Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

wmscottI have had quick reads of your posts and, in the interest of time, I have not had a careful read. I plan to however. For now, can you give a succinct paragraph or two on your position (see my succint paragrph on YEC flood geology in my new education thread for an example).What exactly is impossible in the YEC flood stance?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2002]

wmscottI do not particularly believe in a flood associated 'canopy' or underground water sources. The sea-level curves show that most (if not all) of the earth has been underwater and I have no reason to doubt that rapid sea-floor spreading can achieve the same results as mainstream expectations.OK, so you align the flood with a Pleistocene iceage. Makes sense. We of course believe that these occurred rapidly after the flood due to a volcanic ash genrated nuclear winter much like your comet theory would.Presumably you can not get a glacial flood that covers Everest if your mountains were not recently formed like ours.We agree that the earth's current surface was shaped by glacial melting. But we have this on top of much larger features carved out by the retreat of the global flood.Why does one need to rip up 'the entire surface of the earth, rocks, hills, mountains and keep them all in suspension with only the water the earth has'? We have 1500 years of life (trivial geological record) possibly with very flat terrain. There could be plate slippage surges and intervenning calms.Who knows how many decades of life there was between the flood and the end of the iceages - the Mammoth bone huts are post flood for us, but maybe pre-glacial melting. We simply do not deny the reality of glacial melting and in our scenario it was very quick due to ash fallout.I don't see why YECs should expect to see the same deposits on the ocean floor. For a start only the early-spreading segments were around at the start of the flood. Sediment is primarily continental and would end up in continental basins and contiental shelves surely.I understand your POV although I feel it is not as strong as you expect. Please email me your book and I will read it. I see OEC as a very understandable attempt to unify the Bible and mainstream interpretations. I ultimately believe sceince is on our side but it is a complicated reconstruction for all of us.You presumably believe in progressive creation or theistic evolution? Which of these? And what of the origin of mankind?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-03-2002]

WmScottI wouldn't say the flood was caused by the mid-Atlantic ridge itself - that was just a part of it. It was a global series of sea-floor spreading (primarily the atlantic/pacific, sure), continental plate separations, crustal heating, mantel heating and hot spots.I'm not a geologist so it's not my theory. I just go along with the mainstream view (!) and speed it up via either Baumgardner et al runaway subduction or accelerated radioisotpoic decay or both. There seriously is no more to it than that.I agree with mainstream geology in so many ways - just not on timing. I disagree with your later post where you say that if YEC was true mainstremers would have to throw away everything. No, No, No. Sorry but that is wrong because I already am a YEC and I go along with almost all of mainstream geology with one exception - timing. Yes there is a gross misinterpretation of the rate and even nature of formation of sediments. No argument there.Why you ditch a speed up of mainstream processes because you can't personally think of a mechanism is what surprises me most about OE-Creationism. Do you have a mechanism for the parting of the red sea? Do you have a mechanism for the resurrection?But amazingly we do have a basic mechanism, or at least the source of impulse of energy. The very biggest problem of YEC (radiodecay) provides the mechanism - the heat source. Just as a baby would never be born if the hormone levels (relaxin etc) were not spiked during birth, so to is it possible to completely misinterpret timing if you ignore the spike in radiodecay.If you think the qualitative mainstream models of sea-floor spreading or continental drift distinguish between a gradual event and a catastrophic radiogenic heat accelerated event you are mistaken IMO. The mainstream predictions do not deterministically reproduce the continents or rule out a rapid drift! See my early thread on plate tectonics. How do you know what behaviour the plates would have sitting on a much hotter mantel? The mainstream model is a fitting to the data not a proof from data. What of the 'fountains of the deep' - sounds like plumes to me. God may know even more about this planet than we do!Your 'would haves' and 'impossibles' are the rationalizations required to fit a particular a priori gradualistic model. They are not independent studies of what the raw data says. They are data fits for a given framework. Ditto for your analysis of glaciation timing.OK - at least you say the YEC model is not without merit.When was your flood? Are you seriously suggesting that all of the mountain ranges were that low, that recently using mainstream rates? I think this is the fundamental flaw in your argeument. Your ice arguement appears very contrived as the sciptures discuss the height of the rising floodwaters relative to local hills, plains and global mountains.I agree the thousands of feet of sediment were ripped up pre-flood surface. It's just that there was no need to particularly have to do this everywhere. Basins probably have unconfomrities pretty much representing the pre-flood surface.Your strata as sea-floor habitats are mainstream hope. The data in so many ways suggests that these marine strata were not true habitats. Paleocurrents, flatness and lack of mixing by burrowing. We find one-off burrows in the millions but the strata are un-mixied unlike true marine habitats.Have you seen the evidence for rapid formation of strata under rapid flow? It is undeniable.Have you seen my quotes of mainstream texts admitting that layering can and often does occur in 'hours, minutes and seconds'?Are you aware that turbidite deposits represent about half of the geo-column?Your argument suggesting gradual formation of strata does not rule out rapid formaiton at all. Why wouldn't one expect rapid formation of strata to bury living inddividuals? I have even seen mainsteam lecture notes where they suggest that marine strata are probably storm deposits becasue the strata just don't look like sea-floor habitats!I think gravity and rapid flow solves your angle to vertical issue. The horizontally inclined paleocurrents of course demonsrate that much of the geo-col was laid rapidly.I don't see why you expect the flood to drag the same amount of sediment thousands of miles out to sea as is found on continental shelves! It will be a gradual drop of as the sea floor deepens and as the distance from sediment source increases.