Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A

Well, I think I'll jump into this thread with a question for creationists concerning the flood: How exactly does hydrologic sorting explain the distribution of fossils? A good example of this is Nautoloid fossils. The higher we go in the geologic column, the more complex the sutures are for these creatures. The lower we go, the less complex the sutures are. Now, hydrological sorting is supposed to explain why dinosaurs appear on one geological level and hominids on another. Certainly, they are of different size and shape (generally). But Nautoloids are of the same size and shape, the difference is in their sutures. Why would hydrologic sorting sort them out according to the complexity of their sutures?SLD

Lorenzo7,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorenzo7:
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.

---

The shells are found in the Himalayas because they were uplifted from the sea floor by the Indian plate moving northwards. http://www.iisc.ernet.in/~currsci/august/articles.htm for uplift,
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/understanding.html for direction of Indian & Asian plate motion.The collision bent the plates. http://www.zephryus.demon.co.uk/geography/resources/glaciers/arete.htmlThis is why mountain peaks are not rounded.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 timeProvide a source, please. I’m not sure what you mean.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorenzo7:

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.

---

1/ Dinosaurs SHOULD have been on the Ark, YOU explain why they aren’t here now? None of them, not one?2/ The onus is on you to show us the flood did occur, not us to show it didn’t. How can we provide positive evidence of something that never happened? Can you provide evidence that the worlds oceans aren’t the product of the Galactic Goat? No?I have challenged creationists to provide the evidence they claim points to a catastrophic biblical flood, in messages 78, & 88. Others have done the same. Before you respond, please read all of this thread so that no one has to repeat themselves (It’s a long thread, I know).Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I have given you reasons why a Flood have occured. Your information about the plates pushing shells up into the mountains was probably written by an evolutionsist. And also, no there were no dinosaurs on the ark.
Its interesting that you believe in gravity which you can't see, but you can see the effects of it. The Flood model gives EVIDENCE of a Flood. No where on earth is it actually written in the sand somewhere "well today we had a Flood". Nature just gives evidence of one.

quote:

---

I have given you reasons why a Flood have occured.

---

No, you spit out a few easily explained "problems" in uniformitarian views.

quote:

---

Your information about the plates pushing shells up into the mountains was probably written by an evolutionsist.

---

No, it is written in the rocks by curling and faulting.

quote:

---

And also, no there were no dinosaurs on the ark.

---

Inconsistent.Then explain why you believe the Bible is wrong on this small point, but correct in everything else.

quote:

---

The Flood model gives EVIDENCE of a Flood.

---

No, that's not science. If the "flood model" were science, you would look at evidence first and base the "flood model" on that, if you could even substantiate a flood. The "flood model" itself is not evidence.

quote:

---

Nature just gives evidence of one

---

What evidence. Also, above you claimed that the "flood model" was its own evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorenzo7:
I have given you reasons why a Flood have occured. Your information about the plates pushing shells up into the mountains was probably written by an evolutionsist. And also, no there were no dinosaurs on the ark.
Its interesting that you believe in gravity which you can't see, but you can see the effects of it. The Flood model gives EVIDENCE of a Flood. No where on earth is it actually written in the sand somewhere "well today we had a Flood". Nature just gives evidence of one.

---

1/ Re. Dinosaurs. Give me the criteria with which Noah used to take animals onto the Ark, please. To clarify, God told Noah what he was to do. This is what I'm after. Exact biblical quotation.2/ I asked for evidence of a flood. I have provided a rebuttal to you your contention that fossils were put at the top of everest via a flood. Concede the point or offer a rebuttal of your own. You can see exactly who wrote the articles, whether they were evolutionists, creationists, or flat earthers is irrelevent. It is the evidence that is important.When I ask for evidence, I'm asking for a collection of observations from which a testable hypothesis can be made. I have asked this before & not got a reply. Can you do it?3/ I "believe" in gravity because it is a theory that is testable, & makes predictions that are born out.4/ The Flood Model, great! You have one. Please present it, along with the observations from which the hypothesis was made. I repeat, it must have observations from which a testable hypothesis can be made.5/ If nature gives us evidence of a flood, present it.This is great, someone who is going to give me answers. You do understand the difference between presenting positive evidence & denying evidence, don't you? Denying evidence cannot produce a hypothesis, theory, or model.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Taking it out of context * chuckle* .
Well how SHOULD you read it?
the way some do, discarding the old testament as lies, or fairy tales... the way some do by skimming for what they like? The way some do when they take every word as the truth? YOU tell ME how to read the bible 'in context' and ill tell you that there are many other out there who read it much differently, and who are still considered christians.... Are you sure YOU are RIGHT? -Kv

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorenzo7:
Wow , you all are pretty slow when it comes to the Bible.

​

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.

---

Given a starting population of Adam and Eve and given that Cain was 2nd generation how could she be a cousin?sister yes, niece possibly, cousin no, for her to be his cousin Cain would of had to have had uncles or aunts by definition he didnt....Wow you are pretty slow when it comes to genealogy....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorenzo7:
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. ... Wow if i didn't know better I'd say that you all can't show that a Flood didn't happen.

---

Well, I read a newpaper article this morning saying that a rockfall that killed a boy on the interstate was an "act of god." I guess that pretty much explains it to most people. Yep, those fossils are up there because goddidit. No more to be said. Can't make the highway safer. Can't explain those fossils. Yeah, right!If you bothered to learn a little bit about plate teconics and earth properties, half of you questions about an old earth and the lack of a biblical flood would be answered. Of course some of us did this the hard way. We took the college courses. If we had known that you could learn geology be reading some websites we could have saved a lot of time and money. [/cynicism]Regards...

"Moving along to some of your other responses, starting with the Galapagos Islands:"
--K"The fact is that the Galapagos are not part of a continent."
--I would agree today, but would you consider the Florida Keys part of the North American Continent? Whether you do or don't it doesn't make relevance, though that is slightly simmilar to what we would see after the flood (not exactly, it would have been connected)."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."
--My Flaw in my reading of the scale. I would allow 1000-3000 (meters), my mind isn't the most reliable . Here is a good screenshot of an Ocean and Continental Floor depth and elevation topography map.
--The galopagose islands would have been an attachment to central america and you would have somewhat of a river flowing threw the channel dividing depth from South America."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."
--What kind of relic would you expect to find? Millions of buffalo were killed off by indians and then by white man in which white sport hunters left almost all of the flesh and keeping the tounge. Go there today and you will find virtualy no evidence of the massacre."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?"
--Ofcourse I stand completely aware that it could encounter slight revision, though I don't think it will be drastically altered. An effect of magmatic activity in many areas in the earth massive amounts of water would evaporate and when drifting toward the poles would fall and freeze to encounter the ice age. We all know there was at least one ice age, though it is another post to discuss how many and what the evidence is, this was the cause of the Flood. And since then it has receded to what we see today (still alot of ice!). What do you mean by loosing water? Realatively the same amount of water is being used throughout the Flood Theory."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."
--Reptiles are also partly aquatic, many lizards swim threoughout water (Dinosaurs were just overgrown unique lizards from long lived lives, reptiles don't stop growing) Also Leviathan as told in the Bible (I freely admit assuming it could be a dinosaur) breathed fire per se and was a absolutely massive ferocious lizard that was untamable and swam in the depths of the waters. I could leave footprints under water easy as long as it is muddy and I was balanced enough or my body weight very much compaired to the volume of air in my lungs that would overcome floating and thus causing preasure to make the print, also it is possible that water was not massivly deep in this time period as we know that most all the sedimentary layers were deposited in 40 days plus a couple weeks during the active periods in the Flood deposition, also land was reletively equalized, there weren't any mountains, it was all terrain like the State of Florida with elevations of about 300ft at the heighest at the stress point of the flood before it started receding."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."
--I'll try to give a breif explination as my theory on the simplistic basics of the Flood fundimentals. Let us pretend that the 'periods' in the geologic column represent each mass deposit, this may give great difficulties for the Flood to explain but for the sake of simplistic explination lets pretend that these were the deposits. Cambrian would have been the first deposit, as the Fountains of the deep broke loose and killed all these microbes and caused slightly a small amount of water to come with the magma in the earths crust, though nothing to be made relevant. Now all these animals around are going crazy and they don't know whats going on but the flood isn't even puddles to them yet, now these would probley be small catastrophe's and then lets skip up to the 'Permian, Triassic, andJurrasic periods' and whatnot and now theres these rapid sea level rises comeing in and forcing them to start fleeing for their lives, find high ground from flooding. Now all the less intelligent or slow animals are going to get caught and their gonna die and some will be burried from the large sediment deposits coming in from flood sweeping the land and kicking up dirt sending it for roller coaster rides over miles of land to be high in some areas and lower in other areas. currents would kick up sediments and much more would be deposited on the continents than on sea floors. This continues and more verieties of animals die from different obsicles that they face that they can survive or not from. It is difficult to say exactly what my personal conclusive view would be on for the existence of ice caps before the Flood, but I would speculate that there were ice caps before the flood that would have broken up and melted from heat and then frozen again from its polar position over time after the Flood. What exactly would you mean by Fluctuating model?"And you think that this rock looks like a humanoid skull?"
--I thought the same untill I read further."And those other logs or roots look like femurs?"
--I beleive that this is another article, and this 'rock' wasn't a 'rock' and is evident that it is actual bone."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?"
--Is there not reason to believe that this is not bone? You can't really refute anything by saying, well it isn't a bone, its a rock, look at it, its a rock. I could simply say anything such in this nature and would get nothing but critisizm from you for the same assertions. I see how hard it would be to perpetrate such a conspiracy, this is why these papers are real, do you believe these faxes/letters were frauds?"Really, I hate to burst your bubble but CSC is hardly considered to be a credible reference."
--For one, why so, they have a brain just as compadible with reality as we all do. Second, it isn't really CSC reference, it is their source, the page is theirs, but their sources arent."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."
--There really isn't anything such as a 'self refutation' from an assertion of it being the relevance of an individual. I would like some more on this, this does not excuse the relevance of these findings."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 existence of pollen grains shows that they were existing in pre-cambrian time, this is relevant until it can be refuted by logic, not by methodology."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?"
--I would have to abandon it if it was not supported by the facts, I find the contrary. I think that when I move on, there will be good reason.--------------

"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."
--I agree the heat would not just 'go away' it would be transfered to other particles suspended in the atmosphere, though using simple science knowing that hot air rises, it would rise untill it is completely equalized with the rest of the atmosphere around it, (its very cold up there!) Thus it would depend on how long it was suspended in this cold environment for whether it would be frozen or cold when it came back down, though it would gain small fraction of heat from friction and contact with the steam below it, though this further increases the cycle of hot air attempting to equalize in this vast well below 0 environment.-----------------

"Here is more from Isaaks in Talk Origins. I'm sorry for the cut and paste job, but I want to emphasize some points."
--Actually these assertions made by Isaak have been refuted by Baumgardner himself.--Clip from Talk.Origins Archive--

quote:

---

Isaak: 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 replace 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 the 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. (National Center for Science Education, a pretentiously named organisation totally devoted to promoting evolution. Its roots are firmly in atheistic humanism)], 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: If these critics had read my papers carefully, they would have learned that a low thermal diffusivity actually aids the runaway mechanism. Whether or not the runaway occurs at all depends on a competition between heat production due to deformation and heat loss due to thermal diffusion. Low, rather than high, thermal diffusivity assists this process.

​

The timing of the uplift of today’s high mountain ranges is actually a problem for the uniformitarians. The current uplift rate for the Himalayas of 1—2 cm/year, for example, implies 10-20 km (or 33,000-66,000 feet) uplift per million years! Again, if the critics had read my papers, they would know my time scale for the isostatic rebound is the centuries after the catastrophe rather than months.

​

Isaak: 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.

​

Baumgardner: Indeed I do believe a significant fraction of the volume of the oceans was boiled away during the catastrophe. But since the atmosphere can hold so little moisture, the water quickly returned as cool fresh water to the ocean surface. This process generated large volumes of very dense brines, much of which was incorporated into the continental sedimentary record as extensive halite and gypsum deposits.

​

I do not insist the mantle had to be significantly warmer than it is today. And higher temperature gives lower, not greater, mantle viscosity.

​

Isaak: 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 diversification of mammals and angiosperms. [Carroll, 1997, chpts. 5, 6, & 13]

​

Baumgardner: I place the end of the Flood near the end of the Cenozoic, near the point that the Pliocene sediments begin in the record.

​

Isaak: Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see. [Matsumura, 1997]

​

Baumgardner: Newer calculations I presented at the 4th ICC [August, 1998] indicate the amount of volcanism associated with the runaway process is strikingly small.

---

"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."
--Abandonment? What abandonment?"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."
--Extremely challenged probley isn't the correct word usage, a book on a bench in the park is Isaak to Baumgardner it seems, probley because Isaak isn't the geophysicist."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."
--Im not sure of what your relating to, but it probley isn't Baumgardner's theory."I think you derided someone earlier for using imagination in projecting something geological. If so, you should reject completely any of Baumgardner's modeling."
--I'll keep that in mind.-------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-19-2002]

"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)."
--When it comes to the mechenism, I only have the right to say that it could have happend this way, otherwize it would be more than a theory. Evolutionists should also be weary of claiming it as more than 'it could have happend this way'. Take for instance the Sudden dissapearence in the fossil record of Dinosaurs. What was the cause? We don't know, dissregarding the creationist speculations on it, to the evolutionist, you just don't know, you can only say, it is logical that it could have happend this way, or that way and be consistant with reality.---------------

I think this belongs in another thread, I would be happy to attempt a response to it, tell me when you post it in another topic so we don't get off topic in the Flood discussion. --------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-19-2002]

"Just finished reading this whole thread, and I thought I'd through my two cents worth in. "
--Wow , I would have fallen asleep before getting to the second section, but hey thats just me, hehe."Seems everyone missed this comment by TrueCreation"
--Aww thats so sweet of you "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"
--To tell you the truth this is one question that I have been meaning to ask, and I guess its time to ask it, what is the mothod used to date to know this is 'smack dab in the middle of the Old kingdom in Egypt'."(Hint: there are still records from the 1st and 2nd Intermediate periods, so don't go choosing that one to quickly)"
--What do these records say and is there a reference I could see more indepth.-------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-19-2002]

"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."
--I have wondered this and would hope you could help me out as with Oreopithecus. What is the evidence of these dates and what is the method used to find the date, obvious, or explanitory.--------------