Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

wmscott writes:

---

I also noted that you did not counter me on any of my points, I have to assume that you are unable to do so on at least some of them.

---

You'd assume wrong. I said I was changing tack. It's a sure sign of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expect something different to happen. After trying for a considerable period to convince you of the lack of evidence for your viewpoints, I've decided it's not within my power to do so. And so I've decided to instead help you whip your paper into shape. However, I'll modify my previous approach of pretending to be a kind-hearted reviewer to include my personal objections.

---

"of in situ CaCO3 substitution. Please provide references."

​

My first reference of course would be the geology book "The Pleistocene; Geology and Life in the Quaternary Ice Age" by Tage Nilsson 1983, p.304)

---

Books are normally considered secondary literature.

---

and the following articles.

​

Olson, E.A. (ms), 1963. The problem of sample contamination in radiocarbon dating. Unpublished Phd dissertation, Columbia University, New York.

​

Taylor, R. E., 1982. Problems in the Radiocarbon dating of bone. In L.A. Currie (ed), Nuclear and Chemical Dating Techniques: Interpreting the Environmental Record,pp453-473. Washington DC, American Chemical Society.

---

These references have two problems:

1. They're far too old to offer in support of a significant contributor to uncertainty that's not currently recognized.
   ​
2. There's no indication that they deal with carbon substitution in CaCO₃ due to groundwater. Have you actually read these?

There are a few significant reasons why I don't believe this process is significant, if it happens at all:

1. Except for Targ Nilsson, it isn't mentioned anywhere, and the example he provides of reindeer antlers is problematic for you. First, antlers aren't bone. That doesn't mean that the same exact thing doesn't happen to both, but you can't assume it does. You can't even assume that bones from all species behave the same. Maybe they do, but you can't assume it, you (or someone you reference) has to demonstrate this.
   ​
   Second, his problem is that the antlers in question dated far too young at 10-12,000 years BP. We don't know the age of the strata he was working in (if you go back to Nilsson's book you can probably find out), but the maximum extent of radiocarbon dating is around 50,000 years BP, so if they were at most 50,000 years old then he has an error of 400%. But you need an error of 1000%!
   ​
   But that's not the end of your problems. If his bones were actually 50,000 years old then whatever groundwater reactions were taking place with the antlers had 50,000 years to work and effect a 400% error. But your bones are supposedly at most 10,000 years old, so you need a much faster process to cause more than twice as much error in just a fifth the time.
   ​
2. This process simply isn't going to take place, where once again the CO₂ on the left contains new carbon and that on the right contains old:
   ​

   CaCO₃ + CO₂ => CaCO₃ + CO₂

   ​
   You instead need something to break down the calcite, for instance sulfuric acid from acid rain reacting with it to form calcium sulfate:
   ​

   CaCO₃ + H₂SO₄ => H₂O + CO₂ + CaSO₄

   ​
   Now you can perhaps combine the calcium sulfate with the CO₂ that contains the new carbon:
   ​

   CaSO₄ + CO₂ => CaCO₃ + CO₃ + S

   ​
   But this reaction is not going to take place at the same site within the bone where sulfuric acid just dissolved the calcite. The dissolved calcium sulfate will first have to travel to a site of lower sulfuric acid concentration. In other words, the reaction won't take place in situ. Anything that dissolves the calcite is in effect dissolving the bone. Perhaps new carbon from groundwater attaches to what is left, but it would be readily apparent that significant reactions with the environment had taken place simply by the bone's appearance.
   ​
   Now, I'm no chemist, so you can't trust my reaction equations, but what you need are references to papers which *do* describe reactions that are somehow replacing the carbon in situ.
   ​
3. Sea floor sediments are submerged all the time, and the sea has an old carbon load, maybe 400 years or so. If the carbon substitution you propose were actually taking place then all sea floor cores older than 400 years would date way too young.
   ​
4. Once you demonstrate a process that can replace carbon in situ, it still remains for you to demonstrate that this is what happened to the whale bones in Michigan. Competent and reputable labs C-14 labs are intimately familiar with potential sources of error and are trained to recognize when they might come into play. The whale bones have already been dated to be 900 years old by a lab that presumably knows all about sources of error. Even if you were precisely right about carbon substitution, all it would mean is that the whale bones dated to younger than 900 years and then the adjustment for error yielded the 900 year figure. If the labs screwed this one up you're going to have to in some way demonstrate this.
   ​
   There is no independent evidence that would cause one to suspect the whale bones are older than 900 years. You just want them to be because you're on an evidence hunt.

---

"Never heard of Wisconsian glaciation being worldwide. Please provide primary references."

​

...The Pleistocene glacial stages were earth wide in their effects in that they are believed to have covered 30% of the land with glacial ice and as a direct result lowered sea level by over a hundred feet.

---

The part I was responding to and that I even quoted in my response was, "It should be remembered that in the ice age all the mountainous areas were glaciated..." My response asked you to support this assertion, since it is certainly not the current understanding that "all the mountainous areas were glaciated". For example, many mountains in the Alaska region were unglaciated, not because it wasn't cold enough, but because it was too dry. Many mountains located near the equator weren't glaciated.A more significant problem for you is that glaciers generally don't form on mountains, they form in mountain valleys. They only cover mountains after the valleys are filled, and not even then if the mountain's height and regional climate make it too dry. There is no evidence that all mountains too high to be covered by water were covered by glaciers, and no non-Biblical reason to assert this anyway. I recommend that you limit yourself to the evidence and drop the assertion that water or glaciers covered all parts of the earth. I know this is important to you, but save it for another time if you want your paper published. You don't need to accomplish everything in a single paper, and in fact a sequence of papers gradually revealing your complete theory is more desireable.Because of the misunderstanding, the references you provided aren't relevant.

---

"Unaware of contrapuntal depression due to adjacent rise. Please provide primary references."

​

You misstated the question,...

---

You misstated the statement - there was a grammatical error, leaving me guessing which way you meant it. But it has no real effect on the discussion.There's no dispute about any of the evidence you mention about rebound from glacial weight. In fact, if you read Message 308 you'll see I describe an example of the same thing.This is what is questionable:

---

Also that the depression of a tropical ocean area, will due to displacement can cause a rise in adjoining areas.

---

What you need is for ocean floor depression off, say, the coast of South America to cause a rise of a mile of two in the nearby Andes in a very short period of time. The kind of effects that http://home.comset.net/aaman63/glacial/ is talking about are very small and very slow in relationship to your requirements.The need to accelerate processes by orders of magnitude in time and effect is a common YEC issue, and you're going to have to justify not only the process but the reason for the requirement for the process. Because this again traces back to Biblical requirements for a global water cover I recommend that you leave it out of the initial paper.

---

What about the Galapagos tortoises? They are quite large (500 lbs) and obviously were rafted to the islands from at least South America.

---

Though it's not relevant, their average size is well less than 500 lbs. More relevant is that, unlike mammals, tortoises do not care for their young, and young tortoises survive on their own. Weighing less than half a pound at birth, and probably less than 10 lbs for a number of years after birth, they would have little trouble rafting to the islands. Perhaps it's even possible for eggs to be swept from mainland to island and from island to island. Genetic analysis hints at more than one colonization event (http://members.tripod.com/~dcarson/galapagos_tortoises.html).You're going to need some strong references to support your contention that large land mammals rafted. This is all so obviously Biblical that I recommend leaving it out of the paper.

---

I would suggest referring to the works of Stephen Jay Gould who had a theory called Punctuated Equilibrium. The following link is about this, and appears to possibly have been written by you or at least by your long lost twin since the author has similar background and interests. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/punk_eek.html[/b]

---

Hmmm. I don't think I've said anything about my background or interests, but thanks for the compliment! I'm not Don Lindsay, but I've visited his website several times and I think his writing is very clear and succinct.

​

Of course I'm familiar with PE, and perhaps PE explains some post ice age changes, but you're confusing process with evidence. If there is any evidence of a genetic bottleneck 10,000 years ago then you need to reference it in order to support your contention that all land species were decimated to very small populations at that time.

​

---

On the total lack of Neanderthal genes in Homo Sapiens Sapiens despite the fossil evidence of such in the past. A news link on this,...

---

​

I'm already familiar with the Neandertal information, and you misunderstood the portion I was objecting to. You said, "We have direct evidence of this genetic bottleneck in the results of genetic testing with ice age genes that do not appear in modern populations such as the total lack of Neanderthal genes in Homo Sapiens Sapiens despite the fossil evidence of such in the past." It was the last part about fossil evidence of the presence of Neandertal genes in Homo sapiens that you're going to need a reference for, if it's really true.

​

---

First none of what is posted here is planned to go into my paper...Also if we want to use this format, I should only cover one point as I would do in a paper. Also this post and its references were thrown together, where as a paper has to have the precision of a Swiss watch. Perhaps in my next post I can do more of focused paper type approach.

---

​

Great! Looking forward to it.

​

--Percy

wmscott writes:

---

Yes the effects seen and looked for in glacial bulging are fairly small, but they are real and do happen. The depression of an ocean floor could cause a rise in nearby land, the question is how much it would rise and how long would it take. If there was a sudden depression of ocean floor, there would be a sudden rise in the land, the displacement has to go somewhere. We can argue about rates later, for now I will be content with having shown the effect.

---

Okay, but don't say I didn't warn you when the paper gets shot down over this. You need either references that contain the data showing the effect on this scale, or you need to supply the data yourself (which would be landmark, deserving of a paper all by itself). Absent either one it's a major hole, and you'd be best advised not to mention this.

---

In the ice age the temperature was lower which lowered the snow line and the extent to which glaciers could grow down the sides of mountains and from cold regions into somewhat warmer ones.

---

Glaciers do not typically form on the sides of mountains. While conditions can be such as to cause a glacier to form anywhere, they typically form in high mountain valleys and flow toward lower elevations from there. Only when the rate of ice accumulation consistently exceeds the flow rate even at higher elevations do they grow over mountain peaks.

---

Many areas that were once thought to be ice free are now being recognized as having been glaicated.

---

Then you need references for this.

---

As you point out, there may have been some high elevations in areas so dry that any snow that fell sublimed away long before it could create glaciers. If it can be proved that such high dry spots were NEVER glaciated, and shown that they were at a high elevation at the time, then they could be a problem.

---

You'll need to argue this the other way around in the paper. Normally one wouldn't conclude glaciation without evidence. This is key. Saying that a mountain was glaciated unless it can be proven it wasn't will kill your paper.About carbon flushing, you're going to get killed here without references indicating the effect. Obviously if dating labs aren't aware of these effects then you should be very cautious. I suggest you forget the whale bones.--Percy

wmscott writes:

---

You are correct on all points of course. Writing a paper is very different than posting and requires a different approach, one in which everything is nailed down very tight and backed up by dozens of solid references. Where as posting is more like a conversation.

---

Uh, why should anyone be more likely to accept something scientifically improbable during a conversation? Is that why you kept expecting us to be persuaded, you figured we shouldn't be picky about the science because this is just a message board?This message board is about science, and I think most us are applying strict scientific standards to the extent we're able in every exchange. From a scientific standpoint your proposals are obviously Biblically, not evidentially, based, as are your interpretations of the data. In fact, your interpretations are way off the deep end. Evidence of large glacial flows to you becomes evidence of a global flood. Unexplained phenomena only make sense to you in terms of a global flood. Any contradicting evidence (dating comes to mind) must be erroneous.Your most frequent error is extreme over-generalization. If subsidence can cause small amounts of reciprocal uplift, then the effect can be multiplied by a few orders of magnitude and applied everywhere. If dropstones occur in the driftless area then dropstones must occur everywhere. If dating errors have occurred, then dating errors must occur everywhere.And your biggest error is thinking that if your theory requires something to have happened then it must have happened, like comets being responsible for the Carolina Bays.

---

Getting the information I need on Mina mounds is going to take awhile, state budget problems have the inter library loan program all jammed up for the moment. So it is going to take me a while to put anything together, and I think I am falling under summer's spell as well. the weather is just too nice and I have other demands on my time, like getting back to doing research.

---

No surprise. You'd be well advised to give up on the paper submission idea. I know no one has been able to persuade you that your views are unscientific, and the persistence and ingenuity you bring to the discussion are admirable, but the measure of validity of your ideas is their power to persuade others. You haven't convinced anyone here that there is any non-Biblical support or evidence for your ideas, and you seem to realize that the standards of a journal would be higher. Though I think you're wrong about this - I think the standards here are much the same, primarily a requirement for evidence rationally and coherently interpreted in a way consistent with already established theories and principles.I'd love to see you and Tranquility Base have a discussion because you both advocate so calmly and rationally for the most outlandish ideas. He could press you on his proposals for paleocurrents laying down countless geologic layers in a month's time combined with God's manipulation of natural laws to cause the appearance of great age, while you could counter with massive sub-glacial melts and cometary fusillades. It would make great theater.--Percy

wmscott writes:

---

But I do not wish to destroy his belief system and I respect his motivation even if his science is dead wrong.

---

About the science, he could as easily say the same of you, and I say it of you both.

---

But I doubt he could let go of YEC which is in conflict with scripture anyway.

---

He looks at scripture and concludes the world is young, you look at scripture and conclude the world is old. You both need to look to evidence from the real world instead of to ancient religious books.

---

I know you think we are both wrong, but I think you will agree that at least my theory comes much closer to being acceptable than his position. With his, the basic theory is physically impossible, where as with mine, it is a matter of whether or not it actually happened.

---

Both your theories are equally implausible, and I see nothing to recommend either one. While they differ in the details, they are nearly identical in their lack of any practical ties to the real world.

---

In fact, I seem to be the one doing more of the leg work. Many here seem to sit on their orthodox position like a throne and just snipe snipe snipe.

---

You consider pointing out your lack of evidence as mere sniping? Until you accept the need for a pertinent and persuasive chain of evidence, you're going nowhere. You're proposing a theory of a global flood that left no evidence. No evidence. No evidence. No evidence. How many times do we have to explain there is no scientific basis for your theory? No evidence.Now I know you think you have a ton of evidence, that how could there be over 300 messages if there were no evidence. But reply after reply after reply is telling you that the evidence you're presenting does not lead to the conclusions you're drawing.No one can say why the evidence speaks to you the way it does, but the same evidence speaks to TB in another way, and to Walt Brown in yet another way, and to Michael Behe in yet still another way, and to Henry Morris, God rest his soul, in yet still another way. What you all have in common is the complicated dance you must perform in order to justify yourself to yourself. This dance must be for yourself, because no one in science is buying your dance, or TB's dance, or Walt Brown's dance, and so on and on. The mere fact that looking to scripture for scientific answers yields such a confusion of viewpoints is sufficient to indicate the poverty of the approach to anyone, even the participants, but for some strange reason likely having to do with human nature and the nature of belief, it is least obvious to those caught up in its throes.I urge both you and TB to follow the evidence. If there was truly a flood some thousands of years ago then the evidence will tell us so.--Percy

​

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

I think we've been over all this ground before. As I've already said, I don't think it's within my power to persuade you that your evidence provides no support for your conclusions.I'm willing to provide feedback about which of your arguments are sufficiently supported by evidence and argument to merit inclusion in a technical paper, even though I believe this a naive and foolhardy exercise, but it might help you better understand the necessary rigor of true science. But since you've given up on that perhaps you'll find the perspectives of a fellow Creationist more helpful.About your test paper, I don't think I could give you any feedback you'd find helpful, but perhaps you might explore other avenues to get a feel for technical writing. When Isaac Asimov was in grad school he practiced writing a technical paper by first producing one about a fictional substance entitled "The Endochronic Properties of Resubliminated Thiotimoline." Dig out a copy and give it read. It's not at all rigorous the way a real scientific paper would be, but it's entertaining and accessible while still providing a flavor of what real scientific research papers are like. Or perhaps you read the abstract Joe Meert posted recently of Stephen Austin's mainstream geology paper. A bit full of numbers, wouldn't you say?--Percy

Hi, Wmscott!We spend all our discussion in disagreement, so I thought it important to tell you I thought the last few paragraphs of your post, where you listed the evidence that persuades you the earth is an ancient place, was extremely well argued and supported.--Percy

Wmscott,--Percy

I suggest you get validation of your interpretations from professional biologists and geologists. Normally one does this by presenting one's findings to one's peers in journals and at conferences, not at obscure bulletin boards.--Percy

wmscott writes: Since I am a amateur scientist, I don't have that luxury, so I use this board to air my opinions and see if anyone can point out the holes in my ideas to me.

Though you often cite evidence, it only rarely supports your ideas, so most of your ideas are unsupported by relevant evidence. Though this is frequently and repeatedly pointed out to you, rather than acknowledging this and gathering more evidence you instead argue that the evidence does so support your views. In other words, it doesn't matter what we say. After more than 400 messages all you've demonstrated is persistence and an inability to interpret evidence. I think you're less looking for feedback than for a pulpit.

Once I have completed this, I hopefully will have results that will interest leading scientific journals.

We've heard this paper talk before. If any of this sees print I'm sure it will once again be self-published. Your book isn't exactly taking the Creationist world by storm. The only websites where I could find it mentioned were this one, a few booksellers and one library. If you can't even get Creationists intrigued, how are you going to convince scientists?--Percy

wmscott writes: You are not living up to your screen name.

My screen name isn't spelled i-n-f-i-n-i-t-e-p-a-t-i-e-n-c-e. It has been over 400 messages on this thread now.

In your last post you even commented on my recent finding of tektites, now you say that I am not looking for evidence.

I was, of course, referring to your fanciful interpretations in earlier discussions, such as that animals survived the flood by rafting, that comets collapsed entire ice sheets, that mountains rose miles and sea floors sank leagues. You once offered about the best summary I've ever seen in defense of an ancient earth in a short-lived exchange with TB (if I had more time there would be "post of the month" awards, and that one definitely would have won), but when it comes to your pet ideas your imagination and mental discipline is wilder than a five-year old's. And then you top it off by going off to find even more evidence to misinterpret.The reason all your ideas are so outlandish is because of your starting premise. You reason that Noah's flood is a fact, it must have happened, there's no way it couldn't have happened, the world was once completely covered with H2O, and with that as your stake in the ground you try to figure out what must therefore have happened, and you'll accept anything, no matter how ridiculous, because to give up on Noah's flood is unacceptable to you.By the way, since your view is that not all water covering the earth had to be liquid, why isn't the gaseous form as acceptable as ice and snow? Accepting clouds and rain as water cover would solve a lot of conundrums for you.

As for not listening, visionary thinkers have always had to ignore the ranting of the naysayers.

Self-published, and now self-anointed.You call the replies posted to you as "the ranting of the naysayers," more evidence that you're goal is lecturing, not listening. And it raises the question, why are you wasting your time preaching to a bunch of naysayers?--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 10-17-2002]

wmscott writes: Sometimes I only bother to reply because of the possible audience that maybe be reading this, perhaps some of them have an open mind, and they will see for themselves that there is some merit in what I have to say.

Then it must be your view that the entire world has a closed mind. There has been no indication that anyone accepts your arguments. How many Creationists have come to your support in this thread? Would that number be zero? I can remember only one other Creationist who posted here, TB, and he disagreed with you.The measure of your arguments and evidence is their ability to move the opinions of others, and by this yardstick they measure pretty short. I think it's time for you to take a step back and ask yourself how, mixing my metaphors, you can raise your batting average.--Percy