Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

Patrick;
If you are celebrating over having let your 'cats' out of the bag, you can put the cork back in the champagne bottle. Most of your 'cats' are dead, there may be 100 uses for a dead cat, but I don't know any of them.I seem to have struck a nerve. I'd be upset too, seeing such major and obvious problems pointed out in my theory. Given the failure of your post to undermine any of the points I made, I think I'll keep the cork out of the bottle, for now at least. As I see it, the cats are alive and well, and happen to be sharpening their claws on the shredded remains of your flood theory.The information you posted on the history of sea level changes was very nice, but I was already well aware of that information when I developed my flood model. All of these sea level records are time dependent. The level has to be changing slowly or at one level for a time to be recorded.You may have been "well aware" of such data, but apparently you didnt understand it very well, or the significance of such data for your flood model.And you haven't really dealt with my argument that such a massive lowstand of sea level would have exposed all of the continental shelves to subaerial conditions. Such an event would cause a major extinction of the shallow-water marine benthos (by habitat reduction), which is not observed, and would also leave weathering profiles on the shelves, which is not known either. If you have contrary evidence on this point, please present it.And since we know on the basis of both coral data and oxygen isotopes that the last several glacial cycles have been accompanied by lowstands of similar magnitude, we should find these features associated with each of the glacial maxima. Also, the fact that the curves for all the deglacial periods going back at least 350K+ years shows that each of the deglaciations occurred at a similar rate. The last termination was no different from the earlier terminations.Under the model I use, the rise and fall in sea level is too brief to show up in these records.The 'stealth' flood again.Its not nearly as simple as you imply.In order to reconcile your model with the coral data, the isostatic adjustments would have to been largely completed in less than a few hundred years. What is your evidence that even, say, 100m of isostatic adjustment can occur in only a couple hundred years (much less 1 year!)?Maybe you could start by telling me what earth-isostacy model you are assuming, and the mantle rheology values your model assumes. For instance, the values you assume for lower and upper mantle viscosoty will greatly affect the speed at which the isostatic adjustments can occir. I'm not much on geophysics myself, but I could consult some aquintances to see if your model is consistent with empirical evidence. That is, once you present it.That is to be expected since as I having been posting, we do not find marine bottom life on land as a result of the flood. Since the flood was too brief to create corals on land, it is to be expected that it was too rapid to show up in coral ring records.Even if such a thing happened in such a manner as to be totally absent from the eustatic curve, it could not possibly fail to show up in the oxygen isotope record, as I pointed out. And since no such major meltwater spike is evident in the delta 180 curve, and since the shape of the delta 180 water curve in fact closely approximates the eustatic curve, the massive meltwater pulse required by the Scott Flood Model apparently never happened.Of course, there are small spikes corresponding to known small meltwater events (e.g. meltwater pulse 1a and 1b), just not the major spike required by your model.And finally, note again that the delta 180 water curve for the last deglaciation is exactly the same as for the earlier glaciations.The only parts I would maybe expect to see would be the pre flood and post flood changing levels, for example there may have been a slow tapering off in the rate the sea level went down at which may have been gradual enough to be detectable in coral and other records.Because of the massive load-shift from continents to ocean, the continents would be rising and the ocean basins sinking for thousands of years after the flood, producing a record of progressively lower eustatic sea level following the flood, which of course is the opposite of what we actually see in the eustatic curve (rising sea-level from LGM to the holocene).Suppose the flood happened at H0. In order to reconcile your theory with the eustatic data, you'd have to suppose that -- in between the bracketing data points, which might give us ~200 yrs or so to work with -- immediately following H0, relative sea level somehow dropped back down to a relative level almost exactly equal to where it was at the last data point, and then started rising again at the same rate as the preflood rise. Talk about a stealth flood!On the amount of ice contained in the former ice sheets, I like to propose the possibility of larger ice caps, but such are not essential to my flood theory.Its good that their not essential, because, as I said, 120-130/50M km3 is already at the high end.And since it seems you may have missed this point, let me repeat it: 50M km3 is the volume of ice estimated to have melted from the LGM to now. No matter where in the deglaciation you put the flood, much of this water has to melt before (to produce preflood eustatic rise), and much has to melt after (to produce postflood eustatic rise), so you can't discharge the whole volume at once (at least, without putting your theory even further afield of the concensus estimates).On your statement that "Sure we know how much water was contained the former ice sheets, within reasonable limits of certainty, and this poses spectacular problems for your theory." I will have to balance your statement against the following one.
" It is also worth noting that despite all our efforts, we still do not know unequivocally the distribution of ice on the planet during the last glaciation!" (Late Glacial and Post Glacial Environmental Changes; Quaternary, Carboniferous-Permian, and Proterozoic, Edited by I. Peter Martini 1997, p.22) If the distribution is not known, how can the total amount of ice contained by those same glaciers be known? You're having that reading problem again. I dare say we see a YEC tactic in action here, but I concede that it may just be another honest error on your part. That's ok, because I'm here to help.If you read the statement which you quote, you'll see that it is referring to the distribution of ice, not the volume. So the quote is clearly irrelevant to the point you're trying to make. There ARE still disputes about the DISTRIBUTION OF ICE, especially the relative amount in Antarctica and in the Laurentide ice sheet, but the VOLUME of ice is within the range I've given, according to ALL the literature I've read. So, your quote does not introduce 'balance,' it introduces a red herring.In fact, the volume I gave you [ice melted since LGM=50M km3] is on the HIGH end of all estimates. The same author states that the amount estimated from regional land-based isostatic records is actually a little bit less than this. This is a method for estimating ice volume that I havent discussed yet, but which Id like to learn more about.Guess it all depends on how you define the term 'reasonable limits'. Is 150% still reasonable? What is the percentage range on your figures? Perhaps the lower part of the range I gave is with in 'reasonable limits'.~77M km3? No, thats outside the all the ranges I've seen for ice volume change from LGM to the present. And given the constraints imposed by the smooth delta 180 seawater curve, only a small portion of this could have been discharged at any single meltwater event.And since I allow for the possibility that the ice sheets were not any larger than is currently believed, this is hardly a 'fatal assumption'.Oh, I disagree, and we'll come back to this, but for now let's stay focused on the eustatic record and the oxygen isotope record.But I, unlike some others, allow room for the possibility that our current understanding of the distribution and thickness the Pleistocene ice sheets in the future may very well turn out to have been too small.Thank goodness we have your open-mindedness to counterbalance the dogmatic concensus of the researchers in this field.One cute comment on "I don't know of anyone in this field who postulates a drastically larger ice volume." well I do. Well, at least the possibility anyway.You're right. That's cute. Not very helpful though, especially since you've given no argument that the concensus estimates are in error, much less that they all vastly underestimate the true LGM ice volume.On the evidence against lower sea levels in the ice age, I was once again aware of the information you posted. The effects of coastal subsidence due to ocean basin rebounding on the possible scales in the range I use, have not been looked at, or taken into account and remain a possible effect.Are you seriously claiming that relative sea-level could have been, say, 400m lower at the LGM and not leave widespread evidence for subareal exposure on the shelves, and without causing a significant extinction of shallow water marine benthos?Furthermore, to point out again, the eustatic curve I presented is based on data from equatorial far-field sites (Barbados, Tahiti, etc.) for which isostatic effects would be minor on the resulting eustatic curve. I'll try to find the paper for you, but one of the papers I read argued on the basis of their isostatic earth-rheology model that isostatic effects would not produce a significant effect on the estimates based on far-field sites, something like a few % at worst, according to Lambeck.The only part in your posting that really could be a limiting factor on the amount of water removed from the oceans in the ice age, was the oxygen isotope ratio. This is by far the best part of your objections to larger ice caps.Thank you. I agree.However, the situation is far worse than you seem to think. While it is at least concievable (given my ignorance of mantle rheology) that your flood might fail to show up in the coral record, there is simply no way your massive addition of ice to the oceans could fail to show up in the oxygen isotope record. This is a much more problematic limiting factor. Your flood will have to be consistent not only with the eustatic record, but also with the shape of the LGM-to-present delta 180 seawater curve.But remember this method is for estimating, it is not precise. It is good enough however to possibly eliminate the higher end of the range I gave, which was pretty incredible anyway. It will take a detailed look at the methods used, how they are calibrated and the possibility of effects not considered that could effect the accuracy of the method.Please do have a look. And please make sure you look at recent literature, since numerous advances have been made in stable isotope geology in the last 5 years. I'd be happy to recommend a few dozen papers if you like.If the method for example was calibrated using the amount expected to have been removed in the last ice age which would be circular reasoning. Depending on the calibration, this method could be very useful here or almost valueless. Since this here is the best part of your post, perhaps you would care to post on how this method has been calibrated on how the various oxygen isotope ratios were related to sea volume.As I understand it, the calibration can be done independently both by correlation with sea-level records, AND by quantitative relationship between the delta 180 of a body of water and the degree to which it is 'drawn-down' by evaporation. In other words, I think the ice volume can be independently calculated by both methods. There's a Shackleton et al. paper on this that I need to get at the library on this. Finally, I have read that the volumes of individual ice sheets can be estimated from observed isostatic rebound, but I am not very familiar with this method, so have not pressed it.EDIT to add: Finally, although I dont know of such work, I think the absolute amount of water removed from the ocean could, in theory, be estimated by changes in the ion concentration in various minerals. Obviously the more water that is drawn off the ocean, the higher the concentration of ions remain in the ocean.I believe I remember a bit on this, but I think it is fair to let you post, since so far this is your best shot. Good work.Thank you.If you do more research on this, my objections would be that this method is best at determining ocean surface temperatures based on removal of O<16 and works not as well on determining ocean volume.Your 'objection' would then be based on fantasy, not on the evidence. Indeed, I already gave you an excellent argument that delta 180 reliably approximates sea-level -- the fact that the delta 180 seawater curve closely approximates the coral-derived eustatic sea-level curve for the past 350k years. The only reason the two curves should match is if delta 180 seawater closely approximates sea-level.Second, your statement that "my objections would be that this method is best at determining ocean surface temperatures," is just plain silly, since you have to remove the temperature component of delta180 in order to derive the delta180water signal. This can be done using Mg/Ca ratios (as in the Lea et al., 2002 and many other papers) in the same forams, or with other methods, such as the alkenone unsaturation index.Oh, on ice bergs melting 'slowly', that was in comparison with the sudden release of trapped glacial melt water into the sea, in other words, all of the fresh water was not returned at once to sea which would have created a truly huge fresh water spike.The huge freshwater spike is an unavoidable prediction of your theory, for reasons I already gave in my last point. Both H0 and H1 are followed by major sea surface temperature warmings. Second, H0, H1 and other meltwater events are correlated with short-lived, small magnitude spikes in the oxygen isotope records.And the bergs dont have to melt too 'quickly' at all. Even if I gave the iceberg armada 2000 years to melt, my argument would still hold, because you are proposing the movement of such a massive amount of isotopically light H2O to the oceans. The lack of a major negative delta 180 excursion at H0, H1, or indeed at any point between the LGM and now, is totally inconsistent with your theory.And again, the curve for the last deglaciation is exactly the same as for the earlier deglaciations, so either we have a global flood at each termination, or no flood at all.But due to a subdued ice age topography, such could still have been a global flood.Subdued ice age topography? Subdued in near-field areas, yes, but not in areas far from the ice sheets, which is to say most of the earth. If you want a true global flood, covering all of the earth and killing all life outside the ark, you'll need to think of something else.The effects on the earth's topography by a sudden return of glacial water to the seas, has not been explored. In theory as the amounts increase, so do the effects on uplifting land areas. This uplift is of course accepted as fact and we have evidence that it has occurred. What is in question is the amount of uplift. If the amounts were great enough, it is possible for all, or at least everything but a few mountain tops perhaps, to have been flat enough to have been covered briefly by a fairly shallow flood.So you assert. But I have yet to see your own model --its parameters, how you derive the parameters, how your model predicts a subdued land surface at far-field sites, or the values you are assuming for mantle viscosity, and so on. Let me know when you get your model in order. I want to send it to Glenn Morton and ask him if its tenable.Your objections to a flood of 100m out 100m back = no flood, overlooked basin rebound, glacial depression and general land subsidence. Only if the return of water was gradual would there be no flood, a quick return would over run the land before isostatic adjustment could occur.Yes, and the delta 180 curve from LGM to now shows that the return was indeed gradual with only small meltwater spikes, totally inconsistent with the predictions of your model.Also, as I pointed out, your model would result in falling relative sea-levels following the flood, as continents rise and ocean basins subside, not the other way around, which is what we see in all of the coral and other data.BTW, I will be gone from the forum for a few days, but I will return.Patrick

​

[This message has been edited by ps418, 02-09-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by ps418, 02-09-2002]

"As I see it, the cats are alive and well, and happen to be sharpening their claws on the shredded remains of your flood theory." Cute, very good analogy. Like I said only one of them arrived alive and he is a cute little fellow that takes awhile to get to know. He actually has been fairly well behaved and I think he will make a good pet. I need to study his pedigreed, I have reason to believe he is not the shredder he is made out to be. No you didn't hit any nerves, but I did think that perhaps you had come up with a solid limiting factor on the size of the flood, which you may have. But using the ratio of Ohttp://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid=11275On the freshwater spikes and other core records, I will need to look at such in detail before I can really comment on your interpretation of the data. You may have a whole army on your side, but I have to do all my own research, which imposes limits on what I can do, and how long it takes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
On the lack of lower shorelines, there is some evidence for massively lower sea levels such as underwater canyons line up with rivers on land. Some of these are found over a mile below current sea level. But considering the fact that ocean currents are believed to have formed some of these canyons, it is not proof in itself. I would not discount the possibility of finding lower shorelines someday, because as it has been stated we know the surface of the moon better than we know the depths of the oceans. While that may be, I theorize that due to the relative density of continental crust verses oceanic crust, there is a compensating factor in isostatic balancing that keeps the ratio of land to water from departing too far from the ratio of the density of water to rock. So that as large swings in ocean volume will raise or lower the sea level and as a result reduce or enlarge the percentage of land, the isostatic forces will tend to counter balance, helping to keep the land/water ratio from getting too far out of whack. Due to this balancing effect, to create lower shorelines will take progressively larger amounts water removed to do it. Part of the reason for this, is as I have been posting, is as the ocean level drops, the rebounding of the ocean floor pulls the land downward. Meaning that to create a given low shoreline a greater amount of water needs to be removed. If the removal happens very quick, then the level may drop before isostatic compensation could occur. This could possibly explain some of the underwater canyons, they may have been formed in a brief pull down of the shoreline before isostatic compensation occurred in some areas.

---

Wmscott, you remind me of an acquaintance who once claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine. All he had to do was convince his wife to cut up the house to build it. It was truly real no matter what I told him. He had a rationalization for every one of my arguments. Well, twenty five years later, I haven't heard of him getting a Nobel Prize, so I assume that his wife prevailed... Or maybe I did.Anyhow, we are pretty certain that there are shorelines below the present sea level. They have been used to prospect for archeological sites in the Pacific Northwest with a degree of success.Now, since you have all of this pivoting about the continental slope(?), where is your evidence for this? There should be absolutely no evidence of a quiet, passive continental margin anywhere in the world. There should be massive volcanism of the right age on all continental margins along with mappable faults and seismicity. The only places that you find these shorelines are in the most active convergent plate boundaries in the world.... But they wouldn't have anything to do with plate tectonics would they?Even with many thousands of feet of ice on them, Antarctica and the high northern latitudes are significantly above sea level. No amount of ice melt will submerge those areas completely. How are you going to do this on a global scale? Your model is too sketchy to even ponder.You have not provided any evidence that there was enough ice melt to raise the oceans a significant degree and if there were, you you have to melt significant parts of the ice pack that you say remained intact. Even if the event occurred you are a long way from showing the remote possibility of a global flood.You have repeatedly referred to a cometary impact for which there is no evidence, but you pass this shortcoming off with a wave of the hand and move on building your house of cards.You have shown virtually no evidence that the flood reached any higher than 600 to 700 feet above the present sea level but just assume that it must have been high enough to cover the entire earth, further adding on to your house of cards. You reject any explanation to the contrary with a casualy dismissal and back it all up with scripture.Show us evidence for higher sea levels, not just wishful speculation in support of your legend. Show us a mechanism and evidence for see-sawing of the continents and the ocean basins. Show us evidence for sea levels over a couple of thousand feet in elevation. As yet you have failed to do any of these things. All you have managed to do is unsuccessfully try to boost your book sales.

actually i might buy his book.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

Edge-in debating you fire off impressive broadsides, but your targeting skills are poor. To be of any value, you have to hit the target. For example, "There should be massive volcanism of the right age on all continental margins along with mappable faults and seismicity." Who said that? I didn't, do you have your own theory on this that predicts that? What I have been saying is that the depression of the oceans was deep flexing, not shallow, no volcanic or faulting is expected on the ocean margins. The movement was too deep and spread over too wide of an area for this to occur."Even with many thousands of feet of ice on them, Antarctica and the high northern latitudes are significantly above sea level. No amount of ice melt will submerge those areas completely." Actually you are referring to the surface of the glaciers, without the ice the Antarctica land surface is a number of islands. Since ice floats, it of course was impossible for any major glacier to be submerged in the flood waters. Due to the isostatic depression of the land beneath a glacier, those areas are the most susceptible to flooding and many marine relic lakes from the end of the last ice age are found in those areas, proving that they were under water at that time."You have not provided any evidence that there was enough ice melt to raise the oceans a significant degree and if there were, you have to melt significant parts of the ice pack that you say remained intact. Even if the event occurred you are a long way from showing the remote possibility of a global flood." Actually I have provided evidence, such as the marine traces here in Wisconsin at an elevation of 1000 ft, the Michigan whale bones, the drop stones in the Wisconsin Driftless area, etc. Considering the elevation these things and others are found at, the fact that there was a global flood, is a simple fact. The only thing really debatable is how deep the water was, and did it really cover all of the land. Melting an "ice pack" will have no effect on sea level at all by the way, because an ice pact is floating ice that is already in the sea. In the last ice age the earth had much more ice than it does today, in our discussions we have been talking about the former ice sheets, not current ones."a cometary impact for which there is no evidence" Actually there is some, as we have been discussing the Carolina bay lakes show signs of having been created by secondary impacts at the end of the ice age, and of course we have the sudden collapse of the ice sheet itself."Show us a mechanism and evidence for see-sawing of the continents and the ocean basins." We, or at least Patrick and I have been discussing the mechanism of the flood for the last several posts. You really should read the posts before jumping into a discussion. It is nice that you have an interest in the flood, but it would be better if you could contribute something to the discussion other than just the usual Internet flaming. If you want to make more of an impression with your arguments, I would suggest learning what and where the targets are. Look at KingPenguin, at least he is open minded enough to consider what I have to say, where as your mind is closed. That is why I wasn't too happy when they moved this posting to the debate page, in debates people already have their minds made up. As things progress each side becomes more entrenched in its position, and less willing to see the other side of things. I prefer discussions, the free exchange of ideas, where people are willing to consider other viewpoints. Which is much more productive than always trying to prove yourself right. Due to the entrenchment effect, I don't expect any of the regular posters to read my book, the main purpose is to test my theory, and find any areas that need improvement.

Originally posted by wmscott:
No you didn't hit any nerves, but I did think that perhaps you had come up with a solid limiting factor on the size of the flood, which you may have.Indeed I have.But using the ratio of O<16 to O<18 in the oceans is affected by the fact that O<18 doesn't stay in the oceans, it turns up in ice cores and is used to estimate former ocean surface temperatures. You can check on this with a simple word search for 'ice core isotope'.I mean this politely, but your ignorance on this subject is becoming evident again. For instance, no one ever said that O18 stays in the oceans. What I said is that O16 is preferentially removed by a known amount depending on absolute temperature at which calcification takes place. Second, I know full well that oxygen isotope ratios are used as paleothermometers. This doesn't affect my argument one bit. The delta 18O seawater can only be derived precisely when the temp. component is accounted for independently, for instance by Mg/Ca ratios. alkenone unsaturation index, faunal paleothermometers, or by sampling strategies designed to minimize temp variation. For another example, see:Elderfield, H. and Ganssen, G., 2000. Past temperature and d18O of surface ocean waters inferred from foraminiferal Mg/Ca ratios. Nature, 405, 442-444.Since some of the O<18 doesn't stay in the ocean, and the amount that leaves is dependent on surface temperatures, predicting ocean volume based on O<18 levels is not a simple direct measurement. I would like to study this in much greater detail, but seems that while great for estimating former ocean temperatures, the oxygen isotope ratio is less than ideal for measuring total ocean volume.Yes, indeed, you need to study this in much greater detail, since what you say directly contradicts those working in the field, and ignores the evidence I've already given that delta 180 seawater is an excellent proxy for ice volume (the excellent fit between the eustatic curve and oxygen isotope [seawater] curve - see also fig. 1 in Mix and Clark, 2000. Ice sheets by volume. Nature 406: 689-690). Whether you personally accept it or not is immaterial, and evidence shows that the oxygen isotope proxy is in fact an excellent indicator or eustatic sea level.And I find it quite revealing that, although you are admittedly ignorant of such research, you nevertheless somehow feel qualified to state, in direct contradiction to it, that "the oxygen isotope ratio is less than ideal for measuring total ocean volume." This statement makes me feel as if I've been wasting my time in this conversation.On another note, I had a look at Emiliani's 1955 paper, which is one of the very first papers dealing with the use of oxygen isotope ratios in paleoclimatology. He provides exactly the type of calculation I was looking for, which is an estimate of the amount of oceanic isotopic fractionation that would be expected for given LGM ice volumes, based on observed fractionation effects, and totally independent of ice-volume estimates derived from coral data and so on. I'm still looking for more recent calculations, though, since Emiliani did not have the tools at his disposal that we have today.Emiliani calculates that formation of 40x10^6 km3 of ice with an average isotopic composition of -15 would raise the whole-ocean 18O/16O ratio by 0.4. The concensus estimate of 50x10^6 km3 of ice present at the LGM in excess of todays volume would then correspond to a an increase of 0.5, compared to the 1.0 +/- 0.1 observed for the last 6 or so glacial/interglacial cycles.So, even taking this calculation at face value, it would rule out all but the very lowest end of your ice volume range [1.5 to 12 times 50x10^6 km3]. However, -15 is probably too high for an average ice isotopic composition. An average ice isotopic composition of -25 would produce an ice-volume estimate close to 50x10^6km3 inferred on the basis of eustatic sea-level data.I'll let you know when I find more recent calculations along the same lines.Emiliani, C. 1955. Pleistocene temperatures. Journal of Geology, 63: 538-578.It appears to me that the estimates on ocean volume from this method are pretty subjective. A better indicator of sudden shifts in ocean volume would be things that don't evaporate, like salt and other trace minerals.No, they're not in any way 'better,' but they are complimentary. In fact, I read a paper today on salinity changes in the Red Sea during the quaternary lowstands. Basically the authors conclude that eustatic sea level could not have been lower than 137m at the LGM, or at any of the glacial lowstands during the past 500Ka. However, this was based on a eustatic control on salinity in the Red Sea, not on a whole ocean salinity change. I'd be willing to bet though that LGM ice volume could also be constrained by salinity changes across LGM.Rohling, E.J., Fenton, M., Jorissen, F.J., Bertrand, P., Ganssen, G., and Caulet, J.P. 1998. Magnitudes of sea-level lowstands of the past 500,000 years. Nature, 394, 162-165.The returning freshwater spike would have been carrying O<18 and well, and if tropical mountain glaciers for example composed of evaporation from warm water, would have had a much higher level in comparison to glaciers fed from colder water evaporation. These factors could effect the results and need to be checked out.That's funny. Tell me, first of all, what you think the maximum volume of "tropical mountain glaciers" was at the LGM, and what percentage of all LGM ice do you think it constituted? Maybe 1% at best? And remember, the extent of such glaciers are constrained by the physical evidence. And of course, we are still ignoring the fact that the isotopic curve has been demonstrated to match the eustatic curve for at least the past 350k (as far back as the eustatic curve goes), which pretty much renders these objections moot.On the lack of lower shorelines, there is some evidence for massively lower sea levels such as underwater canyons line up with rivers on land. Some of these are found over a mile below current sea level. But considering the fact that ocean currents are believed to have formed some of these canyons, it is not proof in itself.I agree, its not proof at all, its not even evidence. There are plenty of reliable indicators of subarial exposure (root traces, soil profiles, caliche horizons, beachrock, etc). Unless you've found some of these features, no case can be made. I think what I need to do is focus on some specific examples (for instance, those discussed in the papers referenced below) and see how you explain the evidence in terms of your theory.Again it is clear that you haven't read much in this area. In far-field locations, deposits from the last glacial lowstand are consistently found around ~130m -ish. Some papers you may want to check out are:Ferland, M.A., Roy, P.S. and Murray-Wallace, C.V., 1995, Glacial lowstand deposits on the outer continental shelf of Southeastern Australia, Quaternary Research, 44, 294-299.Ramsay, P.J., Cooper, J.A.G., 2002. Late Quaternary sea-level change in South Africa, Quaternary Research 57, 82-90.Yokoyama, Y., Lambeck, K., Deckker, P.D., Johnston, P. and Fifield, L.K. 2000. Timing of the Last Glacial Maximum from observed sea-level minima. Nature 406: 713-716.The Yokoyama et al. paper, by the way, states that LGM sea level is between -135 and -130, and the LGM ice-volume exceeded present volume by 52x10^6, + or -2.I would not discount the possibility of finding lower shorelines someday, because as it has been stated we know the surface of the moon better than we know the depths of the oceans.I have no idea what you are talking about. There are plenty of well-dated LGM lowstand indicators, its just that they happen not to be in "the depths of the ocean."The last termination was different from the earlier terminations. In that it was the most abrupt and has an extinction event associated with it.More abrupt based on what (and who's) evidence? Which extinction event are you referring to? Be specific and provide references.On the isostatic adjustment being completed in less than a few hundred years. I don't believe that the flood was compensated for by isostatic forces in the asthenosphere. For the majority of this massive shift would have had to occur in less than a year, which is several magnitudes beyond the possible rates of ordinary isostatic compensation.Yes!! Yes!! Exactly! If you use *any* accepted earth-isostatic model, your model simply will not work, since the viscosity of the mantle would greatly limit the speed at which the adjustments could occur. Kudos to you for coming out and stating this explicitly! I was beginning to just think that you were simply overlooking an obvious prediction of your own model.Shifts of this size and speed could have originated only much deeper in the earth where the earth is hotter and more fluid. The whole foundation of what I have been saying is that the earth experienced a deep hydraulic type flexing.Uh huh. Let me know when you submit your model to Tectonophysics for review . . .On glacial ice volumes estimated from regional land-based isostatic records, I have a discussion on this in my book. There are some limits on the way these estimates are done, and as you can see in comparison with other data, they tend to be on the light side. I am surprised you bring this up so late, I had assumed you skipped over it and went to the isotope ratio as the better argument, but feel free to bring it up if you want.Actually it would be irrelevant now that you've admitted 1) that such methods, like other methods, give volumes of LGM ice that are much too low to support your range of ice volumes, and 2) that your model is based on an, um, 'unique' isostatic model. "numerous advances have been made in stable isotope geology in the last 5 years. I'd be happy to recommend a few dozen papers if you like." Yes please do, particularly any new books that treat the subject in depth. I did see a few, but so far they have all been pretty pricey, and not as thorough as what I would like.Do you have access to a library with scientific journals, or are you looking for a book that you can order? Most of the refs I think you should read are only available in journals."killing all life outside the ark" Where did that come from? Stop cutting and pasteing from old arguments with YECs.I'll quit cutting and pasting when you stop playing dumb. Everyone in this forum has read the "The Biblical Flood" story, and knows what it says about the animals outside the ark, namely that they were all dead by T+40 days. I guess I am guilty of assuming that, since your book is called "Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood," that you were defending the Biblical Flood story as literal history. I guess I should have known by now that you are not in fact defending the Biblical Story itself. My apologies."Let me know when you get your model in order. I want to send it to Glenn Morton and ask him if its tenable." I have complied my model and printed it off and had it bound into a book. Morton can pick one up if he wants to look at it. I wish he would, I would like to hear his input. If he is short on money after taxes, he can always pick up a computer copy for 8 bucks at the link below.

​

http://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid=...Thanks for the link. I'll send it to Glenn and see if he's interested.On the freshwater spikes and other core records, I will need to look at such in detail before I can really comment on your interpretation of the data. You may have a whole army on your side, but I have to do all my own research, which imposes limits on what I can do, and how long it takes. Take your time. The evidence will still be here when you're done. I'll repeat what I said previously, though, that the lack of a major negative shift in delta 180 seawater is a huge problem. And this is independent of our disagreement about how large the absolute volume of LGM ice was -- no matter how much was there, if any significant amount of it was displaced to the ocean quickly (less than, say, 1k yrs), this could not fail to show up in the isotopic curve.PatrickPS- I have been reading some papers on the Black Sea flood and the flooding of the Baltic sea, and plan to challenge your interpretation of these events as part of the flood, when I get time. I've also been looking for evidence for coseismic slumping associated with H1 and H0, and thus far the results are all negative. Again, I'll summarize this when I get time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
edge:
"Even with many thousands of feet of ice on them, Antarctica and the high northern latitudes are significantly above sea level. No amount of ice melt will submerge those areas completely."

​

wmscott:
Actually you are referring to the surface of the glaciers, without the ice the Antarctica land surface is a number of islands.

---

Exactly the point. Even if the ice completely melted in a short time, it would pretty much stay where it is as water. The mountains would still be above the water. As isostatic compensation occurred, even more land would emerge.

quote:

---

edge:
"You have not provided any evidence that there was enough ice melt to raise the oceans a significant degree and if there were, you have to melt significant parts of the ice pack that you say remained intact. Even if the event occurred you are a long way from showing the remote possibility of a global flood."

​

wmscott:
Actually I have provided evidence, such as the marine traces here in Wisconsin at an elevation of 1000 ft, the Michigan whale bones, the drop stones in the Wisconsin Driftless area, etc.

---

A whole thousand feet! Now that's convincing. Like I said, you have a long way to go.

quote:

---

Considering the elevation these things and others are found at, the fact that there was a global flood, is a simple fact.

---

Wow, if I said something like that, creationists would howl.

quote:

---

"a cometary impact for which there is no evidence" Actually there is some, as we have been discussing the Carolina bay lakes show signs of having been created by secondary impacts at the end of the ice age, and of course we have the sudden collapse of the ice sheet itself.

---

Could you summarize the evidence that shows your point?

quote:

---

edge:
"Show us a mechanism and evidence for see-sawing of the continents and the ocean basins."

​

wmscott:
We, or at least Patrick and I have been discussing the mechanism of the flood for the last several posts. You really should read the posts before jumping into a discussion. It is nice that you have an interest in the flood, but it would be better if you could contribute something to the discussion other than just the usual Internet flaming. If you want to make more of an impression with your arguments, I would suggest learning what and where the targets are. Look at KingPenguin, at least he is open minded enough ...(complaint snipped)

---

So, you can't propose such a mechanism... By the way I didn't ask for a flood mechanism, I asked for a mechanism that would uplift the deep ocean basins relative to the continents.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ps418:
wmscott says:"
That is to be expected since as I having been posting, we do not find marine bottom life on land as a result of the flood. Since the flood was too brief to create corals on land, it is to be expected that it was too rapid to show up in coral ring records.

---

A little problem here. If coral does not have time to colonize in shallower water, how does it manage to survive the wmscott flood? Even a modest 700 foot rise in water level (which is all the wmscott has shown so far) will kill all coral reefs on earth in a very short time. Why do we have modern coral reefs at all, much less the extensive ones that we all know about?

Patrick;Yes we both agree at least on the fact that I need to do research on oxygen isotope ratios in relationship with ocean volumes. Until I do, I am not in any position to reply on this topic until I learn more about it. Since it will be a few days before my schedule will permit me to visit a suitable library, perhaps you would like to post a selected reading list for me. I have already requested two books on this topic from the inter library loan program, but it is not possible to predict when or even if they will arrive. I will paste together a list of the papers that you have recommended so far, but perhaps you would like to pick out the best ones, sort of a top ten list, so that if time is short I will at least get to the most important ones, and I would be very interested in any book recommendations you would care to make. Good idea on getting more modern calculations on the isotope ratio, I am particularly interested in the math and what it is based on, how the variables are determined."the maximum volume of "tropical mountain glaciers" was at the LGM," I agree with you, the % was probably pretty low, I am just searching for effects that may not have been considered that could have effected isotope ratio estimate. Like you said, I don't know enough on this subject to express an educated opinion at this time, so I will keep my thoughts on this to myself until I know more about it."you are not in fact defending the Biblical Story itself" Actually I am, the YECs would strongly disagree with me however on nearly all points. I am only defending the biblical account itself, not all the interpretations, doctrinal viewpoints and mythical nonsense that many people claim is part of the biblical flood. The belief that the bible states everything outside the ark died, is at best a misunderstanding of Genesis 7:21-23 where it states "Everything in which the breath of the force of life was active in its nostrils, namely, all that were on the dry ground, died." What the bible is stating is that all the animals that breathed and were still on the ground died since the ground was covered by water. The use of the word 'earth' or 'ground' refers to the land surface, not the entire earth. Many animals survived outside the ark.I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with on the Black Sea flood, you are the only one on this page that gives me a run for my money.Edge;
We are not talking about having a flood now. The Antarctca mountains are at their current elevation due to the shifts that occurred in the flood. The Antatcta Ice sheet was larger in the ice age and the ocean level was lower, the combination of these effects would have put the mountains at a lower level."mechanism that would uplift the deep ocean basins relative to the continents." "Isostatic copensation- The adjustment of the lithosphere of the earth to maintain equilibrium amoung units of varying mass and density; excess mass above is balanced by a deficit of density below, and vice versa." Dictonary of geological Terms, third edition.Coral- The flood was brief enough for some coral to survive. Some did not survive and was restarted by new growth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Edge;
We are not talking about having a flood now. The Antarctca mountains are at their current elevation due to the shifts that occurred in the flood. The Antatcta Ice sheet was larger in the ice age and the ocean level was lower, the combination of these effects would have put the mountains at a lower level.

---

What is your evidence that these mountains were at a "lower level?" This is a nice assertion, but it is unsupported.

quote:

---

"mechanism that would uplift the deep ocean basins relative to the continents." "Isostatic copensation- The adjustment of the lithosphere of the earth to maintain equilibrium amoung units of varying mass and density; excess mass above is balanced by a deficit of density below, and vice versa." Dictonary of geological Terms, third edition.

---

So, isostatic compensation just "did it?" Tell us why the flow of the asthenospere is so rapid from beneath continents to the ocean basin and back, but so slow during continental uplift due to glacial melting. I don't quite get this part.

quote:

---

Coral- The flood was brief enough for some coral to survive. Some did not survive and was restarted by new growth.

---

Okay, how long was the wscott flood, and how do you reconcile this with the biblical story?

Edge;"that these mountains were at a "lower level?" . . . is unsupported." The mountains had less support when the surrounding ocean had less water in it, and the ice age ice cap was larger and heavier which would have pushed these mountains to a lower elevation. Isostatic compensation."Tell us why the flow of the asthenospere is so rapid from beneath continents to the ocean basin and back, but so slow during continental uplift due to glacial melting." There is the normal slow acting isostatic compensation which takes place in the asthenosphere, then there is a second type called Ice Age Flexing which takes place deeper inside the earth and is faster acting. Due to the great depth and rigidness of the mantel, the deep flexing only occurs if there is a sudden large shift that the asthenosphere is unable to handle. What happens is the earth flexes suddenly, then over time the asthenosphere adjusts to the change and the flex slowly returns to normal. The slow build up and melting of glacial ice is adjusted for by normal isostatic compensation. But when the flood water and ice, was suddenly dumped into the seas, the huge shift in pressure from glaciated areas to ocean basins, put an enormous pressure shift on the crust of the earth that was strong enough to flex the entire earth. Think if the earth was put in a giant vise and someone turned the handle faster than the asthenosphere could flow, the earth would flex like a rubber ball deeper down where the temperatures are higher the earth is more fluid. Then over time the asthenosphere would slowly adjust, and as it did so, the deeper interior would slowly go back to its normal shape."long was the wscott flood, and how do you reconcile this with the biblical story?" In the bible, Noah spent about a year in the ark and exited on a high spot. So the expected length of deep submergence of coral would be about a year, maybe more, maybe less depending on location and how the earth's crust responded to the flood pressures. Some coral types may have been able to survive, some may have be able to regrow and some probably had to be recolonized. The flood wasn't meant to kill of all the world's coral, so much of it survived one way or another.There is a nice article in the new March issue of Scientific American called "Repeated Blows" on extraterrestrial impacts being to be associated with a number of extinction events other than just the one that killed the dinosaurs, also had some nice information on how some extinction events were much more abrupt than they had realized. Related a bit to some of the things we had been talking about earlier on this page.

Originally posted by wmscott:
Patrick;

​

Yes we both agree at least on the fact that I need to do research on oxygen isotope ratios in relationship with ocean volumes. Until I do, I am not in any position to reply on this topic until I learn more about it.Fair enough. For what its worth, I've been impressed time and again at how diverse geologic questions can be approached by stable isotope methods, not only oxygen isotopes as we've been discussing, but also strontium, carbon, and sulpher isotopes as well. I encourage you or anyone else who is interested in geology to familiarize themselves with such methods.Since it will be a few days before my schedule will permit me to visit a suitable library, perhaps you would like to post a selected reading list for me.I recommend the refs I've given so far, plus the new ones I mention in this post. These directly adress the particular issues we've been discussing.Good idea on getting more modern calculations on the isotope ratio, I am particularly interested in the math and what it is based on, how the variables are determined.For our purposes, its actually pretty simple, in that one can calculate the expected whole-ocean oxygen isotopic shift based only on the amount of water removed from the ocean and on the average isotopic composition of the ice which it forms. However, there are indeed plenty of laboratory culture experiments adressing such things as the relationship between calcification temperature and isotopic fractionation in forams, the relationship between calcification temperature and Mg/Ca ratios in forams, and so on.And let me add a footnote to the Emiliani calculation I gave in my last post. Emiliani calculated that the expected whole-ocean oxygen isotopic shift corresponding to the formation of 40x10^6km3 of ice with an average isotopic composition of -15, would be -0.4. For 50x10^6km3 of ice at -15, this would produce a shift of -0.5. The actual shift between glacial and interglacial is estimated by most recent papers at between -0.8 and -1.1.I pointed out that the value -15 was probably much too high a value for average LGM ice, and suggested that -25 was probably more accurate. This would put the oxygen isotope-estimated ice volume a little bit over the amount estimated from eustatic data, but not by much. However, today I read a paper by Schrag et al. (1996) which cites several (5) sources to the effect that -32 is a better estimate. This would make the eustatic LGM ice-volume estimate and the oxygen isotope LGM ice volume estimate almost exactly equal, 50x10^6km3, which corresponds to somewhere around 3% of the ocean water. My point here is that even if we accept unrealistically high values for 'average LGM ice,' -15, then this would still limit the LGM ice volume to less than 100x10^6km3.Schrag, D.P., Hampt, G., Murray, D.W., 1996. Pore fluid constraints on the temperature and oxygen isotopic composition of the glacial ocean. Science, 272, 1930-1932.I also want to add another piece of evidence for my case that oxygen isotopes can be used as an ice-volume proxy. I'm not trying to hound you on this, I just want to mention it since it bears on our discussion.Miller, K.G., Mountain, G.S., the Leg 150 Shipboard Party, and Members of the New Jersey Coastal Plain Drilling Project, Drilling and dating New Jersey Oligocene-Miocene sequences: ice volume, global sea level, and Exxon records, Science, 271: 1092-1094, 1996.Basically the paper shows that sea-level lowstands in the Oligocene-Miocene inferred on the basis of oxygen isotope excursions matches the distribution of unconformities in the shelf sediments off of New Jersey. In other words, where the isotopes tell us we should find lowstand unconformities, we actually do find lowstand unconformities. Their abstract states:Oligocene to middle Miocene sequence boundaries on the New Jersey coastal plain (Ocean Drilling Project Leg 150X) and continental slope (Ocean Drilling Project Leg 150) were dated by integrating strontium isotopic stratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy, and biostratigraphy (planktonic foraminifera, nannofossils, dinocysts, and diatoms). The ages of coastal plain unconformities and slope seismic reflectors (unconformities or stratal breaks with no discernible hiatuses) match the ages of global 18O increases (inferred glacioeustatic lowerings) measured in deep-sea sites. These correlations confirm a causal link between coastal plain and slope sequence boundaries: both formed during global sea-level lowerings. The ages of New Jersey sequence boundaries and global 18O increases also correlate well with the Exxon Production Research sea-level records of Haq et al. and Vail et al., validating and refining their compilations. "you are not in fact defending the Biblical Story itself" Actually I am, the YECs would strongly disagree with me however on nearly all points. I am only defending the biblical account itself, not all the interpretations, doctrinal viewpoints and mythical nonsense that many people claim is part of the biblical flood.Hey, I think we found something to agree on.I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with on the Black Sea flood, you are the only one on this page that gives me a run for my money. Actually, I dont disagree with the Black Sea flood per se, as tis based on sound science. I disagree, however, with the association of the Black Sea flood with some of the other events. I'll show you what I mean when I get some more time, but would you tell me for the record if the you associate the freshwater-brackish transition in the Baltic Sea with the Black Sea flood?One more point. I noticed that you again asserted an impact origin for the Carolina Bay lakes. I do have to take issue with this. There is simply evidence for this, and good evidence against it.I found a webpage which posits that the CBLs might have an impact origin, but that they could not have been formed by the impact of an actual physical object. The authors state that the only scenario consistent with the evidence is a small cometary nucleus fragmenting and exploding above ground, with the CBLs formed indirectly by a blast wave. But the authors admit that even this scenario is hardly demanded by the evidence.Some of the pertinent observations listed by the authors follow. I know that your argument is that they were formed by some form of secondary impact, so some of the observations may not apply to yoru model, but some of the observations rule out any kind of direct physical impact by an object, which is why the authors state that only an indirect blast-wave origin is not ruled out. They state:The stratigraphy beneath the bays is not distorted (Preston and Brown, 1964; Thom, 1970).

​

No variation in the heavy mineral suite was found along a traverse of the major axis of one South Carolina bay, even though samples were taken from the bay floor, bay rim and the adjacent non-bay terrace (Preston and Brown, 1964).

​

Carolina Bays do not even closely approximate impact crater morphometric characteristics. The rim widths appear to be the only measure which even falls within the range predicted by the impact model. In an attempt to examine this phenomenon, a curve relating rim height and rim width was derived from Baldwin's curves and the values for the bays in Table 5 were plotted (Figure 3b). For an impact crater to have a rim height of 7.5 feet, it should have a rim width of 100 feet. Junkyard Bay has a mean rim width of 575 feet with a mean rim height of only 7.4 feet. In all nine bays, rim width is considerably greater with respect to rim height than the model predicts. As impact structures, the Carolina Bays exhibit crater depths that are much too shallow for their diameter, rim heights that are too low for their diameter, and rim widths that are too narrow for their diameter. The rim widths are considerably wider than is expected with respect to the actual rim heights. Clearly, the bays are not impact phenomena of the type that created the lunar and terrestrial craters.

​

Very few samples of buried peat in the bays have been dated. Thom (1970) had a 6600 B.P. radiocarbon date from the basal peat in one South Carolina bay although he cited a greater than 38,000 B.P. date from the basal peat in a North Carolina bay. It is difficult to equate the two results. This is especially significant, since if any of the bays are older than the LGM (~19k yr), then they could not have been formed after the LGM, obviously, and if the bays are of widely different ages, as the dates suggest, then they could not have formed as part of a single event at all.The authors conclude:Examination of impact mechanics and Carolina Bay morphometry eliminates traditional impact phenomena resulting from meteoroid swarms or asteroids. However, the unique orbital and physical characteristics of a comet favor a model in which a high velocity retrograde comet or a low velocity prograde comet collided with the Earth. The incoming nucleus approached from the northwest and fragmented. The fragments, diverging from the main trajectory, volatized and subsequently exploded in the atmosphere near the surface. The resultant shock waves created shallow elliptical depressions which are best displayed in the sandy sediments of the Coastal Plain.

​

This model is not fully substantiated. But, given the terrestrial and extraterrestrial constraints used in this paper, a comet remains a viable alternative worthy of further consideration. We hope that the physics of such an event can be explored, and that these results support our contention. We believe that a multidirected research effort will eventually result in a consensus about a truly enigmatic set of landforms. It will probably be a while before I come back to the forum. I have a stack of papers on marine hardgrounds that I've been waiting to read, but my discussions here have been eating into my free time. I've definitely enjoyed the time I've spent here thus far, however, and as a result my understanding of ice-age geology has been greatly increased.Be Well,Patrick

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
No one is going to be able to prove the flood using old mythical theories...

​

There have been many Scientific Creationist books over the years that have tried to prove the flood, but they have all failed because they ignore basic scientific facts and twist everything in a vain attempt to support their impossible theories and end up only deluding themselves.

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-20-2001]

---

Very well put! I have presented a friend of mine with the same argument. Although he begins to explain that current scientific laws do not exist and are false, he ends with "Well the flood occurred by devine intervention and the miracles put forth by God!". It's always the classic way of explaining something he doesn't understand. I guess my question to the creationists would be---> How can Creationism prove that such devine intervention took place? Without using biblical scriptures, using only cold hard facts and scientific research!The bible should be used for the study of religion...NOT SCIENCE.

​

[This message has been edited by no2creation, 02-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
The mountains had less support when the surrounding ocean had less water in it, and the ice age ice cap was larger and heavier which would have pushed these mountains to a lower elevation. Isostatic compensation.

---

Can you give me a referencs showing that filled oceans offer more support to continental mountains than shallow oceans?

quote:

---

"Tell us why the flow of the asthenospere is so rapid from beneath continents to the ocean basin and back, but so slow during continental uplift due to glacial melting." There is the normal slow acting isostatic compensation which takes place in the asthenosphere, then there is a second type called Ice Age Flexing which takes place deeper inside the earth and is faster acting. Due to the great depth and rigidness of the mantel, the deep flexing only occurs if there is a sudden large shift that the asthenosphere is unable to handle. What happens is the earth flexes suddenly, then over time the asthenosphere adjusts to the change and the flex slowly returns to normal. The slow build up and melting of glacial ice is adjusted for by normal isostatic compensation. But when the flood water and ice, was suddenly dumped into the seas, the huge shift in pressure from glaciated areas to ocean basins, put an enormous pressure shift on the crust of the earth that was strong enough to flex the entire earth. Think if the earth was put in a giant vise and someone turned the handle faster than the asthenosphere could flow, the earth would flex like a rubber ball deeper down where the temperatures are higher the earth is more fluid. Then over time the asthenosphere would slowly adjust, and as it did so, the deeper interior would slowly go back to its normal shape.

---

And this action is documented where? I also need some evidence that there was this sudden shift from the ice caps to the ocean basins. Do you have some evidence that this has happened? You gave some song and dance earlier, but as I remember, there was no diagnostic evidence.

quote:

---

"long was the wscott flood, and how do you reconcile this with the biblical story?" In the bible, Noah spent about a year in the ark and exited on a high spot. So the expected length of deep submergence of coral would be about a year, maybe more, maybe less depending on location and how the earth's crust responded to the flood pressures. Some coral types may have been able to survive, some may have be able to regrow and some probably had to be recolonized. The flood wasn't meant to kill of all the world's coral, so much of it survived one way or another.

---

Can you tell us about coral that can survive thousands of feet of submergence for a year? Where are the extinct coral reefs that the flood undoubtedly killed?

quote:

---

There is a nice article in the new March issue of Scientific American called "Repeated Blows" on extraterrestrial impacts being to be associated with a number of extinction events other than just the one that killed the dinosaurs, also had some nice information on how some extinction events were much more abrupt than they had realized. Related a bit to some of the things we had been talking about earlier on this page.

---

I have little doubt that there have been repeated impacts, however, I would like some evidence that these have caused major extinctions, melted the ice caps and left no chemical or physical trace.

I didnt read most of this thread, but id just like to bring up a point, if its already been discussed, stating what page it is on is cool.Anyway, if it was a worldwide flood then that would have caused the extinction of many species. For example all the Mammals and insects would not have been able to survive such a drastic change in their lifestyle. I think its obvios that insects could not have survived a flood on that scale, no food, or a landing space, would cause the death of 90% of insects for even a short period of time ( good example is my pool, no chlorine, yet within a few days its covered in insects, they cant take even that amount of water). Also any eggs floating in the water would not hatch b/c there parents arent around to take care of them as most insects do. And most mammals would simply drown. If there was a worlwide flood then why are there such a diverse number of insects and mammals in this world today that could not survive this scenario?And then theres us. If there was a worldwide flood then humans would not back then, have had the capacity to survive such an event. Even if the world flooded slowly, we wouldnt have been able to either stock up on food, or make a craft to float on that could withstand the flood quick enough. Even if some humans survived, the population would be so decimated that humans after the flood would be so scattered and half dead, that the human species would be next to instinct.And what about all the water, where did the water that flooded the world go to, since this didnt happen during the ice age it cant be in the glaciers, b/c this is a biblical story.

​

[This message has been edited by King David, 02-14-2002]