Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
The actual accepted range for the maximum size of particles that can be lofted or carried in suspension by the wind for great distances is about 40 to perhaps as much as 60 microns.

​

...

---

Hmm, see nothing here yet about diatoms.

quote:

---

Indicating that for diatoms found in Antarctica inland ice cores, 40 microns is accepted as a limit for wind lofted transport. Due to the characteristics of diatoms and foram I would be willing to accept a some what larger maximum size for long distance wind lofting, but so far I have failed to find any evidence to support that conclusion. Additionally many of the micromarine fossils I have found are well above the maximum for wind lofting by a very wide margin which defeats arguing about the extract lofting size limit anyway since they would still be above even a generous higher limit.

---

As far as I can see these are reworked sediments, wmscott. Also, it appears on a first scan that the microfossil separation method was designed to collect the finer grained diatoms.

quote:

---

The last link above is from a web site on diatoms in ice cores in Antarctica, check it out, as they stated in the above quote, the diatoms they found were less than 40 microns which is small enough for suspension in the wind which allows for long distance transport. I would be interested if you can find any information on diatoms of much larger sizes found in inland ice cores that are viewed as wind lofted material. HINT! HINT! (This would a good way for you to prove me wrong on this point. Go for it Edge!)

---

I hate to rain on your parade here, wmscott, but I am not trying to prove anything. Your statement betrays your lack of a scientific background. I am only trying to show that you have not considered all of the alternatives. This is only one area where you have not been complete in your treatment of your diatoms. In fact, I am not convinced that you diatoms are marine or even that they are diatoms. I am not convinced that they have not been saltated in some kind of reworked sediment. I am not convinced, either, that there were not temporary incursions of marine waters into the proglacial environment of the receding ice cap.And most of all I am not convince that they have anything to to with any kind of global flood. The latter is really the evidence that you should be locating or providing. The rest of all this is really just a diversion. We can get caught up in all kind of geological minutia, but just what does all this have to to with a global flood?In fact all you have done is start with a premise that there was a flood and then selectively combed the literature for factoids that, by themselves, might allow the interpretation of a flood. You have ignored the rest of the data out there.

wmscott writes: Ah, the belief that the majority is always right, having the reassurance of being part of the herd, one's peer group, having everyone agree with your opinion.

In science, you place your entries into the arena of ideas where they are judged by your peers. Through a process of review, refinement, improvement and review, some of these ideas become accepted, meaning that they satisfy the preponderance of scientists qualified to have an opinion.

Proving a point of scientific debate is not dependent on how many believe it...

By "proving" you actually mean supporting your views with evidence. The strength of the evidence in large measure determines whether your ideas become accepted within the scientific community.

I would rather be right than popular.

The two are not disconnected. If your ideas are right, meaning that they're consistent with the known evidence, they will become, as you say, "popular", or to be more precise, "accepted".

As for improving my batting average, this board is only my sounding board...

More like your sounding-off board. You're ideas appear unaffected by feedback telling you where your ideas will have trouble becoming scientifically accepted. You either have to find additional evidence or modify your ideas.Some examples taken from our own discussions:

• Rafting. Seek examples in the news of rafted animals, particularly large ones, during floods.
  ​
• World-wide water cover. There's just no evidence of this. It's obvious connection to the Biblical flood will cause automatic rejection of any papers you submit in scientific arenas.
  ​
• Depression of sea floors and elevation of mountains. There's just no evidence of this. It, too, has an obvious connection to the Biblical flood will cause automatic rejection of any papers you submit in scientific arenas.
  ​
• Sub-glacial water causing world-wide flood. This just doesn't seem possible. There was recent scientific news about uncovering evidence that the massive collapse and concurrent release of water beneath a Canadian glacier near the St. Laurence around 10K years ago caused sea-levels world-wide to rise 1 meter. You need far more water than that. You also need to explain why we can find evidence of a release raising sea-levels 1 meter, but no evidence of a far, far larger release raising sea levels hundreds of meters.
  ​
• Transport of diatoms. These are so small, so light, so easily transported, your claims just make no common sense. Comparing them to far more dense sand-grains seems especially nonsensical.
  ​
• Comets. They were supposedly massive, causing the simultaneous collapse of entire ice sheets with the release of enough water to flood the world. Where's the evidence? Craters? Isotopic signatures? Anything concrete at all?

Unless you have evidence, papers mentioning any of these possibilities that are submitted to any non-Creationist journal will be rejected.--Percy

Dear Edge;

quote:

---

I am not trying to prove anything

---

If you fail to support your position with evidence, you have already lost. You don't have to accept my findings of course, but you have failed to over turn them. I have to assume that the reason you have not provided evidence that over turns what I have been saying, is that you can't. So since I know you will never change you mind on this issue, we have reached the best out come I could have hoped for, you are someone that is totally opposed and yet you can offer no countervailing evidence. Perfect!

Dear Percipient;

quote:

---

The two are not disconnected. If your ideas are right, meaning that they're consistent with the known evidence, they will become, as you say, "popular", or to be more precise, "accepted".

---

In the long run yes, in the short run, not always true, remember Pasture and many others whom history did vindicate, but only later in time. Even if I was miraculously right on very point I have put forth, immediate acceptance is not assured.

quote:

---

Rafting. Seek examples in the news of rafted animals, particularly large ones, during floods.

---

Actually not that uncommon, short duration and short distance rafting occurs so often in floods that it is not news worthy. Longer distances are more impressive, recently in the Caribbean, Iguanas were rafted over 200 miles between two islands. (Science News, volume 154, p.267) The famous tortoises on the Galapagos islands are believed to have rafted from the South American main land, in fact rafting is how many island animals are believed to have arrived.

quote:

---

World-wide water cover. There's just no evidence of this. It's obvious connection to the Biblical flood will cause automatic rejection of any papers you submit in scientific arenas.

---

Connection to the biblical flood will cause automatic rejection? Does that sound fair and unbiased? If that were true, perhaps there are a multitude of unpublished papers that would have proven the flood as fact a long time ago. I am hoping that you are wrong on this point and papers with solid supporting evidence get published whether they have popular support or not. If you are right, it would show that I did the right thing in self publishing my book since according to you, I had no other option.

quote:

---

Depression of sea floors and elevation of mountains. There's just no evidence of this. It, too, has an obvious connection to the Biblical flood will cause automatic rejection of any papers you submit in scientific arenas.

---

Actually many mountains all over the world are currently under going a slow progressive uplift, they get a little bit taller every year. The converse of that is of course if some areas are going up, others are going down. You may want to look up the words 'isostasy' and 'epeirogeny'.

quote:

---

Sub-glacial water causing world-wide flood. This just doesn't seem possible. There was recent scientific news about uncovering evidence that the massive collapse and concurrent release of water beneath a Canadian glacier near the St. Laurence around 10K years ago caused sea-levels world-wide to rise 1 meter. You need far more water than that. You also need to explain why we can find evidence of a release raising sea-levels 1 meter, but no evidence of a far, far larger release raising sea levels hundreds of meters.

---

Simple, off the scale. Where do you look for the shoreline of a global flood? Movement of post ice age sea level in connection with the deluge was to quick to leave well defined shoreline erosion. I also now look more towards a large number of Carolina Bay type impacts on the ice sheets as being the major source of initial flood water which in turn raised sea level high enough to trigger the domino change reaction of surging ice due to rising water.

quote:

---

Transport of diatoms. These are so small, so light, so easily transported, your claims just make no common sense. Comparing them to far more dense sand-grains seems especially nonsensical.

---

If you have been following my exchange with Edge you would know that he has been unsuccessful in this line of argument. He has been unable to provide any evidence of long distance lofting of diatoms and forams in the larger sizes that I have found. You are welcome to try. I would be most interested if you can find any information on a larger diatom 'maximum' lofting size. I have been unable to find any evidence of lofting of larger diatoms or forams, but that is always the problem, how do you prove a negative?

quote:

---

Comets. They were supposedly massive, causing the simultaneous collapse of entire ice sheets with the release of enough water to flood the world. Where's the evidence? Craters? Isotopic signatures? Anything concrete at all?

---

Funny you should ask, how about microtektites? Do a work search and find my earlier post on this. Craters, we have plenty, remember the Carolina Bays? On Isotopic signatures, give me some time, pretty expensive hardware and testing is involved, but perhaps in the future I will be able to find this as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:

quote:

---

I am not trying to prove anything

---

​

If you fail to support your position with evidence, you have already lost.

---

[/quote]I am glad that you have finally come to realize this. Are you going to begin giving us evidence for your flood now?

quote:

---

You don't have to accept my findings of course, but you have failed to over turn them. I have to assume that the reason you have not provided evidence that over turns what I have been saying, is that you can't.

---

You have given me nothing to overturn. You say that sand grains cannot be transported long distances regardless of the fact that we are not dealing with sand grains. And even more telling is the fact that you can find nothing to support any kind of a global flood.

quote:

---

So since I know you will never change you mind on this issue, we have reached the best out come I could have hoped for, you are someone that is totally opposed and yet you can offer no countervailing evidence. Perfect!

---

You mean other than pointing out the fact that you have not shown any transportability figures for diatoms? And that you have presented no evidence of a global flood?Really, wmscott, I hate to break this to you, but I really don't take your argument seriously enough to put much work into it at all. I think the lack of other posters to this board is evidence that others think the same way.You still have not made the connection between aerial transport of diatoms and sand grains. In fact, I have come to doubt that you even have diatoms, or that you have accurately identified them. Your lack of geological background really causes me to question everything that you post here. Never mind that fact that this would hardly be evidence of a global flood. I have spent countless hours trying to give you an education in geology and help you review your ideas, but all you have done is put on the blinders and stomp your feet on the ground.

You're missing the point. I was not trying to reengage in discussion on those topics. I was merely listing some of the topics for which you've been ignoring feedback from your so-called "sounding board." We're aware that your positions are unlikely to change. I'm sure you'll continue to find this board a valuable tool for honing your talent for ignoring extensive cross-functional interlocking real-world evidence while finding support in irrelevant minutia and absence of evidence.--Percy

Dear Edge;On sandgrains/diatoms winding lofting, in earlier posts, I also referred to lofting of water droplets which are of course lighter than Diatoms and forams. But you seemed to have ignored that information as you do with much of what I post. For example, I have posted a great deal of evidence supporting the flood, yet you say I haven't posted any. What you mean of course is that I haven't posted any evidence that you accept, and since you blindly reject anything that tends to support a global flood, you reject all the evidence I cite. Then you turn around and claim that the reason you don't believe what I am saying is because I haven't posted any supporting evidence. Basically this is on a level with you plugging your ears with wax and then complaining that I am not speaking loudly enough. The problem isn't on my end. With solving any puzzle, one has to take the pieces and see how they fit together to form a complete picture. But you keep tossing away the pieces before you can see how they fit and you are convinced that you already know what the picture looks like, and therefor my solution can't possibly be right and yet the pieces do fit. But convinced you already know better, you refuse to even take a look and I wonder why, perhaps a bit of fearful doubt perhaps? I am glad that you question my claim of finding marine diatoms here in the Midwest, for it means that you recognize the import of what it means even if you deny it. I have also enjoyed your refusal to look at any pictures of them, since that would make it harder for you to deny their existence. Just pointing out that I am not the one wearing the blinders.

Dear Percy;I haven't been ignoring the feed back from my sounding board, that would defeat its purpose, I just don't happen to agree with some of the feed back. For no one has yet supplied convincing counter evidence or more logical explanations and I have not been looking for support in the 'absence of evidence', rather I have posted a great deal of evidence supporting the flood, yet you say I haven't. What you mean of course is that I haven't posted any evidence that you accept, and since you blindly reject anything that tends to support a global flood, you reject all the evidence. Then you turn around and claim that the reason you don't believe what I am saying is because I haven't posted any supporting evidence. Basically this is on a level with you plugging your ears with wax and then complaining that I am not speaking loudly enough. The problem isn't on my end. With solving any puzzle, one has to take the pieces and see how they fit together to form a complete picture. But you keep tossing away the pieces before you can see how they fit and you are convinced that you already know what the picture looks like, and therefor my solution can't possibly be right and yet the pieces do fit. But convinced you already know better, you refuse to even take a look and I wonder why, perhaps a bit of fearful doubt that my 'irrelevant minutia' mite be relevant after all and may be the start of cracks in your wall of disbelief? Frankly for counter arguments you have had little to offer other than repetitious repetitions of blanket rejections of any global flood and they have been devoid of any supporting evidence, and why should I find that convincing anyway? Your counter arguments having consisting of little more than 'no there wasn't a flood' have hardly been much of an intellectual challenge let alone persuasive. You have failed to built a solid attack based on evidence, attacking with your opinion is like blowing hot air, you have to be kidding, you haven't made a dent and no wonder. At least take a hint from geology and throw some rocks, refer to this or that deposit for evidence like others have, try to put something solid into your argument for a change.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
On sandgrains/diatoms winding lofting, in earlier posts, I also referred to lofting of water droplets which are of course lighter than Diatoms and forams. But you seemed to have ignored that information as you do with much of what I post. For example, I have posted a great deal of evidence supporting the flood, yet you say I haven't posted any.

---

Nonsense, you have posted information in support of a slightly higher sea level after the ice age. Nothing more.

quote:

---

What you mean of course is that I haven't posted any evidence that you accept, and since you blindly reject anything that tends to support a global flood, you reject all the evidence I cite. Then you turn around and claim that the reason you don't believe what I am saying is because I haven't posted any supporting evidence. Basically this is on a level with you plugging your ears with wax and then complaining that I am not speaking loudly enough.

---

It is on a level with requesting information that supports your viewpoint of a worldwide flood.

quote:

---

The problem isn't on my end. With solving any puzzle, one has to take the pieces and see how they fit together to form a complete picture. But you keep tossing away the pieces before you can see how they fit and you are convinced that you already know what the picture looks like, and therefor my solution can't possibly be right and yet the pieces do fit. But convinced you already know better, you refuse to even take a look and I wonder why, perhaps a bit of fearful doubt perhaps?

---

More like frustration at not getting straight answers.

quote:

---

I am glad that you question my claim of finding marine diatoms here in the Midwest, for it means that you recognize the import of what it means even if you deny it.

---

Actually, it means that I recognize the possibility that you could be wrong about many other things such as whether these are actually marine diatoms. My interaction with you does not give me much confidence in your ability.

quote:

---

I have also enjoyed your refusal to look at any pictures of them, since that would make it harder for you to deny their existence. Just pointing out that I am not the one wearing the blinders.

---

Well, post them and I'll look at them, but I'm probably no better than you at telling what are diatoms and what are marine diatoms. Knowing how inaccurate you are regarding geological information, all I would suggest, however, that you might be wrong here.Now, how about some evidence that a global flood actually happened?

As I said months ago, I don't think it's possible change your opinions, so I don't see the point in persisting along that avenue.You should be asking yourself why what seems so obvious to you is not obvious to anyone else. This isn't a case where some people accept your views and some don't. It's a case where no one accepts your views.What I've been saying is that I think you should take stock and consider at length why this is. Are your explanations insufficient? Is your evidence too weak? Would another perspective help? Should you seek assistance from other Creationists? Reread Kuhn and study Popper? In other words, you need to spend some time figuring out why other people just aren't getting it. If it were just me and some others rejecting your views then you could perhaps make a case for intransigence and bias, but even your fellow Creationists aren't buying it.--Percy

Dear Tranquility Base;I am disappointed that my 'absolutely sure fire' disproof of YEC has apparently fallen somewhat short of the mark, I am hoping however that once you have finished the book and see the overall picture, you will see why YEC is unnecessary. As for helping YEC, the best thing would be a complete switch to OEC, second best would be to at least accept that the geologic column and the fossil record was not created by the flood. That would leave the evidence of the great age of the earth as having been created earlier such as when the earth was created. I still find that completely illogical, but it would be a much better position than the current YEC position of dumping it all on the flood. Since the flood was a natural event, it is all too easy to look at the evidence and disprove flood YEC theories, while attributing everything to direct divine creation is unassailable by scientific methods since the supernatural is outside the scope of science. This would have the effect of YEC stepping out the back door of the shooting range and out of the range of the scientific big guns. Saying that God created all the prehuman fossils and rock, and placed them all just so, to make the earth look old, is intellectually distasteful. But it is a position that can not be challenged successfully by examining the evidence since everything would have been created miraculously.One other point YEC followers would do well to take to heart, is that if the earth appears to be old and if God really did created it very recently, he obviously then had to have wanted to make it look that way. Then if that was indeed the case, YECs should stop trying to be smarter than God by looking for 'mistakes' that supposedly real a young earth, for if it was God's intent to create a young earth that looked old, don't you think he could have got it right? Each time a YEC comes up with a new way of revealing a young earth, they are in effect finding fault with God, "Look here is another thing he missed!" Rather YECs should embrace all evidence of an old earth as proof of the perfection with which God made a young earth look old. Perfection is in the details. Perhaps you can see why I find YEC intellectually distasteful, God is a god of order and logic, not a god of deception, an old looking earth is just simply old. In the end I can see no way for YEC to avoid deception without deigning itself due to this basic conflict between YEC and the earth itself.What is an IMO?Where or what is the 'prophetic description of uniformitarianism' at 2 Pet 3?

Dear Edge;

quote:

---

Nonsense, you have posted information in support of a slightly higher sea level after the ice age. Nothing more.

---

'Slightly higher'? We have been arguing about evidence of marine flooding in the Midwest at a location that is currently at an elevation of 1000 ft. Much of the earlier cited evidence on this thread was found at elevations of several thousand feet above current sea level. If by 'slightly higher' you mean a few thousand feet, I guess we agree, it just depends on your definition of 'slight'.I would be happy to post some of my pictures of marine diatoms I have found here in Wisconsin. [click on picture for larger versions. --Admin]

​

​

[Reduced size of images. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 11-28-2002]

Dear Percy;You have to remember that the creationists posting here seem to be all YECs. I have had conversations with a number of OECs and they seem all think that I am on the right track. One was a soil engineer and was quite interested and excited about reading my book and others have been very successful and well educated individuals. So don't be fooled by the lack of enthusiasm from the YECs here on the board, the off board response from OECs has been very favorable. In discussing the concept of a recent global flood with OECs, none have found any fault with my overall theory. Considering the favorable responses I have gotten so far, and the supporting evidence, I see no reason to change my position. I am always aware of the fact that I could be in complete error on a number of points, but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. One of the main reasons I post here is that if I have made a mistake, someone will point it out to me. I feel that if people like you, who are very much opposed to any notion of a global flood, are unable to find specific flaws, I must be pretty close to what really happened. As to why other people like you, 'don't get it', I find that perfectly understandable considering the subject. A very high rate of rejection is to be expected, as the amount of supporting evidence is increased the rejection rate will decrease only slightly if at all. Even if I had tons of iron clad evidence, most would still reject what I have to say on the flood. Which is why when I have asked what kind of evidence would be acceptable as proof of a global flood, I never got any specific answers. It is impossible to change a person's mind when they can't even conceive of the possibility that they mite be wrong. My research is on going, and as the results keep coming in, the evidence will just keep increasing. But it will never reach the infinite amount it would take to change a person's mind that is already made up. For example look at the pictures in my post to Edge, photographic evidence and yet it will no doubt not be enough to convince ether of you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:

quote:

---

Nonsense, you have posted information in support of a slightly higher sea level after the ice age. Nothing more.

---

​

'Slightly higher'? We have been arguing about evidence of marine flooding in the Midwest at a location that is currently at an elevation of 1000 ft.

---

Hmm, not quite global yet, wmscott. First of all that doesn't even make it to Colorado. Second, those are modern elevations. Call when you get some real evidence.

quote:

---

Much of the earlier cited evidence on this thread was found at elevations of several thousand feet above current sea level.

---

Yes, as I remember they were in tectonically active areas. You went on to minimize the effect of plate tectonics after that.

quote:

---

If by 'slightly higher' you mean a few thousand feet, I guess we agree, it just depends on your definition of 'slight'.

---

Nothing concrete here, wmscott.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
'Slightly higher'? We have been arguing about evidence of marine flooding in the Midwest at a location that is currently at an elevation of 1000 ft.

---

I see that I am not getting through to you on this point that you have not presented evidence for a global flood. Let's try this: What if I contended that the evidence you have presented actually is evidence AGAINST a global flood, because you have not found such evidence at elevations higher than 1000 ft in North America. This would be just as valid as your assertion that a global flood is 'proven' by your discoveries.In fact, as you collect more data, you must be prepared to find that you will actually disprove the global flood story! Does this not make sense? To take this a step further, I suggest that the only reason you can accept your findings as evidence for a global flood is your blind adherence to a myth.This is why I reject your 'evidence' as supportive of a global flood hypothesis. It is completely inconclusive.