Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

wmscott:There's actually one rather large problem with your entire premise: you have the dates for the Pleistocene extinctions wrong. In fact, there were a series of extinctions tending from about 100,000-50,000 ya (Africa), ~40,000 ya (Australia), to ~12,000-11,000 ya (North America), to ~10,000-8,000 ya (South/Central America).A couple of curiosities about these extinctions that are not consistent with a global catastrophe such as a noachian-style flood:
1. Only large mammals were eliminated, unlike all other mass extinctions. Smaller mammals were unaffected.
2. There is no indication of disturbance among benthic (marine) organisms.
3. There was no substantial loss of plant species diversity, which argues against a global catastrophe. There was change in species related to the advance and retreat of the ice sheets, as well as the impact on the paleoecology due to the loss of so many large herbivores, but no indication of sudden, catastrophic extinction.A global flood can not be viewed as consistent with the Pleistocene extinctions.

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-21-2002]

wmscott:I have a couple of questions concerning your discovery of marine diatoms in Wisconsin.1. Could you please provide the dating methodology you used to determine the age of the rocks in which you discovered these diatoms? Since Wisconsin was the site of a shallow ocean during the Silurian, microfossils of marine diatoms would be expected.2. Since you have determined that these are "marine" diatoms, could you please provide species identification? Fresh-water diatoms are extremely common worldwide. In Wisconsin, for example, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources uses them as a water quality indicator species.Thanks for your clarification.

Wmscott: Thanks for your response.

quote:

---

For Quetzal, good questions. I deal with the Pleistocene extinction dates in my book. A number of Ice Age animals appear to have died off before the end of the Ice Age, but we see the same apparent pattern with the extinction of the dinosaurs. Now we know that there was a major sudden extinction event associated with the demise of the dinosaurs, some of them may have died off before or it may just appear that way in the fossil record. It was similar with the Pleistocene extinctions, some of the animals may have or may not have died off before hand.

---

This is a fundamental problem. There is no question from the fossil record that numerous genera went extinct before the end of the last ice age. In fact, it is somewhat erroneous to consider the Pleistocene die-offs as representing a single extinction event, as the major species losses took place widely separated spatially and temporally. For example, the end of the Australian die-off has been dated to around 20,000 years ago (ya), whereas the North American extinctions took place between 12,000-10,000 ya. A global flood, unless you are suggesting that it lasted for 20,000 years, is not consistent with the pattern of extinction. For instance, the Australian extinctions would have occurred at the height of the Last Glacial Maximum (21,000-17,500 ya).

quote:

---

Finding fossils is a rare event, there are many gaps in representation. It is very possible that a number of animals believed to have died off before the extinction event actually lived up to it.

---

On the contrary, there is strong fossil evidence that Mylodon and company went extinct around 5,000 years ago in South America, whereas almost all Australian megafauna such as Diprotodon ceased to exist around 20,000 ya.

quote:

---

The cause of these extinctions is unknown, there are three theories in science that attempt to explain this extinction event, but none of them is very good which is why there are three of them.

---

True, there are three current theories. None, IMO, are overly compelling taken in isolation. However, a combination of factors appears most likely (see below).

quote:

---

The pattern of extinction at the end of the ice age is consistent with a sudden rise in global sea level. Small animals would stand a much better chance of surviving a flood by rafting than would large animals. Small animals are more numerous giving better odds of having a surviving viable population. Areas with lower elevations such as Australia had higher extinction rates. The area where larger animals did survive is in harmony with the biblical story of an ark. The area where the ark was has the lowest level of extinction.

---

That is not entirely accurate. Europe lost 13 genera (from 10,000-recent), Australia 21 (40,000-20,000), North America 43 (12,000-10,000) and South America 46 (8000-recent). As you can see, the pattern of extinction has little to do with elevation, or the timeline of a hypothetical global flood. Again, unless you are supposing a 30,000-year-long flood, in which case your hypothetical small animals are amazing survivors, there is no evidence for a global catastrophic flood as you postulate.

quote:

---

In fact the patterns are just the opposite of what is expected from the currently believed causes of over hunting and climate change. The super virus theory is too far fetched and is basically impossible to prove or disprove, not doesn't fit the pattern of survival ether, why should smaller animals be more immune when they have a denser population more suited for disease transmission than the larger animals.

---

There was likely a combination of all three (or even more) theories. There are strong indications of major climatic fluctuations, which caused severe pressure on the paleoecology. I tend to doubt the human blitzkrieg hypothesis as a stand alone, as there is little archeological evidence outside of a few Clovis kill sites. Finally, a disease hypothesis (as a contributing factor) is not as far-fetched as you seem to think. Several modern diseases show a similar (although not as virulent) selectivity. One example is rinderpest. My hypothesis would be climatic change reducing food sources and applying pressure on primarily sympatric species populations, making them more vulnerable to both human and animal overpredation, and disease. In an extreme case of coevolutioanary disequillibrium, once the large herbivores began to become scarce there were severe impacts on the co-evolved ecosystems (similar to what has occurred in parts of Africa with desertification of savannah biomes due to loss of megafauna). The resulting loss of biome hastened the extinction of the remaining megafauna populations, including the carnivores who had evolved to prey on these large herbivores. Smaller animals and the surviving large fauna (such as bears in North America) who were not exquisitely adapted to effected biomes survived.

quote:

---

A flood event is not that damaging to plants, plant extinctions are not to be expected. A major disturbance in marine organisms is not to be expected ether, since the change was not that great for them.

---

Actually, we have a fair trace of changes in forest type over the last 20,000 years. Here’s one successional example:

quote:

---

Vegetation history of Pacific Northwest

​

Puget Sound Area

​

0-5000 years ago Western hemlock, cedar, Douglas-fir: Establishment of modern conditions
5000-10,000 yr ago Douglas-fir, alder, bracken fern, oak: Warmer and drier than today; more fires
10,000-12,000 yr ago Lodgepole pine, spruce, hemlock: Cool and moist
12,000-15,000 yr ago Tundra: Cool and dry
15,000 yr ago Puget Sound was glaciated as far south as Olympia, Washington

​

Oregon Coast Range (not glaciated)

​

0-5000 yr ago Douglas-fir, western hemlock, cedar, alder: Establishment of modern conditions
5000-10,000 yr ago Douglas-fir, alder: Warmer and drier than today; more fires
10,000-13,000 yr ago Mixed conifer forest: Cool and moist
13,000-25,000 yr ago Engelmann spruce, mountain hemlock, fir: Cold and dry
25,000-40,000 yr ago W. white pine, western hemlock, fir: Cooler than today

---

(from this site) Again, there is no evidence that these forests were effected by any flooding. This is a normal transitional sequence motivated by changing climates. For additional evidence of climate change during the Pleistocene, see Sudden Climate Changes During the Quaternary.

quote:

---

There has found to be a freshwater spike in gulf sediments, and the drop stones found on the Atlantic floor point towards a sudden movement of glacial melt water and ice into the sea which would have greatly raised sea levels.

---

Please provide a reference for this data. I have been unable to locate anything concerning either a freshwater spike (whatever that is) or drop stones in the Atlantic.Thanks again for your response.

wmscott: With reference to diatoms...

quote:

---

On the marine diatoms found here in Wisconsin. They are not found in "rocks" but in top soil in a thin layer. They are dated by species type, they are recent species which were found in our oceans at the end of the ice age and are still living in the seas today. Some of the marine species I have found include, Asterolampra Marylandica, Pseudoguinardia recta, Grammatophora Marina, Thalassionema Nitzhioldes, Asterionella Japponica and others.

---

I find this a fascinating topic. I would appreciate it if you could elaborate a bit:1. How were the diatoms identified? Did you do it yourself (i.e., using a taxonomic key - if so, which one?) or did a lab (which one?)?2. Finding diatoms in topsoil is not uncommon (although I haven't found a reference yet for marine diatoms in topsoil, except as eroded fossils). However, could you clarify whether these were modern (living/alive) diatoms, diatomaceous shells, or actual diatom microfossils?3. Do you have evidence that the topsoil deposition where you found the samples dates from ~10,000 ya? Generally, topsoil is fairly recent composition. It's only after digging down a bit that you run in to 10,000-year-old paleosols, most of which would be well on the way to lithification.(BTW: you need to be careful about dating samples via diatoms. As an example, A. marylandica has been found in Oligocene deposits and A. japonica is common in Miocene cores. Both, of course are also still living. They've been around for a while.)

wmscott:I appreciate your responses. I’m still having a hard time with your statements concerning the time compression of the Pleistocene extinction events to ~10,000 ya. There is substantial evidence for the dates of the megafaunal extinctions in Australia, for example, that is inconsistent with your claim.The large flightless bird Genyornis newtoni has been shown to be continuously present in Australia between 120,000 and 46,000 years ago, at which time it ceased to exist. The 46,000 ya extinction date has been corroborated by multiple dating methods and multiple sites over three climatic zones (C14 (100 samples), 234U-230Th (5 samples), and AAR (700 samples) and 8 luminescence series). Diprotodon extinction has been dated at 33,000 ya. The dates are significant in that humans arrived in Australia approximately 55,000 ya. It is believed that a combination of human impacts and climate change were responsible. See this site for a general discussion of the Australian extinctions, and this site and this article for more information concerning possible coevolutionary disequilibrium as a causative factor in the extinctions. In all, every species of marsupial >100 kg (19 in all), 22 of 38 species 10-100 kg, two large reptiles, and our friend the 220 kg Genyornis died out between 46,000 ya and 18,000 ya. Since they didn't die out all at once, the evidence from the dates of the Australian extinctions indicates your chronology and in fact for the hypothetical global flood is inaccurate, at least in this area.Re: Diatoms. Thanks for the information. I would also like to know the soil stratiography in the area (I’m not familiar with Wisconsin). Normally temperate soils, even over glacial till, have reasonably extensive A and B horizons. Marine diatoms present in either of these layers would more likely point to fairly recent eolian transport/deposition than salt-water flooding. This hypothesis is also consistent with the edge rounding you mentioned. Diatoms tend to get blown about quite a bit — witness the presence of marine diatoms in the Antarctic, Sahara, inland Greenland, etc. See Wind-Blown Diatoms in Antarctic Ice Cores: Provenance Indicators of former storm tracks or Glacial/interglacial variations in the flux of atmospherically transported diatoms in Taylor Dome ice core. Also, see bibliography for an extensive list of references concerning eolian transport of diatoms. (With many thanks to Patrick for the references).
On another (but related) subject: did you have the opportunity to conduct soil chemistry analyses at your sample sites? If the composition is similar to other ~10,000 year-old marine deposition sites, you could rule out eolian transport for the diatoms. Another possible piece of evidence would be the presence of remnants from other marine organisms. Were there any other indicators from your sample sites?In other news:

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
if the cause was a major change in climate or a global flood, it is be expected that the extinctions occurred at the same time even if dating seems to indicate otherwise

---

On the contrary, the two hypothesis are not congruent. A global flood such as you postulate would be a temporally restricted "point" extinction event (otherwise we'd see significantly more evidence, including large scale marine sedimentation on the continental landmasses, etc, which is conspicuous by its absence). In addition, all the critters all over the world would have gone *poof* at roughly the same time.A climate change effecting different regions at different points in time is more consistent with the evidence. Again, the temporal congruence with the arrival of humans in a particular region is an interesting coincidence, wouldn't you say? There is evidence, again from Australia, that humans were present almost 15,000 years before the extinctions began. Archeological studies have shown that the original inhabitants were primarily coastal dwellers. It isn't until somewhat later that the presence of humans in the interior began to show up - oddly enough, around the time Genyornis went belly-up and Diprotodon started getting scarce - at the same time (from pollen studies) the interior started to dry out. Hmmm. Possibly significant correlation there?

quote:

---

What it appears to have happened is the flood started in late fall, and occurred in winter time in the northern hemisphere when the trees were dormant and ended before the spring. Thus it is very possible for a global flood to have occurred and to have left no gap in the tree ring record, if it was brief enough.

---

I didn't discuss dendochronology. I pointed out there was a gradual change in forest type - indicating a slow change in climate, rather than a catalclysm. What evidence do you have for this scenario? I agree that the creationist view of a noachian flood would certainly "rip up the earth", though.Thanks for the references on drop stones in the Atlantic. My question is how do they provide evidence for your global flood rather than a normal consequence of the extent of the Laurentide ice sheet, which covered a fair amount of that area? It certainly seems likely that the ice sheets themselves could have deposited them, although I haven't had a chance to get copies of the books you referenced.With reference to the "ark effect" (neat turn of phrase), you said:

quote:

---

The point I was making about these extinction rates is they are lowest in the area where Noah is believed to have built the ark, and are progressively higher farther away. Which is why it is not mysterious that some animals survived in Europe and not in America, call it the ark effect.

---

Whoa! Up to now we were discussing the evidence for (or against) an actual geophysical event (a global flood at the end of the last ice age). Start dragging in Noah and the other Genesis fairy stories, you're now arguing biblical inerrancy. Worse, you're implying that your entire premise rests on the shaky foundation of a 2700-year-old myth that, by your own dating, could only have been written 7000+ years after the events depicted occurred!!!! I guess I have to ask: which is it? A biblical apologetic or a scientific hypothesis?

wmscott: I forgot to add:Were you aware of the other explanation for the freshwater spike in the Gulf? Showers, W.J., and Bevis, M., 1988. "Amazon Cone isotopic stratigraphy: evidence for the source of the tropical freshwater spike" (Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol., ODP pub ref: 64:189199). Their interpretation is that it reflects an increased Amazon freshwater discharge into the Gulf, which probably resulted from increased rainfall activity rather than from tropical glacier melting (northern to central Andes) during deglaciation and the end of the ice age. This makes sense as the Amazon plume normally extends northwestward well into the Caribbean. Apparently this is the original source of the core samples you referenced.

quote:

---

Quetzal-I am not arguing that all the extinct ice age animals died at the end of the ice age.

---

Actually, you did more or less. You've argued that the Pleistocene extinctions were the result of a global flood at the end of the last ice age. I'd be willing to concede this minor point except for the fact that the termination dates for various regions are almost (except NA and SA) exclusively BEFORE the actual Pleistocene/Holocene boundary.

quote:

---

I looked over the web sites and found one interesting note. "a recent paper in Science argued that the last megafauna died out almost 42,000 years ago, but dating of snail shells from the Burra site suggests the skeletons may be closer to 33,000 years old." That would change the date on this particular find by 9,000 years. As I have been saying there is a lot of play in these dates.

---

If you note carefully, the old date was based on older methodology. However, this is besides the point: at NO site in Australia are any of the extinct fauna found younger than 26,000 ya. BTW: The TIMS-U and AAR, not to mention modern (i.e., advances over the last 10 years) C14 methodology, figures are highly accurate.

quote:

---

We have no way of knowing if this find was the last of his species to die, or if in the future it will be found that our dating needs to be adjusted because of this newly discovered effect of this or that. And as I have been saying, the Australia having much earlier dating on the Pleistocene extinctions in general has always seemed strange to me, and I will question it until someone can come up with a very good reason for it.

---

I’m not going to continue quibbling over the dates. You can either accept cross-correlated dates using multiple methodologies plus archeological evidence, or not. Rejecting it simply means you are attempting to ignore data that refute one element of your hypothesis.

quote:

---

But what I am mainly concerned with here is the terminal phase of the extinctions, a sudden dropping of the curtain on these animals at the end of the ice age. The fact that some of them died off before hand, considering the length of the ice age and rates on normal extinctions, is not surprising.

---

Two things here:
1. What are you calling rates on normal extinctions?
2. Specific dating aside, what is important to realize is that the pattern of extinctions in the various regions is inconsistent with a point extinction event such as a global flood. In Eurasia we see a pattern that is moderate and staggered over time, in Australia we see a pattern that is over a relatively long time frame, and severe, in North and South America we see extremely short time frame and extremely severe. The average termination date is different in each region, from the oldest (Australia at around 35,000 ya) to the newest (South America around 8,000 ya), with Eurasia in the middle (and in fact the latter may have occurred in two or more waves, although there’s not huge amounts of evidence yet).

quote:

---

On diatoms and soil. The soil here has a topsoil layer that varies but is usually composed of a mixture of clay/sand with organic material. The layer below that is clay, of a glacial loss type common to this part of Wisconsin, or a sand gravel glacial till mix of varying depths. This soil is laid on top a a general limestone bed rock base that may be exposed in some places or buried hundreds of feet below the surface. I would have to look up the chemical composition some where, but I would expect a high amount of silicon oxides from the Canada shield and ground up rock from everything else the glaciers rode over to get here, ground up limestone, etc. The loss soil here may have been deposited by wind or water. the diatoms however only are found on the original surface exposed at the end of the ice age.

---

Do you mean the sample depths are at bedrock? Or do you mean found on moraines/gravel till? On the chemistry, I was looking more for non-soluble trace elements that could only have come from exposure to seawater.

quote:

---

I have no problem with diatoms being carried by the wind.

---

Good, I wasn’t sure you’d eliminated that possibility.

quote:

---

The one here that I have found were not deposited in that manner. If they had been they would be found throughout the soil or at least on the modern surface everywhere.

---

Not necessarily, although that would have been my first call, as well. A lot depends on storm tracks, wind patterns, etc if the glaciers didn’t deposit them. Quite a few marine diatoms have been found in inland glacier cores — which are indicative of eolian deposition.

quote:

---

Areas where the surface has been disturbed have no diatoms, which if the wind was the source, they would have had them.

---

Do you mean no diatoms or no marine diatoms? To quibble a bit, the sample depth doesn’t preclude eolian deposition.

quote:

---

And no, the soil here is glacial till and loss, no marine clays. I have found at this point no other signs of marine life, but then diatoms is what I was focused on.

---

Too bad, that would have been a really good piece of evidence for your theory.

quote:

---

But looking at the relative abundance of marine life, the odds of finding other larger traces are progressively much smaller as the size increases. traces Of course we do have the Michigan whale bones which I am sure we are tired of talking about.

---

quote:

---

On the flood as an extinction cause, you stated, "A global flood such as you postulate would be a temporally restricted "point" extinction event (otherwise we'd see significantly more evidence, including large scale marine sedimentation on the continental landmasses, etc, which is conspicuous by its absence). In addition, all the critters all over the world would have gone *poof* at roughly the same time." The flood was too short to deposit much sediment except for a thin dusting of diatoms and an occasional anomalous marine fossil, and where would it have washed from anyway in a global flood?

---

Why would this be so unless we’re dealing with eolian or glacial deposition? There should be at least some additional traces, even for a short-duration seawater flood as you hypothesize. I’m honestly not trying to force the data to fit eolian deposition. It’s just that without corroborating evidence to tie the diatoms into some other traces of a flood (sediments, marine fossils or traces, soil chemistry indicative of saltwater immersion, etc), it’s hard to see the diatoms you found as indicative of a flood. Even given that your samples were, in fact, obtained from strata contemporaneous with the end of the ice (and I’ll happily take your word for it), without corroboration eolian or glacial deposition remains the most likely explanation. Sorry.BTW: I don’t have any problem with the Michigan whalebones (although I'd appreciate a reference since I hadn't read that one). Since it represents a single find from a single site, I would consider it an anomaly. If you found a number of such sites scattered across the northern US, then I would cheerfully re-examine the finds as pretty good evidence of some kind of seawater incursion.

quote:

---

On gradual ice age climate change. there was a long warming period leading up the sudden end, and afterwards more gradual changes. The flooding was temporary and not a long term climate factor in its self, and the secondary effects would have a gradual influence over time. the earth has a huge climate system which responds slowly to even sudden changes.

---

Okay, given a short duration flood, there would be little or no climatic impact. Still, you haven’t given a reasonable explanation of why flora weren’t impacted. Even a short (year? How long?) immersion will kill most trees.

quote:

---

On your question "shaky foundation of a 2700-year-old myth that, by your own dating, could only have been written 7000+ years after the events depicted occurred!!!! I guess I have to ask: which is it? A biblical apologetic or a scientific hypothesis?" If the flooding event at the end of the ice age is real, then that myth is real too. As I have stated I favor the biblical date for the flood and the bible book of Genesis was written using earlier records from the eye witnesses of the events handed down as written accounts or as oral family history. My book and theory are on the science side of the street, but I do deal with the religious side as well. With this event it would be almost impossible not to. Think of it as scientific findings confirming the biblical account of the flood, similar to biblical archeology findings showing the historical accuracy of the bible.

---

I don’t even think we should go down this road. Let’s stick to the science, which you at least have some chance of confirming or falsifying. The Bible is waaay out there past science.

quote:

---

The Amazon water plume is a new one to me, increased meltwater run off in the Mississippi river due to increased melting of the ice sheet due to a sudden southern push resulting a much higher rate of melting is the standard accepted cause. to differentiate between these to possible sources it would be necessary to know the location of the respective cores and know the current flow pattern at the time the deposits were made. I assume the respective researchers did this and perhaps we are talking about two difference sets of cores. On the other hand, the Andes mountains had some extensive mountain glaciers which also disappeared into the sea at end of the ice age as well, so the source may not be as important as the effect.

---

Yep. Actually, I don’t think it much matters one way or the other (except maybe to oceanographers). Which brings me back to my previous question: How does the spike, whether from the Mississippi — and there’s a fair amount of evidence that the river did flood severely at the end of the ice age — or the Amazon, provide evidence for a global flood?

wmscott:

quote:

---

Quetzal-On the Pleistocene extinctions were almost (except NA and SA) exclusively BEFORE the actual Pleistocene/Holocene boundary.

​

wmscott:
As I have said before, I believe some of the dates on when some of the Ice age animals went extinct maybe to earlier, and the fact that some of them died off before hand is to be expected and is not contrary to what I am theorizing.

---

quote:

---

On Pleistocene extinction, I like your statement, "in North and South America we see extremely short time frame and extremely severe." it seems that for half of the world we are in agreement, the rest could be dating problems or maybe they did just die off earlier.

---

I think you're indavertently misconstruing both the data I've presented and the statement you quoted. My fault for not being more clear, perhaps.1. Australia: extinction event ENDS 20,000 years before the boundary. NO extinctions were noted AT the end of the ice age. In other words, the critters that were present at the LGM remain present PAST the boundary and up to recent times.2. Eurasia: extinction event(s) END 3,000 years before the retreat of the Wurm glaciers.3. North America: extinctions take place in less than 1000 years right on the boundary (11,000-10,000 ya). Critters that were present during the ice age and LGM ceased to exist practically overnight. There are fossils before this date, but NO traces AFTER this date.4. South America: extinctions take place ~8000 ya, IOW 3-4000 years AFTER the retreat of the glaciers.None of the extinctions take place - worldwide - in a six-month period corresponding to the northern hemisphere winter, as you suggest. Even the "shortest" mass die-off takes place over almost a thousand years! There is literally no way you can compress all the extinctions - especially as "selective" as they appear - into one single short-duration event. Not only are the extinctions separated spacially, they are separated temporally and DIFFERENT REGIONS HAVE DIFFERENT TIMETABLES. Let me know if you still don't understand this distinction.

quote:

---

On "rates on normal extinctions" on a planet as diverse as the earth is, a number of living species die off and others arise as a steady rate over time. What the 'normal' rate for this is no one really knows, it is argued that human intervention in our time is causing an above normal extinction rate.

---

This is incorrect. The reason we call the Late Pleistocene die-off an extinction event is because there was a relatively stable period for the first 700,000 years, wherein only a very few genera went extinct, then we have a mass die-off of taxa over the course of the next 40,000 years. The fossil record does not support a "steady rate over time" of extinctions.I do agree with you that there is evidence rates of extinction have skyrocketed in the last thousand years or so. A good case could be made for a new "extinction event" occuring before our eyes. I wonder if future paleontologists (if any) will be arguing over the causes of the Holocene Extinction?

quote:

---

The sample cores were taken of the surface soil, the top few inches down.

---

I guess I would have to know the soil stratiography at the sample sites. You have stated previously that the samples were taken from layers representing the surface as it was 10,000 ya. On what are you basing this determination? Also, surface soils (exposed or disturbed soils) are open to contamination from many sources. It's hard to judge where your diatoms logically came from without some additional info. There's too much chance of sampling error (as Joe T and PS418 have pointed out).

quote:

---

What marine trace elements are you thinking of?

---

You really need a specialist soil lab to make a good chemical analysis - which would be able to tell you whether the sample had suffered seawater intrusion at some point. However, soils that have had exposure to seawater usually have elevated pH, are more saline, contain higher than normal concentrations of boron and carbonates (which are water soluble and therefore may not be indicative after 10,000 years), and traces of Mg, Sr, Mn, Fe, Zn, Cu, and Ni. Your best bet would be to get a hydrogeologist to look at the samples.

quote:

---

Quetzal: "How does the spike, whether from the Mississippi — and there's a fair amount of evidence that the river did flood severely at the end of the ice age — or the Amazon, provide evidence for a global flood?"

​

wmscott: It shows that the glaciers were releasing very large amounts of water back into the sea at this time and that a sudden huge release was very possible, and the peak of the spike may very well be the record of that release.

---

Actually, all this shows is that two of the major rivers draining a substantial portion of two continents massively increased flows at the same time. This is actually consistent with the "normal" end of the ice age when both the NA continental ice sheets retreated and the Andean glaciers melted. BTW: The Amazon flow was probably related to increased rainfall due to climate change rather than glacial melt. It has little or no relevance for a "global" flood hypothesis (either for or against).

Hi Patriclk!I'd like to add a question on to Patricks discussion of the lack of evidence for a bolide impact on either ice sheet. Wouldn't the remnants of the sheets themselves at the appropriate layer show evidence of shock fractures? AFAIK, the Greenland studies have shown no such anomalies. Admittedly, my knowledge of how a glacier would react to impact is limited, but there should be some evidence, n'est-ce pas?

Hi Patriclk!I'd like to add a question on to Patrick's discussion of the lack of evidence for a bolide impact on either ice sheet. Wouldn't the remnants of the sheets themselves at the appropriate layer show evidence of shock fractures? AFAIK, the Greenland studies have shown no such anomalies. Admittedly, my knowledge of how a glacier would react to impact is limited, but there should be some evidence, n'est-ce pas?