have drifted quite a bit over time. Where they are now does not represent where they were 100MYA, 200MYA, 500MYA, etc.

1 Like

I believe in zero global floods. At least, I don’t believe there was ever a time when the entire planet was flooded to the peak of the tallest mountains.

1 Like

There are no such layers to explain. All Morton’s examples of “the entire geological column” are are places where there are rocks of some kind from every period in the Phanerozoic. Not the same rocks, not a complete record of continuous deposition for the Phanerozoic. Just some rocks from every period. The only worldwide correlation I know of — a single stratum present everywhere — is the K/T boundary clay. And of course it’s only present in places where that particular moment is preserved.


Then you cannot tie the global geologic column together.

You are mistaken since the very motive of the article according to Morton was to identify complete if not almost fully complete locations of the geologic column. You need to look again. He is pretty specific about this. Also consider that he is using oil atlases, not the kind your science is used to. He says those atlases are more accurate and more complete.

This says it: “The entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order.”

Are you claiming plate tectonics and continental drift never happened?

The title “How many global floods do evolutionists believe in?” seems wrong. “Evolutionist” should be a reference to biology, but the question of global floods is a question for geologists.

As far as I know, there weren’t any global floods. But I’m not a geologist, so this is not my area.

The recent California wild fires had effects that could be seen around the world. It’s a mistake to assume that a global flood is the only possible cause of apparent world wide changes.


No I am saying it does not matter. It is besides the point being made. Whether the continents are closely spaced or widely spaced, a global flood is still…a global flood. All land masses would have to have been covered simultaneously to lay down similar layers.

What does “tie the global geological column together” even mean?

Do you mean to say I can’t infer that layers in strata found in different locations can’t be of the same age or caused by similar processes?


This is besides the point. No matter the continent’s location it would still require multiple global floods (and yes covering all the continents would constitute “global” not matter their location) to tie all the geologic columns together.

That made no sense. What ties the geological column is correlation using various clues: lithology, index fossils, radiometric dating, erosional surfaces, remanent magnetism, etc. None of these require a global flood.


Nobody is questioning that but you don’t get correlation without similar layering to be able to do your science of correlation. Without that similar layering you are guessing. But since the geologic column is “piled up in proper order” according to Morton, your job is made that much simpler. The problem enters when one considers what it would take to get similar layers laid down around the globe. And the only plausible answer is multiple global floods.

By “similar layering” you presumably mean lithology. But that’s only one of many clues used to correlate rocks, and of course there are many problems with extending lithological correlation too far, as similar facies are often time-transgressive, because facies often prograde and retrograde over time. You can see this in real-ish time in river deltas.

1 Like

Uhm, what? Sediments can be deposited, or lava flows can cool and solidify, on opposite sides of the globe simultaneously, without the entire globe having to be covered and connected in a single planet-covering flood. You’re just not making sense at all.

It’s like saying leaves can’t fall to the ground on both the American and Indian continents simultaneously without having a global forest covering the entire distance between them and connecting them together.

Obviously, obviously, you can have two separate forests, two ore more separate but local bodies of water, two or more separate but local lumps of rock, or lava, or what have you, without them having to be connected together into one large forest, or one large ocean, or one large continent etc.


You don’t understand what the article means by “complete”. Again, it just means that rocks representing some portion of every Phanerozoic period are in the sequence. It doesn’t mean that every year of each period is present.

More accurate and more complete than what?

I don’t care what you infer. And you are changing the subject matter here in your statement. My claim is Morton’s claim. I want to stick to that only. And Morton’s claim can only be reasonably made by the geo-cataclysmic event of global floods.

I don’t think there ever was a global flood, considering that if all ice on earth melts, it still wouldn’t cover all of the land surface. Not a rocks guy, but as far as I know, the columns aren’t the exact same at every point in time. Despite recording the same geological eras, they’d definitely represent different ecosystems and formations. Do these basins show a flood at the exact same time? If so, what’s the range based on conventional science? I know you likely don’t agree with the dating estimates, but they’re useful for giving an approximation as to where it happened in the column.


The columns he shows are examples where the local geologic column of those basins has pieces corresponding to every major part that is found on your standard “model” column. They aren’t “the same column”, because each basin has its own unique local column (reflecting its unique depositional history) which can then be compared to the theoretical construct to see how complete it is. The original YEC argument, as I understand it, was originally that no local column anywhere corresponded to every major part of the model column.

I’m asking a question because your statement did not make sense to me. So I suggested what seemed to me a plausible clarification of what you might have intended to ask. Whatever it is you are asking seems to bear no relation to what Morton actually said.

At no point did Glenn Morton, that I am aware of, claim that one or more strata ever covered the entire planet. When a sediment forms in the Pacific, I don’t think this means it’s the same sediment forming in Lake Baikal, even though they’re right now forming simultaneously in parallel.

The two can potentially be correlated millions of years from now, but will not require a global ocean to infer their simultaneity.