Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
"references showing that filled oceans offer more support to continental mountains than shallow oceans" In reference to island mountains and sea level. "During each Glacial stage, a weight of water scores of meters deep was removed from a wide area of the crust around each island. That lowering of water pressure removed some support for the volcanic mass. Hence, the island tended to sink" (The Changing World of the Ice Age by Reginald Aldworth Daly 1934, p.155) Mountains along the edge of a continent would also be effected in the same way, but to a lesser degree.

---

1934? Really, I'd hoped you'd come up with something better than that.

quote:

---

On flexing the entire earth, "evidence that there was this sudden shift . . . has happened?" We do have extensive evidence that there has been wide scale and large shifts in elevations in connection with departure of the ice age glaciers.

---

Actually, not. You have shown only that there have been fluctuations on the order of a kilometer or so.

quote:

---

"The occurrence of a canyon, incised into thick deposits of till and fluvial conglomerates, shows that in Quaternary time the Himalayas underwent a powerful tectonic uplift, which approached 3000 m in axial parts (Xitao 1975)." (The Pleistocene; pages 315-316)

---

I don't suppose this had anything to do with plate tectonics...

quote:

---

The downward subsidence of the land during the ice age and it's subsequent rise at the end of the Wisconsin Ice Age is also affirmed by the pattern of river erosion. When an area of a river sinks, reducing the slope or grade of the river, sediments settle out in the slow moving water and build up. When the area is later uplifted, the grade is increased and the water flows faster, rapidly eroding down into the sediments and into the raised bedrock beneath the river bed. ...

---

No one disputes glacial isostatic rebound. In fact, I agree that it could be substantial. However, you have not shown that what we see in the geological record is anything out of the ordinary that would produce a global flood.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
To have a workable hypothesis you must at least have consistency with existing evidence or strong arguments for why that evidence is wrong. You have neither and so are left with a hypothesis strongly contradicted by known evidence.
--Percy[/B]

---

Well put. Wmscott has taken the anecdotal evidence for marine diatoms in Michigan and some questionable whale bone occurrences and laced them together with a preconceived theory that extrapolates to a global flood. This, even though there is paucity of supporting evidence and there are other plausible explanations that he dismisses with a wave of the hand. When Pat confronts him with actual scholarly data, wmscott veers off into some murky logic that relies on his original anecdotes and questionable plate tectonics, even though they have been shown to permit numerous other hypotheses. To those of us who are accustomed to dealing with data and hard evidence this is astounding. I have stopped responding to him on a routine basis because his theory is impervious to facts. Wmscott has built a Quixotic theory that has limited basis in fact, but one in which he has unlimited faith.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
edge
By the way one of the meanings of Quixotic is visionary. [/b]

---

I'm sure it fits.

quote:

---

If you are accustomed to dealing with data and hard evidence, how about dealing with the evidence in my posting on the sudden reduction in glacial volume at the LGM.

---

I will do so when time permits. However, you should be thinking about how that reduction in volume translates to a global flood, because that will be the next question.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 02-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Percipient;

​

I would suggest reading the earlier postings, we have been discussing the points you brought up for some time. To sum it up, the flood was not the way many assume, and the evidence hence doesn't match their preconceived ideas. We also have evidence in the form of marine traces, relict lakes, super flood erosion and other things, that there has been a global flood in recent geological history. [/B]

---

Your recollection of this thread seems to be a little different from most of us. To us it is only apparent that you have made a bunch of a priori assertions and ignored any mainstream alternatives to your anecdotal pieces of evidence. You have strung together an unlikely string of circumstances and professed them to be a cogent theory.It is time for evidence, wmscott. Give us evidence that there were flood waters covering elevations higher than 1000 feet in North America. In this case, you have correctly shown that the sea was about 1000 feet higher than it is today. You then conclude that it must have been higher yet... and that it must have covered the entire world... This is complete nonsense. It is a conclusion completely based on biblical mythology. Show us that the Rocky Mountains were covered by flood waters.Then give us evidence that jokhalhaups can be larger than a single drainage. Give us evidence that there is a deep tectonic source of flow for glacial flexing (or whatever you call it). Give us good solid evidence that your diatoms were NOT windblown rather than "blowing off" the wind-born theory of diatom deposition. Give us evidence that the whale bones are found at elevations higher than about 1000 feet and that they are definitely not human-transported. Give us evidence that ice caps were floated off their moorings but never melted. Give us evidence that a bolide initiated some kind of catastrophic event that left virtually no record in the ice sheets. Give us evidence that all land elevations in the Pleistocene were under 1000 feet. All you have done so far is make assertions that these things are so. We want diagnostic evidence. Where is it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
edge & Percipient;

​

You two seem to be on the same page today. Here are some links with evidence relating to a sudden flooding event in connection with the ice sheets.
"According to some scholars, catastrophic walls of ice broke off from the receding glaciers and joined a massive run-off of melt-water, scouring out the contours of the Mississippi River. It is envisioned that a sudden collapse of the NA ice cap produced a massive sea-level rise with the speed of a tidal wave around the world. It is likely that the river valley in the upper Mississippi was once 500 feet deeper than it is now, filled as it is with gravel and sand deposited by that melt-water. The accumulated Gulf of Mexico organisms have provided compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water about 11,600 years ago"
Glacial Lakes and Rivers form the Mississippi River Valley

---

Sorry, but this is not evidence. It is a "just so story" an assertion. It also does not acknowledge any water depths greater than 500 feet above the present sea level.

quote:

---

"these features are inferred to support the hypothesis that subglacial outburst floods beneath the Laurentide ice sheet crossed Georgian Bay and strongly sculpted the Bruce Peninsula"
http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/KorEvidenceThe1998.html

---

And this supports anything more than a local effect? You notice that it also apparently happened a number of times...

quote:

---

And evidence of a comet impact event associated with the Carolina bays. "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".
A RE-EVALUATION OF THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL ORIGIN OF THE CAROLINA BAYS

---

Nice anecdote, but how does it relate to the Pleistocene event that you propose? There is no argument that bolides do not occur only that one of them initiated a catastrophic ice melting event.Your "evidence" falls short. Sure we can put together anecdotal stories and they may be true in local effect. You have not given an iota of evidence to support a global flood.

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?

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.

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?

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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
This absolute silliness as you call it, happens to be main stream orthodox geology. The former existence of large sub glacial lakes beneath the Laurentide ice sheet and others, is an accepted fact in geology. I know that if I said the sky was blue you wouldn't believe me, so here are some links with references to the former sub glacial lakes..

---

I believe the operative word here is "lakes." You, on the other hand referred to subglacial oceans. I notice that none of your references suggested that these lakes contributed significantly to the oceans.

quote:

---

This link also mentions sub glacial water flow and a possible impact crater on lake bottom of lake Ontario. Perhaps one of the impacters left a mark after all.

---

I think you mean the appearance of an impact crater. What information do you have that the authors do not have to be able to say that it is an impact crater. Also, how do you know the age of this crater and how do you know it relates to other impacts?

quote:

---

The sub glacial lakes, like the ones in Antarctica don't need to be above sea level to drain into the ocean. If the glacial ice above it is above the level it would float at in the ocean, the water below the ice is under enough pressure to force it out. It is believed the lakes become connected through under ice channels which if one becomes open to the sea, the whole inter connected water system can drain. Under my theory, I am saying that this was about to happen when a comet impact trigged a pressure wave in the trapped water that caused the retaining ice dam to burst.

---

Oh, that's convenient. Do you have any evidence to support this timing? Also how do you move water from one place below sea level to another place below sea level and raise sea level?

quote:

---

Resulting in a very abrupt and very large draining event from multiple points all broken open at once. The heat beneath the ice sheet is uniform, aside from the increase with depth due to the center of the sheet being thicker and is more deeply pressed into the earth, which results in the center being much warmer than the thinner edges which are not as deeply depressed. The thinner edges are also colder on the bottom and remain frozen at the base due to the cold temperatures above the ice sheet, which is less of a factor in areas where the ice is thicker and acts as more of an insulator. The sudden release of these former trapped lakes is witnessed by the land forms they created.

---

Yes, local landforms. Wmscott, this is still a just-so story. You write it as though it has actually happened because you simply wish it to be so. Your model is like a crossword puzzle where the words never cross. Find something to verify your model.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 03-06-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
I used the word 'ocean' in reference to the sub glacial lakes in referring to their great size, that they were 'ocean' like in the large volume of water they contained. As I posted before, I was not stating that they were literal oceans.

---

In that case, don't call them oceans.

quote:

---

You imply that these lakes where small or only had small releases. "Recent work at the margins of the former North American ice sheets (Baker and Bunker, 1985; Kehow and Teller, 1994) has documented pervasive evidence of Pleistocene cataclysmic outburst floods (jokulhlaups).

---

Okay, show us a jokulhlaup that has raised the global sea level even an inch. As I remember these cataclysmic outbursts were confined to individual valleys.

quote:

---

Such floods, which are a direct consequence of deglaiation, may have exerted major short-term influences on global fluxes of water and sediment (Baker, 1994).

---

And so does the Amazon River. Are we in flood yet? Does Baker give you evidence of a global flood?

quote:

---

Shaw (1989) proposed that subglacial meltwater may be a major contributor to proglacial cataclysmic flooding. Although the details of flood causation are subject of considerable current debate, the evidence of megaflood/ice-sheet association is extensive and can guide our inferences about ancient glacial sediments."

---

Sure, "proglacial," meaning in the vicinity of the toe of the glacier. And just what is the extensive evidence of a mega-flood/ice-sheet association? And what is a megaflood? Is it a global flood?Shaw also says that subglacial lakes are a contributor? Doesn't sound like the source of a global flood to me. Kind of equivocal information here. You need to make a cogent argument.

quote:

---

Late Glacial and Postglacial environmental Changes; Quaternary, carboniferous-Permian, and Proterozoic, I. Peter Martini, P98. While I have only been able to find links on the Internet to pages with information on a few examples of mega flooding, the known examples are wide spread and indicate very large releases of water. On the effect the sudden release of water from sub glacial lakes had on global sea levels, the same book went on to state. "the hypothesized subglacial megaflooding would also have had immense consequences for oceanic response" P103.

---

Which are? Wmscott, perhaps I can explain to you. When you make an assertion that you believe to be true you should back it up with some kind of logical argument from a solid foundation, or independent evidence that support your assertion. You fail to do this. You make and assertion that there was a global flood that covered the continents and support it with a comment that there are modern oceanic diatoms found at elevations below 1000'. This is not evidence to support your thesis. You then go on to say that subglacial lakes drained into the ocean. This is not evidence of a global flood. Oh, but there are meteorite impacts of the right age. Sorry, not evidence again. THis is getting tedious, wmscott. Sure you can write a story, but it is more speculative than the most popularized, watered-down Discovery Channel show that creationists are so fond of criticizing.

quote:

---

In the case of the release of sub glacial water rasing sea level, or as you put it, "how do you move water from one place below sea level to another place below sea level and raise sea level?" It is really very simple, as the water exits from beneath the ice sheet, it drops in elevation, more ice that was formerly above the water is lowered down into the water and displaces more of the flood waters. The ice sheet isn't floating, the release of the trapped water from beneath the ice sheet allows the sheet settle down. The ice sheet drops down like a cylinder, displacing the water that was once under it, which adds to the volume of the flood waters. The ice sheet is higher than the level of the water, so the water can not move back in above it as the ice settles. I hope I have explained this clearly enough.

---

I will ignore for the time being that you have previously asserted that the ice sheets moved into the oceans and destabilized the climate. In the meantime, I don't need an explanation. I need evidence. You are still giving us just-so stories that seem contradictory.

quote:

---

On the possible impact crater on lake bottom of lake Ontario. It is just that, a possibility, it may not even be a crater. But if it is, it would have to be more recent than the glacial action that created the lake bed, yet it would have to have occurred long ago enough to explain the lack of historical references. That alone would put it in about the right time frame. But for now, we will have to wait and see what future research reveals about this interesting possibility.

---

At last you admit that something is only a possibility. Perhaps we are making progress. But why is this proposed impact younger than the ice sheets? I thought that you wanted it to impact on the ice sheets and cause ejection of water into the stratosphere. Or are you saying that this particular (potential) impact is unrelated? If so, why bring it up?You have also not addressed the discrepancy between impact and injection of flood waters into the atmosphere when much of that water would fall during the "impact winter" where it would simply be redeposited on the ice sheets. It seems to me that this would not be the end of the ice age but that beginning of an ice age. At any rate, your "quick" flood is not in the cards.I would also ask you to amplify on the 40 days of rain. Just how much water actually precipitated? Was it all over the world? Do you know that the atmosphere can only hold so much water and when it has completely condensed you have to replace it in order to keep raining? This is critical information that might support your theory. You really should look into it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
edge: "Okay, show us a jokulhlaup that has raised the global sea level even an inch."

​

wmscott: As cited in last post. "the hypothesized subglacial megaflooding would also have had immense consequences for oceanic response" P103. What they mean by oceanic response is a rise in sea level, and the word immense means very large. So what they are saying is that the theory of subglacial megaflooding would cause an 'immense' increase in sea level. In post 142 one of the references I cited gave evidence of a 15m sudden rise in sea level from what is believed to have been a possible subglacial megaflood with secondary glacial surging caused by the rising sea level. 15 meters is equal to a bit over 590 inches, so this is 590 times as much evidence as you wanted.

---

Okay, I would agree that a 15 meter rise in sea level is immense. Now take it to the next level and show us how sea level rose tens of thousands of feet to cover the entire earth.Global ice volumes at the Last Glacial Maximum and early Lateglacial, lambeck, Yokoyama, Johnston, Purcell, Earth and Plantary Science Letters 181 (2000) 513-527.

quote:

---

On proglacial cataclysmic flooding caused by large influxes of water into the oceans, you asked. "And so does the Amazon River. Are we in flood yet? Does Baker give you evidence of a global flood?" The water that exits from the Amazon river is from rain fall which is from evaporation from the sea. This rain cycle of water operates continuously for the most part, so there is no large sudden releases or removals of water on a scale in comparison with the release of meltwater from the great ice age ice sheets. Since the oceans are the source of the returning Amazon river, the river discharge does not cause a global rise in sea level, the water is basically moving in a circle. The water from the melting ice sheets had been removed from the oceans for a long enough time and in large enough amounts that the ocean basins had isostatically rebounded, and a sudden return of large amounts of the removed water before the basin floors could adjust, would have resulted in global flooding. Baker was apparently cited for work on sudden influxes of ocean sediments, I haven't read his work so I state his position on global flooding events.

---

So, as yet there is no evidence of global flooding by this mechanism."what is the extensive evidence of a mega-flood/ice-sheet association? And what is a megaflood? Is it a global flood?"The evidence they are apparently referring to is evidence of super floods of glacial melt waters such as in this Mississippi river valley, the streamlined drumlins, giant ripple patterns found in some glacial sediments, plowing of sediments by icebergs suddenly surging into the sea, wide spread drop stones and evidence of sudden rises in sea level.[/quote]Okay, as I understand it these megafloods were no more than about 500 feet deep. Still not a global flood.

quote:

---

A mega flood is a super sized flood, a flood much larger than normal flood events. A megaflood is not a global flood by itself, however a large megaflood could be large enough to rise global sea level by a fair amount all by itself.

---

I agree that the flooding could be called "mega," especially if I lived on the Mississippi River flood plain. However, I live at over 5000' elevation. You are not talking about a global flood.

quote:

---

What I am looking at in my flood theory is a number of megafloods caused by a comet impact or impacts all occurring at the same time which in turn caused wide spread glacial surging.

---

Okay say a thousand Mississippi type mega floods. Does that give me beachfront property?

quote:

---

"Shaw also says that subglacial lakes are a contributor? Doesn't sound like the source of a global flood to me." The amount of water contained in the subglacial lakes is unknown, hence the percentage of flood water that came from them is unknown.

---

Oops, sounds like a drawback to me.

quote:

---

The sudden release of this water or may have occurred at the same time as the release of other glacial water and ice into the sea and would have acted as a trigger for glacial surging.

---

May have! Now a while back you said that the ice caps did not move into the ocean. What is the story?

quote:

---

"You have also not addressed the discrepancy between impact and injection of flood waters into the atmosphere when much of that water would fall during the "impact winter" where it would simply be redeposited on the ice sheets."

​

[quote]The effects or fall out of an impact winter are global and would not be limited to a local area.

---

But the effects on the ice caps would be global? This is exceedingly byzantine, wmscott.

quote:

---

Larger impact events are powerful enough to blast surface material into sub orbital flights that would rain back down all over the earth. The amount of water blasted into the atmosphere and near space although large, was not that much compared to the total amount of water involved. The atmosphere can only hold a very limited amount of water, and even allowing for the reentry of sub orbital ice over time, I would expect the rain water contribution to the depth of the global flood waters to be a matter of a few inches. Since only water from the ice sheets would contribute to raising the sea level, water lifted from the oceans by the weather conditions such as impact caused hypercanes would not raise sea levels at all, since the water they dropped had come the sea in the first place.

---

I thought you were talking about an "impact winter." Wouldn't that result in more ice and snow on the ice caps? Why would they destabilize?Nontheless, wmscott, you have not shown that there was ever a global flood. You have given us some just-so stories with a lot of might haves and could haves and maybes. Show us some evidence that something actually happened.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
(To MrP)Nice to finally have someone on this page who has a real knowledge of scripture.

---

That does seem to be what you are most comfortable with.

quote:

---

What the exact details of the flood were, exact depth, % sources of flood water, etc., are not know and will not be known until more research is done.

---

Doesn't it seem that you should have done some more of this before publishing your book? You certainly make a lot of concrete assertions for not being sure of these things.

quote:

---

I don't have all the answers, even if I did, I doubt you would believe me any way so it doesn't matter much at this point. As for your location, considering your elevation, you may have had glacial property rather than beach front or the much more affordable below beach front properties. The rising flood waters only had to reach the edge of the glaciers that covered all the high elevations in the ice age to flood the world since ice floats anyway.

---

But you said earlier that the ice caps were contained within bowl-shaped depressions. How would they float away? Do you really think that bringing water levels to the proglacial zone would actually be enough to float a glacier? If it did, and the glacier went away, wouldn't the depression fill with water, significanly reducing the amount available to flood the land or depress the ocean basins? Have you ever calcualted the amount of energy needed to melt a 1km thickness of a 192 million km^2 ice cap? Where does this energy come from? Do you subscribe to John Baumgardner's heat geneator model?

quote:

---

In my book I try to present a range of possibilities on how different details may have occurred. Perhaps someday I will be able to publish a second edition with much more evidence and finer details on exactly how the flood happened. The impact winter is not what destabilizes the ice sheets, the rising sea level is what causes the surging events. the rising sea level as we have been discussing is caused by the release of sub glacial water, ...

---

Which you have not shown to be of a significant volume, nor have you shown them to be released at one time. Give us evidence.

quote:

---

...impact melted water flowing off the ice sheet and into the sea,...

---

In which you have not shown that an "impact winter" could be ignored. Nor have you given us a idea where this impact was when it occurred, or why it didn't leave a signature in the ice pack.

quote:

---

... release of ice dammed lakes,

---

For which you have provided no evidence other than the ones that we know about and seem totally insignificant compared to the oceans.

quote:

---

...and ice/water blasted into the atmosphere of which some will fall into the oceans. Then the impact related rise results in surging of ice sheet margins which in turn cause another rise into sea level which triggers more surging and so on.

---

You have not shown that the water derived from these sources would be sufficient to float the ice caps. Remember, you have said that by far the bulk of the water was from the ice caps. You would probably have to melt the ice caps to get enough water to float the ice caps.

quote:

---

The amount that surged is unknown as is the amount form the other sources we just listed. Taken all together they add up to a lot of water.

---

I'm sure that the people in the Central American floods last year thought they had a "lot of water" too, but it was not quite a global flood. If your theory comes down to a "lot of water" I think you have a "lot of work" to do.

quote:

---

wmscott to percipient: ...Even if some of the land was covered by grounded ice rather than floating ice, what difference would it make, all the land or earth was covered by water, it just wasn't all in the liquid state. ... It would make it easier to flood the world if the high points were covered in ice as they in the ice age. The survivability factor of the flood makes no difference if the ice in the flood was floating or not, so the point may have been moot from the Bible's moral destruction of the wicked viewpoint.[quote] Yes, it would be easier to explain. But you are reaching here.

​

[quote]On evidence for the flood, I have been posting some and there is more in my book.

---

All of which have been refuted or shown to be inadequate.

quote:

---

It is more a matter of the fact that you disagree with the interpretation of the evidence.

---

It is more a matter of the fact that you do not understand the weakness of your evidence and that you selectively ignore other lines of evidence. For example, you have taken the creationist line that radiometric dates are undependable and dismiss them with a wave of the hand.

quote:

---

But then it is up to you to put forward an alliterative explanation that better explains the evidence. Rejecting but failing to explain would at least put the evidence in the category of anomalies which you are unable to explain. A number of such anomalies in a pattern consistent with a global flood would pretty much prove such an event whether you choose to accept it or not.

---

Mainstream science has more than adequate explanations that can easily accomodate the local anomalies that you describe. As to the pattern of anomalies, I can take any data base and selectively choose information to support any alternative. This is what you have done.

quote:

---

So that raises the question of can you explain all the evidence presented here and in my book in a non flood manner?

---

Been there, done that. Get the book!

quote:

---

Just attacking is not enough, any one can attack any thing they want, you need to present better explanations. That has been part of the problem here, everyone is trying to tear down, but they don't bother to try building. That is the biggest reason no one has dissuaded me.

---

Mainstream science has explanations for everything that you have described, so do not say that explanations have not been offered. So, tell us how is your theory better? Can you admit that the only reason is that yours adheres to scripture?

quote:

---

Percipient: "Do you ever ask yourself why professional geologists have never identified this evidence?" Sure, I discuss it in my book.

---

But you won't bring it up here? Why is that?

quote:

---

" carbon dating (a bargain at only about $500)," Really? Tell me more, I am interested. As far as I can understand however, microscopic diatoms mixed in soil would not be carbon dateable due to the extremely small sample size, the diatoms are made of mostly silicon rather than carbon, the diatoms are mixed in with newer carbon in the soil and rain water which would make getting a good date impossible.

---

That has never stopped creationists from trying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
To joz
...
The impacts would have delivered a lot of kinetic energy to the ice sheet surface, some of the energy would have ended up in the form of heat. Think of it this way, where did all of the comet impact energy go?

---

I'd like to think of it a different way: "Where did all of the evidence of an impact on the ice sheets go?" "How can I prove my point that a cometary impact initiated melting of the continental ice sheets?"

quote:

---

The only other place is in the kinetic energy given to the ejected ice, but since the impactors had to pass through the atmosphere we know some of the energy was turned into heat. The ejected fragments had air friction and a secondary impact if they didn't vaporize in the air. With all this energy being tossed around, there probably would have been secondary melting. Plus with much of the ejected ice vaporizing or melting, there was plenty of water to run off into the sea. Then there was also the water the impact shocks released from sub glacial lakes, and ice dammed lakes, and the possible shock induced surging.

---

Whoa, there, wmscott! How did you get from might-have to did? Where is the evidence that it happened in the first place?

quote:

---

To Percipient

​

"I haven't seen any anomalous evidence that needs explaining." I have. If you don't want to see it, that is your choice.

---

Actually, I haven't either. Exactly what part of the data does the mainstream theory not explain? And how is your theory better? Saying, "If you don't want to see it, that is your choice" is a major league cop out....

quote:

---

"There's no evidence of a comet strike in the form of changes in the isotopic profiles of elements like hydrogen, oxygen and carbon in Greenland or Antarctic ice cores, nor any fallout from particulate matter suspended in the atmosphere after such a strike." Really? Since I have been theorizing that the impacts occurred in connection with the Carolina bay impacts, then the lack of such evidence would mean that the bays have a none impact origin, what is that origin?

---

The problem is that there is other evidence for the Carolina Bays features. You have no supporting evidence.

quote:

---

" What leads you to believe that what professional geologists think are glacial boulders are actually dropstones?" Because the geologists are unable to provide a glacial method of deposition. After all, we are talking about glacial boulders in an area that was not glaciated, that should be a clue.

---

Actually, I am clueless as to what your point is here. Are you saying that glacial geomorphologists cannot tell dropstones from till? Are you saying that dropstones cannot occur outside of the periglacial zone? Are you saying that they do not know what dropstones are? Please explain.