Geology Commons^™

Forum On The Flood/Post-Flood Boudary, Marcus R. Ross

Marcus R. Ross

The location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary is an important issue for Flood geology because it is the starting point for a host of research questions. Many papers have been published on this topic, but its placement is still controversial. Three main views are advocated: a low Flood boundary in the Paleozoic or below, a boundary at or near the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (now the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary), and a variable boundary towards the upper Cenozoic but with each geographical area to be evaluated on its merits.

In 2012, Marcus Ross, published a biostratigraphic analysis and argued that a Flood/post-Flood boundary at or …

Letter: A Developing Schism In Flood Geology, Marcus R. Ross

Marcus R. Ross

First paragraph: Froede and Akridge are correct to recognize that creation geology includes two widely divergent groups seeking to reconstruct Earth history within a Biblical framework. Such has been the case throughout the history of creationism, going back to disagreements between Harold Clark and George McCready Price over the reality (or not) of the geologic column. With the increased number of geologically trained young-Earth creationists, discussions over these issues have become more common.

The Flood/Post-Flood Boundary (Comment And Reply), Marcus R. Ross

Marcus R. Ross

First paragraph: Michael Oard’s recent article on the Flood/post-Flood boundary consists of two parts: the first is response to my earlier paper on utilizing mammalian biostratigraphy in evaluating post-Flood boundary locations, which found placement of this boundary at or near the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary untenable; the second part is a set of disparate observations placed in support of a high post-Flood boundary placed at variable locations in the “Late Cenozoic”. (comment continues; download for full comment and reply by Michael Oard)