Creation Science Rebuttals
Answers Magazine
Rain Before the Flood?
Volume 8, Issue 1 (Jan-Mar 2013)
Review by Greg Neyman
© Old Earth Ministries
This article from Answers Magazine is one of the more honest articles that I have found. It addresses the issue of whether or not there was rain before Noah's Flood, and was written by Larry Vardiman.1
As Vardiman points out, Scripture does not tell us much about climate conditions prior to the flood. He alludes to the fact that early young earth creationists believed in a vapor canopy theory, about which he states that "mathematical modeling failed to support the canopy theory."
In the first section titled Scripture Versus Interpretation, I was shocked to read this statement:
The first step is always to examine Scripture carefully to differentiate the actual words from interpretations." Young earth creationists are extremely guilty of letting their interpretations be on the same level as the actual words of God, but here Vardimen says this is the proper approach. Too bad YEC's do not practice what they preach here. The YEC position is an interpretation of the Word, and YEC's would be wise to heed Vardiman's approach.
In the second paragraph, Vardiman claims that after the Flood Noah would have seen a rainbow for the first time. Since old earth creationists clearly believe there was rain prior to the flood, this statement cannot be true. I think Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe has the right interpretation. God used the rainbow as a sign of the covenent between He and mankind, not to flood the earth again. However, the sign for a covenent could have been a pre-existing feature, and God chose that feature as a sign for the covenent. The rainbow could have existed prior to Noah, and this would have no impact upon God using it for the covenent.2
In the next paragraph, Vardiman states the conclusion that there was no rain before the Flood "is based on two primary assumptions that are not necessarily true." First is the mist that watered the ground (Gen. 2:5-6). He states the mist "may have occurred near the Garden of Eden...and it may be stretching the verse to say the mist extended over the whole earth." I have long argued on this website that the Garden was a special place, separate from the rest of the world, yet this is the first young earth reference I have seen that alludes to the Garden and the rest of the earth being different. This is important because of the YEC claim that all creation was perfect. If the entire world was perfect, then why would God have to make a separate location (Garden) to place Adam and Eve? He could have just plopped them down anywhere on earth.
The second assumption is that since Scripture makes no mention of rain prior to the Flood, then one must assume it did not rain. I agree with Vardiman, this is an argument from silence, which is weak.
He closes this section with this:
Nevertheless, when building models of the earth’s early climate, it is wise to consider all the possibilities that are consistent with Scripture. We must recognize that such models are speculative, especially if they are based primarily on what is not stated, rather than what is.
Reading between the lines, it means: if the young earth models don't fit with the evidence (if we cannot make the evidence fit the young earth theory), then we must recognize that these models are speculative (in the future we may understand them better, but for now, just believe us that the earth is young, and don't worry about it.)
The next section addresses the canopy theory, which has been thoroughly examined and found to be impossible. Vardiman mentions that "major computational problems continue to plague the canopy models." The larger young earth organizations, such as AiG, have long urged caution with the canopy theory. It is only the smaller ones, such as Kent Hovind's old ministry, now Creation Today, that still accepts this theory.
The final section puts forth the theory of catastrophic plate tectonics. Vardiman states he was one of the scientists to help develop this theory. He also states that he is still led to believe there was some type of canopy, and that both canopy and catastrophic plate tectonics may be the answer.
The only problem with the plate tectonics model is that the theory itself is catastrophic...there is no scientific way of it working! Glenn Morton addresses this in his article Runaway Subduction is a Sham.
His conclusion is "Any combination of these models would be consistent with the biblical account, or perhaps an alternative set of conditions, which we have not yet discovered, drove the pre-Flood climate." In other words, this is an admission that YEC's don't have a clue about the pre-Flood climate.
1 Did it Rain Before the Flood? by Larry Vardiman, Answers Magazine, V8, N1, Apr-Jun 2009. Page 30-31.
2 The Genesis Question, by Hugh Ross. Pages 72-73.
If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth. Click here for more.
Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life? If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here.
Answers in Genesis 2013 Daily Features Home
Related Topics
To learn more
about old earth creationism, see
Old Earth Belief,
or check out the article
Can You Be A
Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?
Feel free to check out more of this website. Our goal is to
provide rebuttals to the bad science behind young earth creationism,
and honor God by properly presenting His creation.