Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A

Moving along to some of your other responses, starting with the Galapagos Islands:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
edge:
"The Galapagos are islands, surrounded by deep ocean basin."
TC:
--Actually after taking a good look at a oceanographic sea floor map you see a kind of mountain range underwater going toward the galopagose Islands.

---

My error. The Galapagos are part of minor mid-ocean ridges. However, if we look at the context of my statement, it was made in response to the following exchange:

quote:

---

"How did the giant tortoises get back to the Galapagos islands?"
TC:
--They trotted (or whatever they do) on dry land also, if you lower the sea level about 1000 feet all of the major continents are connected.

---

The fact is that the Galapagos are not part of a continent. Now, my bathymetry is not very precise and I don't really want to quibble over depths but most mid-ocean ridges are over 1000 feet in depth and the limited map I have shows that these ridges are between 1000 and 3000 feet in depth. Now if you are assuming that the tortoises traveled from some distant point on the globe where the ark landed and crossed several continents and several land bridges to get where they are without being completely predated and/or leaving behind any relict populations along the way, I have another land bridge you might be interested in buying. At the same time it is interesting that your scenario requires that you start with a flood, then it recedes to form land bridges and then we have to have another major transgression, all within an approximated 2000 year span of time. Not to mention how you are going to lose all of that water. Are you sure you don't want to revise your model just a bit?

quote:

---

"Pretty amazing how they left footprints and fossils in the middle of a flood that also killed them! Yes, you've got a great theory!"

​

--I don't see the problem with fossils, but the footprints have been interpereted to be from amphibians (ie they live in and out of water) such as salamanders.

---

Interesting salamanders you've got. Funny how they leave prints that look just like dinosaurs. By the way, have you ever tried to leave a footprint under water? Interesting also that dinosaurs would build nests and lay eggs in the middle of a flood.

quote:

---

The Flood wasn't one huge catastrophy happening within a couple minutes burring everythign at once, if it did then we would find over all a partial 'jumbled mess' But it happend in rapid jumps of deposits of sediments. Hours, weeks, or months could have passed within each deposit.

---

So thousands of feet of water just disappeared and then returned? I don't get your model here. I thought the land was submerged for about a year. Perhaps you could give us a description of how this "fluctuating" model worked. Actual examples in the geological record would be helpful.

quote:

---

"All proven hoaxes or undocumented cases. If you want to bring up a specific example we could discuss its merits."

​

http://www.edconrad.com
Click on the man as old as coal one, you should read all the pages, I found it interesting and we can discuss it if you like.

---

And you think that this rock looks like a humanoid skull? And those other logs or roots look like femurs? Sorry, but if you believe these, you will believe anything and there is nothing I can do for you. As to the big conspiracy to cover up discordant data, do you realize how hard it would be to perpetrate such a conspiracy among paleontologists and geologists? I suggest that you don't know many of them.

quote:

---

"Interesting statement. Can you back this up with actual peer-reviewed literature? I am unaware of such discoveries."
--In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24.   The Cambrian Explosion

---

Really, I hate to burst your bubble but CSC is hardly considered to be a credible reference. I looked at this last night and don't remember much, but I think it was Walt Brown. In that case, your argument is self refuted. Maybe some more on this later.

quote:

---

"In the words of one of our favorite creationist debaters this argument is effectively refuted by one word: "trees."

​

--What about these 'trees'? Apparently I find the way we find trees in the fossil record, coming not as a surprize, but is expected.

---

Okay then how did the flowering plants run to higher ground way ahead of dinosaurs for instance so that they would only occur in deposits younger than Jurassic (I think)?The flood model has been abandoned by mainstream science for nearly a century. It is simply not supported by the facts. Don't you think it is time for you to move on?

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 01-13-2002]

(I tried to post a reply for this one a couple times and it kept messing up) "The question is how do you boil away a significant fraction of the ocean volume and not end up with ark soup? What do you think the heat of vaporization did to the atmosphere when you condense enough water to rain for 40 days?"
--I remember reading this post from I believe the true.origins archive. Baumgardner in no way exclamed this to be a significant blow if at all any blow to the model. In fact, it contributes to the cause of the ice age. You can boil away tons of water and have virtually nothing happen a hundred miles away, heat would not spread to that degree and equalize like that. And vapor would cool and possibly freeze by the time it gets anywhere near 10 miles into the atmosphere."There is more, but I don't have time tonight. Maybe later."
--That would be great, maybe.-------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-13-2002]

quote:

---

You can boil away tons of water and have virtually nothing happen a hundred miles away, heat would not spread to that degree and equalize like that. And vapor would cool and possibly freeze by the time it gets anywhere near 10 miles into the atmosphere.

---

You are proposing the transfer of a vast amount of energy (heat) from the earth's mantle, into the biosphere. This is in the form of steam (water at or above 100 degrees C). Steam, in condencing from a gas to liquid water, gives up the heat to the atmosphere. Just because the water itself has cooled doesn't mean that the heat has totally gone away. And, seemingly, that rain itself would still be pretty warm.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
(I tried to post a reply for this one a couple times and it kept messing up)

​

"The question is how do you boil away a significant fraction of the ocean volume and not end up with ark soup? What do you think the heat of vaporization did to the atmosphere when you condense enough water to rain for 40 days?"

​

--I remember reading this post from I believe the true.origins archive. Baumgardner in no way exclamed this to be a significant blow if at all any blow to the model. In fact, it contributes to the cause of the ice age. You can boil away tons of water and have virtually nothing happen a hundred miles away, heat would not spread to that degree and equalize like that. And vapor would cool and possibly freeze by the time it gets anywhere near 10 miles into the atmosphere.

---

Here is more from Isaaks in Talk Origins. I'm sorry for the cut and paste job, but I want to emphasize some points.

quote:

---

Runaway subduction. John Baumgardner created the runaway subduction model, which proposes that the pre-Flood lithosphere (ocean floor), being denser than the underlying mantle, began sinking. The heat released in the process decreased the viscosity of the mantle, so the process accelerated catastrophically. All the original lithosphere became subducted; the rising magma which replaced it raised the ocean floor, causing sea levels to rise and boiling off enough of the ocean to cause 150 days of rain. When it cooled, the ocean floor lowered again, and the Flood waters receded. Sedimentary mountains such as the Sierras and Andes rose after the Flood by isostatic rebound. [Baumgardner, 1990a; Austin et al., 1994]

​

The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn't work without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b] The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.

​

Baumgardner estimates a release of 1028 joules from the subduction process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.

​

Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms. [Carroll, 1997, chpts. 5, 6, & 13]
Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see. [Matsumura, 1997]

---

Basically, this model has a long way to go. However, since the biblical flood model has been abandoned, I'm not sure why anyone would want to do so.The thing you have to remember here is that Baumgardner is a geophysicist. These guys are great for determining the properties of the earth at depth, but some are extremely challenged when it comes to calibrating predictions with reality. I have a few stories that we needn't go into right now, but basically the numbers become reality to some people even thought they are based on wishful parameters. I think you derided someone earlier for using imagination in projecting something geological. If so, you should reject completely any of Baumgardner's modeling.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 01-13-2002]

TC,You're getting into the same arguments of "this may have happened", again, where is the evidence of the flood? Would you like to retract that claim? If not, I'm going to push you to respond substantively to messsages 78 & 88 (among others).Mark[ edited because i was unintentionally abrasive. * note to self. do not post whilst drunk * ]
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2002]

Sorry im a bit late... here are the posts of the innacuracy of the bible and the contradictions, here are some from some of the book sof the old testament, by the way if you want more head to www.skepticsannotatedbible.com:GENESIS1 & 2, Don't Gen. 1 and 2 present contradictory creation accounts?
1:26, How many Gods are there, one or many?
3:9, Doesn't "Adam where are you?" show God didn't know something?
3:22, How many Gods are there, one or many?
4:17, Where did Cain get his wife?
5:1-31, Did people really live hundreds of years according to Genesis?
5:24, Did anyone ascend into heaven before Jesus or not?
6:6,7, Does the Lord change or not?
6:19-20, How many kinds did Noah bring into the ark, two or seven?
7:1, Have all people sinned or not?
7:2-3, How many kinds did Noah bring into the ark, two or seven?
17:1, Has anyone seen God or not?
18:1, Has anyone seen God or not?
22:1, Does God tempt people or not?
22:2, How many children did Abraham have, one or two?
37:28, Who sold Joseph, the Midianites or the Ishmaelites?
37:36, Who sold Joseph, the Midianites or the Ishmaelites?
39:1, Who sold Joseph, the Midianites or the Ishmaelites?
47:31, Was Joseph at the head of the bed or leaning on a staff?EXODUS
6:2-3, Has anyone seen God or not?
15:3, Is the Lord a God of Peace or of war?
20:4-5, Should you make graven images or not?
20:5, Do the sons bear the sins of the fathers or not?
20:8, Should we keep the Sabbath or not?
23:12, Should we keep the Sabbath or not?
24:9-11, Has anyone seen God or not?
25:18, Should you make graven images or not?
31:15, Should we keep the Sabbath or not?
32:14, Does the Lord change or not?
33:20, Has anyone seen God or not?
34:6-7, Do the sons bear the sins of the fathers or not?
37:7-8, Should you make graven images or not?LEVITICUS
26:1, Should you make graven images or not?
26:2, Should we keep the Sabbath or not?NUMBERS
12:6-8, Has anyone seen God or not?DEUTERONOMY
5:8, Should you make graven images or not?
5:9, Do the sons bear the sins of the fathers or not?
5:12, Should we keep the Sabbath or not?
6:4, How many Gods are there, one or many?
24:16, Do the sons bear the sins of the fathers or not?
27:15, Should you make graven images or not?

Just finished reading this whole thread, and I thought I'd through my two cents worth in.Seems everyone missed this comment by TrueCreation1. What time period are we talking?
If you mean to imply what geologic time period like triassic, jurrasic, etc then I would have to say every time period, but If you are just asking how long ago it happend then I would have to say about 4,500 years ago. Now as an Archaeology student, I find this strange considering 2500 BCE is smack dab in the middle of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the Early Dynastic II period in Sumeria. I would love to know during the reign of which the Flood happened. pharoahhttp://touregypt.net/kings.htm(Hint: there are still records from the 1st and 2nd Intermediate periods, so don't go choosing that one to quickly)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreopithecus:
Just finished reading this whole thread, and I thought I'd through my two cents worth in.

​

Seems everyone missed this comment by TrueCreation

​

1. What time period are we talking?
If you mean to imply what geologic time period like triassic, jurrasic, etc then I would have to say every time period, but If you are just asking how long ago it happend then I would have to say about 4,500 years ago.

​

Now as an Archaeology student, I find this strange considering 2500 BCE is smack dab in the middle of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the Early Dynastic II period in Sumeria. I would love to know during the reign of which the Flood happened. pharoahhttp://touregypt.net/kings.htm

​

(Hint: there are still records from the 1st and 2nd Intermediate periods, so don't go choosing that one to quickly)

---

This is an excellent point. Creationists like to point out the pervasiveness of the flood story through many cultures, but it is conspicuously absent in the more advanced cultures of the target time. My suggestion is that the Egyptians knew and understood floods and also understood that the world extended beyond their river valley. This is one of the places where creationists have to bend the facts a bit to match their legend.

Ohhhh I am so glad you said that. As a creationist and a Flood supporter I beg to differ.
Please explain the shell fossils found high up in mountain ranges. The only thing that could have put them up there is alot of water. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that someone put the fossils up there and buried them for others to find. Please explain the uniform current shifts in the sediments found all around the world. They all shift in one direction, meaning that alot of water covered the earth at ONE point in time. But i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that someone spent alot of time shifting the sediments all around the world to match an identical pattern in the geo column.
Please explain why dinosaurs don't exist anymore. Something had to wipe them out in an instant so that they couldn't come back after the event but every other species returned. But I keep forgetting you guys don't believe in Noah and the ark carrying surviving animals. Wow if i didn't know better I'd say that you all can't show that a Flood didn't happen.

Wow , you all are pretty slow when it comes to the Bible.
I guess you all have never heard of reading something in its CONTEXT.To answer a few of your supposed contradictions:There is only one God, but if you read your Bible, you'll find that there is a Godhead consisting of GOd the Father, GOd the Son and God the Holy Spirit. They are all one God, just different aspects of His nature.Cain's wife was obviously a sister or cousin that was not mentioned by name in the Bible. This is not advocating inbreeding, its just that under the circumstances, this was the only way to multiply.Yes people lived hundreds of years, but because of sin, the life expectancy came down.No God cannot tempt.God knew where Adam was, He wanted Adam to acknowledge the fact that he had sinned by revealing himself.Enoch and Elijah went to heaven before Jesus. In the New Testament , Jesus is talking with them during the Transfiguration.Here are just a few examples of what happens when skeptics don't do their homework. Its easy to point fingers when you yourself don't even understand what the Bible says.

quote:

---

Please explain the shell fossils found high up in mountain ranges.

---

How about plate tectonics? The limestone found in the Himalaya mountains was laid down under a shallow ocean, and uplifted to form the mountains when the Indian sub-continent collided with Asia.This should be basic reading in any elementary school science textbook. That Creationists repeat it systematically indicates a fundamental lack of science literacy, and I think it is fair of me to berate them on this point.

quote:

---

The only thing that could have put them up there is alot of water.

---

Again you are making the assumption that the mountains pre-date the shells. Also, don't you suppose that "alot [sic] of water" would wear those mountains down until they had rounded tops? Or at the very least, leave deposits of frozen driftwood up there? Also note that water would leave extensive cross-bedding up there, and I'm not aware of any.

quote:

---

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that someone put the fossils up there and buried them for others to find.

---

Hah hah.

quote:

---

Please explain the uniform current shifts in the sediments found all around the world.

---

Excuse me. Perhaps you would like to provide a journal cite because I haven't heard of this. In fact, there is no universal marine sediment for this alleged "uniform current shift" to occur in.We have a geologist here. Maybe your claims makes some sense to him.

quote:

---

Please explain why dinosaurs don't exist anymore.

---

A large impact in the Yucatan Peninsula. It also deposited iridium, coesite, and microtektites into the K/T boundary. Floods, even global floods, don't do that.

quote:

---

But I keep forgetting you guys don't believe in Noah and the ark carrying surviving animals.

---

Now you are apparently through contradicting science and are now contradicting your own religion. See Genesis 7:8. Everything that breathes air, including dinosaurs, were supposedly placed on this boat. So go find another possibility for their extinction.Or, what would impress me more, would be if you found a dinosaur fossil with a spearpoint lodged in it...

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-15-2002]

I have to say, the new guy's harpooned me good!Anyone want to buy a geology degree? The university won't take it back and give me a refund. Hasn't been used much, but doesn't seem to be of much value. Mooseps by edit: Where has this guy been? We could have had all this confusion cleared up a long time ago. Glad he didn't muck up his thought process by reading too much of the various pre-existing topics and their messages.------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-16-2002]

quote:

---

No God cannot tempt.

---

Since you want to play Bible games, please explain the dialogue between God and Satan found in the Book of Job. It sounds to me like God intentionally "tempted" Satan to go tempt Job, simply because God needed to demonstrate something or feel superior.Wait--that entire book could be an allegory or a parable. Except that Creationists don't seem to accept the possibility of the Bible not being literally true...

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-15-2002]

quote:

---

And vapor would cool and possibly freeze by the time it gets anywhere near 10 miles into the atmosphere.

---

I wanted to point out a fact most people don't realize (partially for relevance, partially just because it's interesting), just as it requires heat to evaporate water, condensation releases heat. So even if water continued to condense as it was lifted into the atmosphere, if you continued to lift more water, the ambient temperature would become too warm to allow water to condense. Also, as the upper levels of the atmosphere became warmer, the more energy it would take from the surface to maintain convection--so simply boiling it might not do the trick. And I suspect, as Moose pointed out, that the rain would simply redeposit a significant quantity of heat on the surface.I also don't think anyone has considered the implications that load of water vapor would have for the greenhouse effect (water vapor strongly absorbing IR), or the physiological effects that the increased air pressure might have upon Noah et. al. (nitrogen narcosis, etc).

quote:

---

Anyone want to buy a geology degree? Hasn't been used much, but doesn't seem to be of much value.

---

D'oh! Glad that I'm doubling with meteorology...