Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 167 of 460 (5928)
03-01-2002 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by wmscott
03-01-2002 6:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
On glacial flows, if you take the sum, the total equals a deluge. The one site I listed described the result being a sudden large rise in sea level spreading around the world with the speed of a tidal wave. The idea of a comet induced release of glacial meltwater is that many noted releases may have happened at the same time, which would have resulted in a sudden and very large rise in sea level. Other releases of course have occurred over the comings and goings of the various stages of the ice age.

And the evidence for this actually resulting in a global flood is?
quote:
On the Carolina bays being formed by impacts, I highly recommend the book "The Mysterious Carolina Bays" by Henry Savage Jr. 1982.
....
The Bays are eroding away, they are not being formed by processes in action today. There are no new ones forming and no other answer for their creation that makes more sense then comet impacts has been put forward. Any theory can be attacked, but let us see if you can find a better one, otherwise if by nothing else, the impact theory wins by default.

Who denies that impacts have occurred? I'm not sure what your point is, wmscott. How does this support your thesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by wmscott, posted 03-01-2002 6:03 PM wmscott has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 168 of 460 (5944)
03-02-2002 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by wmscott
03-01-2002 6:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
doctrbill; You have admitted that your interpretation is in conflict with two bible reference works that clearly contradict what you say.

My views are not built on the opinion of others.
... scriptures I posted showed, the whole earth is referred to at times in the bible.
I showed that the expression: whole earth cannot possibly refer to the planet.
For our point of debate, it doesn't matter if the ancient Hebrews didn't know how big the earth was or if it was flat or round, ...
You are confusing my argument with someone elses.
... the point is ... whether or not they were only referring to a part or all of it.
The point is, whether the word "earth" ever describes the planet. It does not.
The words used, according to bible references can mean all of the earth.
These references show the religious bias of men on Church payroll.
The context in the scriptures I posted was also clear in referring to all the earth.
You make me laugh.
Daniel 2:35 "the stone ... became ... a large mountain and filled the whole earth." is referring to the Messianic Kingdom that ... will extend its ruler ship to cover the entire earth.
You demand too much of this passage. You want the "the stone" and "the mountain" to be metaphorical; and you want "the earth" to be actual. You want to eat your cake and have it too.
The whole point of Jesus' message was that salvation was available to all, so restricting 'whole earth' in Daniel would be in conflict with the basic message of Christianity.
This is your real objection. Isn't it? Not a scientific objection, but a religious one!
Plus your thought that 'earth' can never include the sea is unreasonable, for it would require that the Hebrews believed that Jehovah's rulership of the earth ended at the sea shore.
Rulership by Jehovah (the God of Israel) did end at the sea shore.
In battles for control of the Mediterranean, Israel, and his God were defeated.
... they believed Jehovah had mastery over the sea,...
They also believed that non Jews were sub-human.
... your idea of limiting all bible references to the earth to strictly a portion there of, in complete conflict with scripture, bible references and common sense.
Definitely in conflict with your references.
But not in conflict with scripture.
Common sense, and holy scripture, convicted Galileo.
Besides, my sense is uncommon. How about yours?
quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill:
... you wish to deny evidence of the great Mesopotamian flood, yet claim a more recent global flood, for which there is no evidence.

WmScott's reply:
... as the archeology evidence shows, there is not a universal flood sediment layer to be found in the Mesopotamian valley.
Really?! And why is that?
Why would evidence of your "universal flood" fail to be found in that valley?
------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by wmscott, posted 03-01-2002 6:03 PM wmscott has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 169 of 460 (5983)
03-02-2002 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by wmscott
03-01-2002 6:03 PM


We all understand that glacial melts cause glacial flows that raise sea levels. We also all understand that by adding sufficient water you can raise flood levels to any height. Did glacial melts raise sea levels to the point where there was a global flood? While you can't prove a negative, there's no evidence that a global flood ever took place, not 10,000 years ago, not ever.
We're not trying to convince you, at least I'm not, that you're wrong about a world wide flood. We're just trying to help you see that your evidence does not support your theory.
You do not appear to be distinguishing between evidence that is merely consistent with your hypothesis, such as the glacial evidence, and evidence that actually supports your hypothesis, like 10,000 year old sea-floor sediments world-wide. You have only the former and none of the latter.
No one understands why you think a global flood could wash only microscopic diatoms and foraminifera onto land, but nothing larger.
Your dates never match, forcing you to generally denigrate dating methods without any specific cause.
The addition of cometary evidence to your scenario makes it begin to resemble an Eric von Danniken approach (with a dash of Velikovsky), who in the 1970s cited all manner of terrestrial mysteries in support of his thesis of alien visitations.
All that's really happening is that you're projecting your Biblical faith in a flood onto the available evidence.
The strongest argument against your global flood thesis is that nearly all land life didn't disappear 10,000 years ago.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by wmscott, posted 03-01-2002 6:03 PM wmscott has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 170 of 460 (6030)
03-02-2002 8:05 PM


LudvanB
Yes you are probably right that the Hebrews had no idea how absolutely ENORMOUS the world really is. I am not arguing that they knew the size or even shape of the world, just that they could and did make statements encompassing the whole earth. Such as the one you referred to "a flat disk shaped earth" would be one such where the entire planet was referred to even if the shape may have been wrong. Let's skip the whole circle/sphere debate, no need to go into that here. As a side point, the tree you referred to was the tree in the book of Daniel, was seen in a dream, it was a symbol and not a real tree. On seeing the earth from a mountain top, I believe you are referring to Satan showing Jesus all the cities of the earth and offering them to him. The showing was done by miraculous means, a vision, even the Jews of that day knew they couldn't climb a mountain and literally see Rome. Any one when they write, assumes the reader knows certain things. The bible is no different, the readers are expected to know many things that unfortunately most people today no longer seem to know.
On "mesopotamian flood,which left much evidence BTW" what evidence? The river flood deposits found in various cities there date to different floods. What evidence are you referring to?
edge
"impacts. . . How does this support your thesis" The Carolina Bays are evidence of a massive comet air blast of just the type that could have trigger the collapse of the ice sheets and caused the 40 days of rain, and this impact occurred towards the end of the ice age. This is the right type of event at the right time. Now if this comet was part of an even larger comet that had broken into pieces, which hit the earth at the same time. Image if the destruction power that created the Carolina Bays hit the Laurentide ice sheet. Huge amounts of glacial ice would have been blasted into the sky to fall back to earth as rain all over the planet. Huge amounts of ice would have been melted and flowed into the sea. The shocks of the impacts would have been like hammer blows that broke the ice dams holding back the ocean of meltwater trapped beneath the ice sheet melted by the heat of the earth, which then suddenly flowed out into the sea creating the effects seen there and causing the strong shift in the carbon ratio in the ocean as shown by the reference in an earlier post.(post 142 REF C)
On evidence that this resulted in a global flood, we could go back and revisit our discussions on the Michigan whale bones and Wisconsin marine diatoms and drop stones that we had in earlier posts.
doctrbill;
"Why would evidence of your "universal flood" fail to be found in that valley?" (Mesopotamian valley) Like I stated in my last post. "Sea water like lake water, doesn't have much of a sediment load, the sediment settles out in deltas as the river water enters the still water of the ocean or a large lake. Thus a brief marine flood would not leave behind a sediment layer, which as the archeology evidence shows, there is not a universal flood sediment layer to be found in the Mesopotamian valley." Which is why a global flood or a large regional flood would have had to have been caused by flood waters basically free of river borne sediment, since a wide spread sediment layer of this type is not found.
As for your belief that the word earth in the bible only refers to a portion there of, I respect your right to believe what ever you want to, but you have not supplied any reasonable reasons why I should accept your unique interpretation. I am afraid my common sense is very common.
Percipient
"there's no evidence that a global flood ever took place" On the evidence there was a global flood, we could go back and revisit our discussions on the Michigan whale bones and Wisconsin marine diatoms and drop stones that we had in earlier posts. A non flood geology has no reasonable answers to explain these. On "only microscopic diatoms and foraminifera onto land, but nothing larger." we could go back and revisit our discussions on the Michigan whale bones.
"Your dates never match, forcing you to generally denigrate dating methods without any specific cause" A possible reason for problems associated with carbon dating events at the end of the ice age was put forward in an earlier post. The trapping of carbon dioxide gas by the firn, resulting in glacial meltwater from beneath the ice sheet containing large amounts of very old carbon. A sudden release of large amounts of such old carbon would confuse carbon dates for this time period.. This effect was shown in a reference in that earlier post, where the sediment layer for this event came up 2K older than the sediment layer above it. (post 142 REF C)
On the comet element in my flood theory, for the very reasons you cited, I hate having it and if it wasn't for the fact that the evidence points towards it so strongly, I would throw it out in a heart beat.
On "The strongest argument against your global flood thesis is that nearly all land life didn't disappear 10,000 years ago." ever hear of Noah's ark? or the Pleistocene extinction event?

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by edge, posted 03-02-2002 9:59 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 172 by LudvanB, posted 03-03-2002 4:18 AM wmscott has not replied
 Message 173 by Percy, posted 03-03-2002 11:46 AM wmscott has not replied
 Message 174 by doctrbill, posted 03-03-2002 9:43 PM wmscott has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 171 of 460 (6033)
03-02-2002 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by wmscott
03-02-2002 8:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
edge:
"impacts. . . How does this support your thesis" The Carolina Bays are evidence of a massive comet air blast of just the type that could have trigger the collapse of the ice sheets...

Could'a been!
quote:
... and caused the 40 days of rain, and this impact occurred towards the end of the ice age.
What about all of the other impacts on the earth. Did they all cause 40 days of rain? How do you know there were 40 days of rain, anyway?
quote:
This is the right type of event at the right time.
Do you suppose anything else could cause melting of the ice sheets? Nah! In fact can you show that a cometary impact would really melt or vaporize a significant part of the ice sheets? What is the evidence for this?
quote:
Now if this comet was part of an even larger comet that had broken into pieces, which hit the earth at the same time. Image if the destruction power that created the Carolina Bays hit the Laurentide ice sheet. Huge amounts of glacial ice would have been blasted into the sky to fall back to earth as rain all over the planet.
I don't suppose it is possible that all of that material in the atmosphere would cause cooling that would result in more ice locked up in the ice sheets. Have you ruled this out?
quote:
Huge amounts of ice would have been melted and flowed into the sea.
Could'a been! How do you know this? What is your evidence? Then show us that this this would have raised the sea level many thousands of feet. Also give us a reason why this would not result in a "cometary winter?"
quote:
The shocks of the impacts would have been like hammer blows that broke the ice dams holding back the ocean of meltwater trapped beneath the ice sheet melted by the heat of the earth,...
Wait, how do you know there were such things? Evidence, man, evidence!
quote:
...which then suddenly flowed out into the sea creating the effects seen there ...
Wait, again! Who saw these effects?
quote:
...and causing the strong shift in the carbon ratio in the ocean as shown by the reference in an earlier post.(post 142 REF C)
Yep, must'a been a comet. Couldn't be anything else!
quote:
On evidence that this resulted in a global flood, we could go back and revisit our discussions on the Michigan whale bones and Wisconsin marine diatoms and drop stones that we had in earlier posts.
Yes, let's do that. These show that the post glacial flooding was about 700 feet above the modern sea level. Sorry, not much help there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by wmscott, posted 03-02-2002 8:05 PM wmscott has not replied

LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 460 (6048)
03-03-2002 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by wmscott
03-02-2002 8:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
LudvanB
Yes you are probably right that the Hebrews had no idea how absolutely ENORMOUS the world really is. I am not arguing that they knew the size or even shape of the world, just that they could and did make statements encompassing the whole earth. Such as the one you referred to "a flat disk shaped earth" would be one such where the entire planet was referred to even if the shape may have been wrong. Let's skip the whole circle/sphere debate, no need to go into that here. As a side point, the tree you referred to was the tree in the book of Daniel, was seen in a dream, it was a symbol and not a real tree. On seeing the earth from a mountain top, I believe you are referring to Satan showing Jesus all the cities of the earth and offering them to him. The showing was done by miraculous means, a vision, even the Jews of that day knew they couldn't climb a mountain and literally see Rome. Any one when they write, assumes the reader knows certain things. The bible is no different, the readers are expected to know many things that unfortunately most people today no longer seem to know.

But thats the whole crux of my point scott. The Bible is supposadly of divine inspiration...meaning that for all intents and purposes,it was dictated to man BY GOD...And since we can infer that God would have been well aware that the earth was both a large sphere and a fast moving one at that,we have every right to expect the Bible to reflect scientific accuracy...and it doesn't. This means either one thing out of two...either God wilfully misled the people by dictating them quotations describing the world as a small,immobile flat disk...or the Bible is entirely the work of MAN by MAN and for MAN writen in its entirety WITHOUT the help or "inspiration" of God...meaning that its every bit as flawed as MAN is.
The tree in Daniel's vision is not a real tree,that is true,since no tree can grow to be that large anyway...but the way it is described illustrates ancient hebrew beliefs as to the nature of our world. As for the story of the mountain and Satan,your point makes no sense...if the Devil was tempting Jesus with dominion over all cities using a miracles to show them all to the christ,there would be no need to climb a mountain to do so,since the miracle could be performed anywhere...more likely,this illustrates the beliefs of hebrews,who had probably never climbed atop large ice covered peeks,thats you could see the whole world from up there
[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 03-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by wmscott, posted 03-02-2002 8:05 PM wmscott has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 173 of 460 (6052)
03-03-2002 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by wmscott
03-02-2002 8:05 PM



Wmscott writes:
On evidence that this resulted in a global flood, we could go back and revisit our discussions on the Michigan whale bones and Wisconsin marine diatoms and drop stones that we had in earlier posts.
But then we'd be going in circles, because unless there's something you haven't told us this evidence doesn't support your thesis. The whale bones have been dated to less than 1,000 years old. This not only conflicts with your thesis that Noah's Flood was 10,000 years ago, but younger dates are also incompatible with your frequent taking refuge in the flow of old carbon into the seas as a source of error. But since this only causes older dating (which is a known phenomena and compensated for in the final assignment of dates) it cannot explain your younger whale bones.
Diatoms are often wind-borne and can be found anywhere. You need the remains or fossils of creatures that were sizable enough to require flood water to transport them and that date to about 10,000 years ago.
Drop stones in Wisconsin are not evidence of a world wide flood, but only of local submergence. Local submergence is incredibly common at the margins of retreating glaciers. The weight of the glacier deforms the land-table downwards. As the glacier retreats and before the land has time to rebound lakes form at the glacial margins. Where the lake meets the glacier huge icebergs break off, float out into the lake, melt, and drop their sedimentary content. To support your thesis you need to find evidence of submergence in places where there were no glaciers, you have to do that in many places around the world, and you have to date them to roughly 10,000 years ago.
If you examine this paper about Wisconsian ice sheet interaction in Alberta (which you'll want to do since it briefly mentions dropstones - more evidence for you!) you'll see that papers on this subject tend to be extremely detailed in their gathering and analysis of evidence. You have to explain how evidence of a world-wide flood would not reveal itself in such studies. For example, even if the world-wide flood somehow incredibly left no silt layer, it would still have washed debris into the clefts and gullies from glacial runoff, yet no such debris has ever been found.

On the comet element in my flood theory, for the very reasons you cited, I hate having it and if it wasn't for the fact that the evidence points towards it so strongly, I would throw it out in a heart beat.
But the evidence doesn't point to it. You're just casting about for something, anything, that could serve as a cause of a sudden 40-day rain and world-wide flood (for which there is also no evidence), and so far a comet strike is all you've been able to come up with. But comets are not just slushy ice balls - they also contain significant proportions of solid material. And even if they were nothing but water, their speed relative to the earth once they've descended to the inner solar system is enormous, and a strike by a comet of even just pure water 10,000 years ago of the size you need would be so devastating an event that we would no longer be here to contemplate it. You need an event sufficiently significant to cause a world-wide flood, but not so energetic that it represents a major extinction event. You haven't found it in comet strikes.
By the way, no recent cometary evidence has been found, not at the Carolina bays nor anywhere else. No isotopic evidence (comets have different isotopic profiles for elements like oxygen than the same elements on earth) is recorded in ice cores from Greenland or Antarctica. The bays are almost exclusively oval while impact craters are uniformly circular regardless of impact angle (just look at the moon). This is because the crater forms from the explosive reaction to the impact and not to the impact itself.
The Carolina bays are an interesting scientific mystery, thanks for calling them to my attention. Most of the articles I've now read are well balanced and mention the variety of theories, but they also say the most widely accepted scientific explanation is some not-yet-understood weather action.

A possible reason for problems associated with carbon dating events at the end of the ice age was put forward in an earlier post. The trapping of carbon dioxide gas by the firn, resulting in glacial meltwater from beneath the ice sheet containing large amounts of very old carbon. A sudden release of large amounts of such old carbon would confuse carbon dates for this time period.. This effect was shown in a reference in that earlier post, where the sediment layer for this event came up 2K older than the sediment layer above it.
Carbon reservoir issues are well understood, and I'm sure this article only makes clear how very excellently well that is. You cannot conclude from this article that you always have a few thousand years of wiggle room. The changing carbon reservoir is a source of error only if you don't know about it.

On "The strongest argument against your global flood thesis is that nearly all land life didn't disappear 10,000 years ago." ever hear of Noah's ark?
Sure, ever heard of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy? I thought you were approaching this scientifically from an evidentiary basis. The mechanisms behind gathering all the animals of the world and then returning them to their original habitats can only be miraculous, not scientific.

Or the Pleistocene extinction event?
A world-wide flood would have wiped out nearly all land life around the globe. The American Museum of Natural History discusses this extinction thus on one of their webpages:
The end-Pleistocene extinction event does not qualify as a mass extinction. It is better classified as a taxon-specific event, affecting primarily the Class Mammalia (although birds and, to a lesser extent, reptiles were also affected). Nor was it global, although later in the Quaternary many other regions were affected by dramatic losses of a similar sort.
I think you have forgotten your original thesis. Your thesis was that the evidence supports a world-wide flood about 10,000 years ago. You now seem embarked upon a course that ignores the lack of quality and lack of relevance of your evidence and instead tries to persuade people anyway, as if you believe multiple presentations can overcome inherent insufficiency.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by wmscott, posted 03-02-2002 8:05 PM wmscott has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 174 of 460 (6085)
03-03-2002 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by wmscott
03-02-2002 8:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
Sea water like lake water, doesn't have much of a sediment load, ...

On which planet? I worked for a mining company which exploits lake sediments. Some of our pits exceeded 30 meters in depth.
quote:
a brief marine flood would not leave behind a sediment layer, ...
A flood without turbidity? A flood free of wave action? Gently rising water which drops giant boulders but stirs up no silt? Whatever it is you are smoking, I want some!
quote:
a global flood or a large regional flood would have had to have been caused by flood waters basically free of river borne sediment,...
Are you saying that the rivers did not participate in the flood?
quote:
As for your belief that the word earth in the bible only refers to a portion there of, ... you have not supplied any reasonable reasons ...
See Genesis 1:10. Earth appears in the sea and is defined as "dry land."
You cannot, on the one hand, claim that Earth refers to dry land only [excluding sea (so whales stay out of the ark)] and on the other hand say it means the entire planet [including sea], so that your global flood is justified.
quote:
I am afraid my common sense is very common.
I am afraid I must agree.
------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by wmscott, posted 03-02-2002 8:05 PM wmscott has not replied

quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 460 (6101)
03-04-2002 5:32 AM


i'm gonna throw this quiry out just for the heck of it... why is it that the surface of the planet is not covered in radomly deposited boulders...
oh right... it was the neo-nazi-evilutionists that have destroyed the evidence in their ongoing plot to dominate world schools, governments, and corporations... i'm afraid...

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 176 of 460 (6135)
03-04-2002 7:52 PM


edge
"How do you know there were 40 days of rain, anyway?" That is what the historical account in the bible reports. Whether you accept the bible as the being inspired or not, in archaeology the bible has proven itself it to be an accurate recorder of past events. And climate effects of a major impact event would cause a lengthy period rain just as the bible describes.
"can you show that a cometary impact would really melt or vaporize a significant part of the ice sheets?" Surprisingly yes, I can. If for the moment we assume that the comet that created the Carolina Bays was a twin. There are believed to be 500,000 Carolina Bays, with estimates that there once were 2,500,000 at one time before erosion erased many of them. If you consider the effects of creating two and half million impact craters spread out across the Laurentide ice sheet, each one the size of a lake. That is a lot of water, and it is possible that it was a case of triplets or more. Several of the large ice sheets could have been hit or even hit more than once. Until I read Savage's book on the Carolina Bays I didn't realize just how powerful the event that created the Bays was. I have built my theory on the premise that most of the flood waters came from the huge trapped ocean of meltwater trapped beneath the ice sheets that a comet impact released which in turn destabilized other ice sheets in a chain reaction. But the size of the Carolina Bay event, points towards a large amount of water possibly being hurled into the atmosphere and near orbital space to rain back all over the globe.
"is possible that all of that material in the atmosphere would cause cooling that would result in more ice locked up in the ice sheets. Have you ruled this out?" No on the contrary it is an expected effect. This is commonly called a nuclear winter. The after effects would be short lived, probably a few months or years at the most. The effect would be a drop in global temperature and disruption of weather patterns earth wide. The effects would probably wear off after a while, although there are theories that an ice age can be started by a major comet impact. It takes many many years to built an ice sheet, a brief impact winter of even a few years would not have a large effect as long as it didn't start an ice age climate change. During the period of the flood, there would not have been enough time for any built up in snow on the glaciers to significantly reduce the depth of the flood waters. The fact that huge amounts of ice and glacial melt water flowed into the sea at this time is shown by the results of deep sea coring of the ocean floor. Both heinrich event 1 and melt water surge 1A occurred at this time and are evidence of this event. (see posting 142) As for "raised the sea level many thousands of feet" the depth of the flood is unknown and may have been less or greater than a thousand feet. We do have drop stones and marine traces at 1,000 feet elevation and other signs at higher elevation, allowing for the isostatic displacement the flood waters caused on the ocean floors, these locations may have been at a somewhat lower elevation at the time, but it does show the extent of a global deluge.
On the ocean of meltwater trapped beneath the ice sheet you asked, "Wait, how do you know there were such things? Evidence, man, evidence" The existence of these former subglacial oceans of meltwater are a common accepted theory in glaciology. The existence and sudden release of this water is shown by the mega sub glacial flood evidence.
http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/KorEvidenceThe1998.html
On the surge of glacial ice and water into the sea you asked, "Wait, again! Who saw these effects?" These effects show up in the sediment cores as meltwater event 1a and the heinrich drop stone layer. The surge of freshwater also shows up in the sediments in the gulf of Mexico.
Glacial Lakes and Rivers form the Mississippi River Valley
LudvanB
The purpose of this posting is to show that there has been a recent global flood as described in the bible. The question of "The Bible God's word or man's?" is best answered by the book with that question as its title. I would suggest you consult such since it is digressing to discuss it here.
Percipient
" we'd be going in circles" yes that was my point. On the early carbon dates for the Michigan whale bones, I thought we had talked about that, but perhaps it was another board. The early dates are due to newer carbon infiltration carried by rain water. All of the Champlain sea fossils buried shallow in sand an gravel also have too recent dates due to this same effect. the Michigan whale bones were all found near the surface beneath sand and gravel deposits with would have permitted the passage of rainwater. The carbon clock only starts to run once the sample is isolated from the environment. The Champlain fossils with the older dates were all found buried in clay which prevents infiltration of newer carbon carried by rainwater or ground water.
"Diatoms are often wind-borne" not when you find them underneath a glacial drop stone.
"Drop stones in Wisconsin are not evidence of a world wide flood, but only of local submergence" the Driftless area in SW Wisconsin was not glaciated in the last ice age and the surrounding terrain is not high enough to contain flood waters deep enough to float ice over the hills where these are found. the area adjoins the Mississippi river and would necessitate a global rise in sea level. And as I have been saying, melting ice carries little or no sediment load, and we do have the heinrich drop stones on the ocean floor and other such as the ones in the Driftless area. Others are undoubtedly laying all over the continents in areas far from the former ice sheets, and have been mistaken as local stones.
"The bays are almost exclusively oval while impact craters are uniformly circular regardless of impact angle (just look at the moon). This is because the crater forms from the explosive reaction to the impact and not to the impact itself." Of course the moon craters are round, the moon has no atmosphere. The passage of a comet or meteor through the atmosphere creates a pressure cone that creates the oval shape when the trajectory is at shallow angle to the ground surface. All of this was dealt with in Savage's book "The Mysterious Carolina Bays" fascinating reading. I also had a problem with the oval shape for the same reason you do, until I read Savage's book, explained it very nicely and also explained the short coming of the terrestrial explanations for the Bays.
"Carbon reservoir issues are well understood, and I'm sure this article only makes clear how very excellently well that is. You cannot conclude from this article that you always have a few thousand years of wiggle room. The changing carbon reservoir is a source of error only if you don't know about it." That was my point, they don't seem to know about it, I figured it out by reading two different papers and putting them together, I don't know if this carbon source is recognized for the large effect it would of had, I have seen no mention of it all. If you allow for bioturbation of the core sample, the magnitude of the carbon 'shift' was probably far larger than just 2K and is probably THE reason for dating discrepancies in connection with the late ice age. I suggest you read the articles for yourself and see what I mean.
"The mechanisms behind gathering all the animals of the world and then returning them to their original habitats can only be miraculous, not scientific." Absolutely, most undoubtedly survived locally by rafting etc.
doctrbill
Sea water like lake water, doesn't have much of a sediment load, to which you stated. "I worked for a mining company which exploits lake sediments. Some of our pits exceeded 30 meters in depth." Lake sediments are carried into the lake by rivers or wind and settle out on the bottom of the lake because still water carries far less sediment then moving water. The sediments you refer to wouldn't be there if still lake water carried high sediment loads, if lake water could, the sediments would have been carried right through the lake and out the other side. Oceans are the same, incoming rivers dump their sediment load as the water slows forming a delta or submarine delta fan.
"A flood without turbidity? A flood free of wave action? Gently rising water which drops giant boulders but stirs up no silt?" Think of it as a tide that just keeps coming in for a few months and then goes out the same way. The Black Sea flooded in this manner without wave action destroying the fragile beach dunes. The boulders were carried by icebergs not currents.
"Are you saying that the rivers did not participate in the flood?" Of course not. Many perhaps even all of the worlds rivers show signs of former super floods in their having giant flood plains. It is believed that these huge flood plains were created by the river changing course back and forth creating a wide flood valley plain. The other possibility is that the valley was created all at once in a huge flood. A number have been show to have been created just this way such as the Mississippi river valley. These rivers would have been carrying an immense amount of sediment as they ripped huge cuts in the earth. But as the river water hit the rising ocean, the water slowed and the sediment dropped out. Some of these sediments have been found and are attributed to wind or sometimes floods. With most of the water coming from the oceans like a rising tide, what little sediment there was settled out near the rivers where then entered the rising flood waters and was not carried far. Some of the finer traces that were are possibly the source of some of the 'wind' deposited glacial loss.
quicksink
"why is it that the surface of the planet is not covered in randomly deposited boulders" It is, they are called erratics. They occur near where the former ice sheets were and most are explainable without a flood, but not all. Plus the tracing back of boulder trails has sometimes yielded results as if the boulders were dropped randomly by floating ice rather than in a flow line pattern typical of moving glacial ice, and some occur in areas glacial ice never reached. As for your paranoia try some prozac.

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by quicksink, posted 03-04-2002 11:06 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 178 by LudvanB, posted 03-05-2002 12:27 AM wmscott has not replied
 Message 179 by edge, posted 03-05-2002 1:26 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 182 by doctrbill, posted 03-06-2002 10:28 AM wmscott has not replied

quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 460 (6138)
03-04-2002 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by wmscott
03-04-2002 7:52 PM


i think you misunderstood... we shouldn't see discreet evidence... we should see very clear and widespread evidence. we should see bpuulders covering all parts of the planet.
i know i may be crazy, but something's tellin me that a flood that covered the entire surface of the earth in water within a period of 40 days would leave at least SOMETHING for the scientists to work with. if only we could bypass those hidden headquarters of the evolutionist society... then we would know the truth...
ps- if there are unexplainable boulders, does that mean that it had to come from the flood? judging by the fact that we don't find these unexplainable boulders all over the planet, i think it's safe to assume that these rocks were deposited through a scientifically sound method...
pss- can you tell me how the flood could have fossilized only primitive creatures in a flawless strata (one where the most primitive animals are found deeper?) please don't use the old "the intelligent animals ran to higher ground" argument...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by wmscott, posted 03-04-2002 7:52 PM wmscott has not replied

LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 460 (6140)
03-05-2002 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by wmscott
03-04-2002 7:52 PM


Tell me Scott....is this book you mention yet another philosophical dissertation filled with biblical quotation like 99.9% of the articles in AIG or is it an actual science treatese that provides a scientific test to acertain that the Bible is the inerant word of God? If its the later,than it would be an interesting read but if its the former,then i see no more reason to waste my time on it than on reading AIG

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by wmscott, posted 03-04-2002 7:52 PM wmscott has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 179 of 460 (6155)
03-05-2002 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by wmscott
03-04-2002 7:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
edge: "How do you know there were 40 days of rain, anyway?"
wmscott: That is what the historical account in the bible reports. Whether you accept the bible as the being inspired or not, in archaeology the bible has proven itself it to be an accurate recorder of past events. And climate effects of a major impact event would cause a lengthy period rain just as the bible describes.

Sorry, wmscott, but this is but hearsay. Does the bible give you any idea of how much rain fell during these forty days? Seems like some kind of documentation would be necessary to validate this source. I once experienced thirty days of rain. Guess what... no flood!
quote:
edge: "can you show that a cometary impact would really melt or vaporize a significant part of the ice sheets?"
wmscott: Surprisingly yes, I can. If for the moment we assume that the comet that created the Carolina Bays was a twin. There are believed to be 500,000 Carolina Bays, with estimates that there once were 2,500,000 at one time before erosion erased many of them. If you consider the effects of creating two and half million impact craters spread out across the Laurentide ice sheet, each one the size of a lake.

Wmscott, this is a just-so story. Where is the evidence that this actually happened? Where are the calculations of heat generated, etc.? This is a house of cards. "If," "assume," "might be"... Do you actually understand the number of assumptions you make here? If you ever complain about the assumptions built into radiometric dating, I would like you to think about this para that you just wrote.
quote:
That is a lot of water, and it is possible that it was a case of triplets or more. Several of the large ice sheets could have been hit or even hit more than once. Until I read Savage's book on the Carolina Bays I didn't realize just how powerful the event that created the Bays was. I have built my theory on the premise that most of the flood waters came from the huge trapped ocean of meltwater trapped beneath the ice sheets that a comet impact released which in turn destabilized other ice sheets in a chain reaction. But the size of the Carolina Bay event, points towards a large amount of water possibly being hurled into the atmosphere and near orbital space to rain back all over the globe.
Lots more "maybes," "possiblies," "might haves" and "could haves" in your story here. But, still no evidence.
quote:
edge: "is possible that all of that material in the atmosphere would cause cooling that would result in more ice locked up in the ice sheets. Have you ruled this out?"
wmscott: No on the contrary it is an expected effect. This is commonly called a nuclear winter. The after effects would be short lived, probably a few months or years at the most. The effect would be a drop in global temperature and disruption of weather patterns earth wide. The effects would probably wear off after a while, although there are theories that an ice age can be started by a major comet impact.

But we are talking about the end of an ice age here, wmscott! And remember that you only have 40 days to work with in the condensation and rainfall.
quote:
It takes many many years to built an ice sheet, a brief impact winter of even a few years would not have a large effect as long as it didn't start an ice age climate change.
Just my point. The impact has not been shown to be effective at producing or initiating a flood.
quote:
During the period of the flood, there would not have been enough time for any built up in snow on the glaciers to significantly reduce the depth of the flood waters. The fact that huge amounts of ice and glacial melt water flowed into the sea at this time is shown by the results of deep sea coring of the ocean floor. Both heinrich event 1 and melt water surge 1A occurred at this time and are evidence of this event. [quote] No, they are evidence of a meltwater surge, not a global flood. I think you are extremely confused as to what evidence is as oppposed to might'a beens and wishful thinking.
[quote]As for "raised the sea level many thousands of feet" the depth of the flood is unknown and may have been less or greater than a thousand feet. We do have drop stones and marine traces at 1,000 feet elevation and other signs at higher elevation, allowing for the isostatic displacement the flood waters caused on the ocean floors, these locations may have been at a somewhat lower elevation at the time, but it does show the extent of a global deluge.

Nonsense. It shows that the post glacial melt waters might have flooded elevations as high as 1000 feet above the present sea level. No more. Your concept of evidence is tenuous. You present nothing more than a Discovery Channel-type story and call it evidence.
quote:
On the ocean of meltwater trapped beneath the ice sheet. The existence of these former subglacial oceans of meltwater are a common accepted theory in glaciology.
Ocean? No. Perhaps lakes, but there are no oceans beneath any ice cap. And they are generally below sea level. Are you perhaps thinking about ice floes?
quote:
The existence and sudden release of this water is shown by the mega sub glacial flood evidence.
http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/KorEvidenceThe1998.html

Again, nonsense. This is anecdotal evidence for local surges of a maximum of 500 feet in elevation in a confined channel.
quote:
On the surge of glacial ice and water into the sea you asked, "Wait, again! Who saw these effects?" These effects show up in the sediment cores as meltwater event 1a and the heinrich drop stone layer. The surge of freshwater also shows up in the sediments in the gulf of Mexico.
Glacial Lakes and Rivers form the Mississippi River Valley

Sorry again! There is evidence of freshwater surging into the Atlantic from the Amazon drainage. Does this mean there is a global flood occurring as we speak? I don't suppose that the ancestal Mississippi might have done the same thing in a confined basin such as the gulf.
Wmscott, as I have told you before, you have a nice story here. Why blow it way out of proportion and embarass yourself by extrapolating so far beyond the data. Why not just call it a theory for rising sea levels after the last ice age?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by wmscott, posted 03-04-2002 7:52 PM wmscott has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 180 of 460 (6156)
03-05-2002 5:00 PM


quicksink
"we should see bpuulders covering all parts of the planet" No, that is not to be expected in a global flood due to the fact that the boulders had to be carried by icebergs which only could have come from glaciated areas. Due to the short duration of the flood and the melting away of the floating ice, a global distribution of glacial drop stones is not expected. We would expect to see them in the Driftless area because this non glaciated area was actually like an island surrounded by glaciers, so it is to expected a flood event would have caused at least some to have been dropped here and that is the case. The drop stones in the Driftless area are an anomaly difficult to explain without a global flood since some are found at elevations too high for the Mississippi river to reach without flooding the rest of the world.
" leave at least SOMETHING for the scientists to work with" The flood left plenty of evidence, that is what my book is all about. Many times to find something you have to know what you are looking for, and I doubt the scientific community is looking for something they believed was disproved long ago. The evidence is overlooked, viewed as caused by something else or written off as an anomaly.
"can you tell me how the flood could have fossilized only primitive creatures in a flawless strata (one where the most primitive animals are found deeper?) please don't use the old "the intelligent animals ran to higher ground" argument..." You must be new here. You may want to read the first post, I accept the fossil record along with the great age of the earth and the universe. I agree with you on the ridiculousness of YEC and their silly flood theories.
LudvanB
My book is a scientific discussion of the flood and the evidence for it. I do refer to the bible a few times to show that what I am saying is not in conflict with scripture, and I show how the YEC and their flood theories are all wet. So a few citations were necessary. Then in the last chapter called the 'Author's soapbox' I refer to the bible a lot to show that many are following words of man rather than the word of God. You might even enjoy the last chapter because of the many errors it points out between what many religions teach and what the bible actually states. But perhaps you can save yourself some money, I am very happy with post 142 in which I put forward a technical theory of how the flood happened which is more detailed in some respects than the description in the book which is written more for the average reader. The book does have a much broader consideration of the flood and is much easier to follow then what I have been able to post on this board.
edge
"how much rain fell during these forty days?" Good question, the amount of rain fall is unknown. The majority of water came from the release of sub glacial meltwater and glacial surging into rising seas. The rain was probably a minor contributor.
On comet impacts you asked "Where are the calculations of heat generated, etc.?" See post 73 which has some calculations for a single impact on an ice sheet. In the case of a Carolina Bay type of event on an ice sheet, you could probably multiply those numbers by the number of individual hits which could number in the millions. A lot of the heat would be absorbed by the ice and the following impact winter.
"there are no oceans beneath any ice cap." No, not a real saltwater ocean, an ocean sized body of freshwater melted beneath the ice sheet by the heat of the earth. The sheet remains frozen on the thinner edges which traps the water beneath the ice. It is believed that as the sheet grows thicker the trapped sub glacial water continues to grow in volume until the margin of the ice sheet gives way and the trapped water is released. There are sub glacial lakes beneath the ice sheets in Antarctica.

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by edge, posted 03-05-2002 6:14 PM wmscott has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 181 of 460 (6158)
03-05-2002 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by wmscott
03-05-2002 5:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
edge:"there are no oceans beneath any ice cap."
wmscott: No, not a real saltwater ocean, an ocean sized body of freshwater melted beneath the ice sheet by the heat of the earth.(emphasis added)

Wmscott, don't you see that this is no evidence at all? You make up a story about something that has never been observed, then make up a mechanism and call it evidence! This is absolute silliness.
quote:
The sheet remains frozen on the thinner edges which traps the water beneath the ice.
It does? How do you know this? Where has it been documented? Not only do you turn on and off the geothermal heat, you to put it only where it is necessary and not on the edges of the ice sheet! That's convenient!
quote:
It is believed that as the sheet grows thicker the trapped sub glacial water continues to grow in volume until the margin of the ice sheet gives way and the trapped water is released.
Not even a reason for it to grow? This is a nice story wmscott, but you are reaching for events and mechanisms to match your wishful thinking. It is believed! LOL!
quote:
There are sub glacial lakes beneath the ice sheets in Antarctica.
Yes, lakes. All below sea level, as well. When was the last time we saw one escape? Wmscott, your theory is getting more and more holes in it.
[This message has been edited by edge, 03-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by wmscott, posted 03-05-2002 5:00 PM wmscott has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024