Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

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.

---

wmscott writes:
Incorrect assumption on two points, the sub-glacial lakes were not the only source of flood water and...

---

What are your other sources of water, what is your evidence that they were sufficient to cover the globe, and what is your evidence that the world was ever completely submerged just some thousands of years ago?

---

...the glaciers floated in the flood waters if they were deep enough.

---

This presents a few contradictions. You once offered evidence of marine diatoms on Antarctic ice in support of submergence of the Antarctic ice sheet, but now you appear to be saying they floated, and only if the flood was deep enough. So is your scenario that the ice sheets submerged or floated? And if the flood wasn't deep enough to float them, then how can you say the entire world was submerged?

---

Actually it did leave evidence, what do you think is in my book, blank pages? I put forward a theory called ice age flexing on the deep flexing of the earth which took place at this time caused by the sudden large shifts in pressure by water/ice on the earth's crust.

---

Evidence and theory are two different things. What you did was propose a theory (ice age flexing that resulting in changes in elevation equal to miles) for which you have no evidence.

---

A gradual flood caused by a tide like rise and recession of global sea level would leave next to no evidence compared to the standard YEC flood theories.

---

You keep saying this, and it makes sense to no one. Slow, quiet floods leave copious amounts of evidence. For example:

1. When the Mississippi overflows its banks every few years, the water doesn't rush across the landscape but simple rises higher and higher, then after a while just as gradually recedes leaving layers of silt everywhere.
2. In the days before the Aswan Dam the Nile river used to overflow its banks every year. This was no raging flood of destruction but just a gradual rise in water level covering the fields next to its banks and leaving behind a layer of fertile silt.
3. When ancient Babylon was first discovered and excavated in the 1800s they came across silt layers indicative of a large flood and believed they had found evidence of the Great Flood of Noah. But further excavations in the ensuing decades revealed silt layers from many distinct flood events, and it was gradually realized that the Euphrates had overflowed its banks many times and that the floods had all been local.

In light of the obvious and significant effects of these quiet and periodic rising and fallings of river water levels of short duration, how do you explain the complete lack of any evidence that Noah's flood ever took place?

---

Taking into account that the length of submergence was probably a matter of months, very little sediment would expected to be found. And I might add that I have found evidence of that sedimentation.

---

A key facet of science is replication, where other scientists gather and analyze the same evidence you did. Do you ever ask yourself why professional geologists have never identified this evidence? Besides, you admitted earlier you can't afford carbon dating (a bargain at only about $500), so no matter what it is you've found you have no idea how old it is. Or even if it's carbon-14 dateable. Or even if you've found flood sedimentation.

---

I also notice that you fail to provide an alternative explanation for finding marine diatoms beneath glacial stones which are still sitting on the original post glacial surface,...

---

Well, yes, I did fail. I failed to find any mention of marine diatoms in Wisconsin anywhere on the Internet except your messages here (do a Google search on "marine diatoms" drop stones Wisconsin and only your posts to this forum appear - hey, you're famous!). I also failed to find any mention of dropstones in the driftless area of Wisconsin.

---

...or for the whale bones found in the state of Michigan.

---

As I already told you in message 173, the whale bones have been dated to less than 1000 years old. Like always, you claimed a dating problem, saying they'd been infiltrated by young carbon from rain water.When it comes to dates, whenever you need some piece of evidence to fit into your puzzle but it's dated to the wrong era, you just call it a dating problem and make up a reason. To you, all whale bones, diatoms, drop stones, comets and glacial flows are just 10,000 years old, no matter what the evidence says.

---

Information on the glacial boulders in the Driftless area can be found in the two geology books I have cited in earlier postings on this.

---

But we're not talking about glacial boulders, we're talking about dropstones. And when you earlier cited Diatoms of North America by William C. Vinyard, it was only as your source of information for identifying diatoms, not for any information about dropstones in the driftless area (you also mentioned Round's book Diatoms which you didn't like as much). What is your evidence of dropstones covering marine diatoms in the driftless area of southwest Wisconsin?

---

But for now, it is just one person battling the world, and rather successfully too I might say. The mere fact that I have been able to so, should be an indication that I may be on to something.

---

If your measure of your success is the degree to which you've been dissuaded from your viewpoint, then you're simply in company with that unending legion of inventers who every year attempt to patent perpetual motion machines. Few of these inventers are ever persuaded of any error in their argument, and they're battling much greater odds than you by going head-to-head with the law of conservation of energy.Your approach has a fundamental and very fatal flaw. You are starting with the premise that the global flood, something for which you have no evidence, actually took place. In science one first gathers evidence and then builds theoretical frameworks around it, but you put the cart before the horse by first erecting your theoretical framework and only then considering the evidence. This approach is a recipe for error.--Percy

Mister PamboliNice to finally have someone on this page who has a real knowledge of scripture. I agree with you on the Greek word kosmos meaning the inhabited, ordered, governed world. The ark however is not mentioned in 1 Peter 3:3, it is in verse 20. But perhaps by passage you meant the chapter rather than verse. The Bible writers in referring to the end of the world or system of things, were of course referring to an end of the wicked world of mankind, not a literal destruction of the earth. The flood of Noah as you have pointed out is referred to in the same matter. Just as the physical earth was not destroyed in the flood, it is not to be destroyed at Armageddon either. But the word does having the meaning of humankind as a whole, or the whole of mankind apart from approved servants of God. (This meaning of allness is why our word cosmos for the universe is taken from this word.) Which of course is exactly the world Noah condemned at Hebrews 11:7. My point here is that Noah condemned the 'kosmos' or all of mankind alienated from God, not just a part. The Bible is clear that only eight people survived this event, and it covered all the land. This is why I used this verse in support of the flood being earth wide, in that it destroyed all of the wicked, everywhere, this destruction was not limited to just a region or part of the earth.The Hebrew word 'erets' for earth, is used with a number of meanings, that is what I have been arguing for. My opponent doctrbill is arguing that this word in the Bible only has one meaning, that of a land area or region. He believes that the Bible writers only believed in and described a regional flood. My position is that they used the word with a number of meanings, some of which such as referring to 'all land' or 'entire earth', shows that they believed the flood was earth wide in that it covered all land. Whether or not they knew the earth is a globe, is a side issue I am trying to avoid to keep this focused on the flood. (and failing it seems) For the reason that the Bible writers state the flood waters covered all land, the flood in the Bible was earth wide or global regardless of whether or not the writers could have passed a first grade geography class. As I have been trying to get across to doctrbill, it isn't whether you believe in a earth wide flood, the question is what did the Bible writers believe. The description in Genesis clearly shows the writer believed the event was earth wide in that all the land was covered, even the mountain tops and land animals needed to be in an ark to avoid drowning. As for myself, I believe God's word, but even if you just think it was a story, why would the author have his main character build a 450 foot long ark and fill it animals if he was only describing a regional or local flood? Clearly the Bible writers believed it was a real event that affected all the earth, or all the world of mankind, the cosmos.doctrbillI was just talking about you. I am still unaware of any commentators supporting your position because you still haven't posted any of them. Considering the different opinions of some, I had expected a few to support you, but considering your inability to post any, I am beginning to believe there are none. I have been trying to goad you into supporting your argument, then I could go after the supporting arguments. But since you refuse to post them, if they exist, my best line of attack is to treat them as if they don't exist, which appears to be the case so far. Since you have still failed to answer any of my objections, I will repost them. For unless you can answer them, I consider your position disproved. Stand by for my "satanic chant", LOL.You have still failed to successfully rebut any of the scriptures I posted. Your line of reasoning that because you believe that some verses only refer to part of the earth, therefor no other verse can refer to all the earth, is childish. The context clearly contradicts your line of reasoning at Exodus 19:5 and Daniel 2:35 among many others.Failure to cite a single reference that supports your unusual interpretation.Failure to explain why you feel that "earth" applies to only a limited land area, when in Genesis 1:10 it is referring to all the land.Failure to explain what 'earth' is being referred to in Genesis 1:2 before the creation of land.Failure to explain at Genesis 26:15 "As for all the wells that the servants of his father had dug in the days of Abraham his father, these the Philis'tines stopped up and they would fill them with dry earth." how 'earth' here that obviously refers to a small quantity of dirt, really has the same meaning as the one definition you allow the word to have.I can also add to the list Hebrews 11:7 "By faith Noah, after being given divine warning of things not yet beheld, showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; and through this [faith] he condemned the world" As Mister Pamboli correctly pointed out the Greek word for world here is Kosmos which is here used with the meaning of all of the world of wicked mankind. Paul traveled to Spain, Rome and many other places, yet he believed that at the flood, the Kosmos had been condemned and destroyed. In using the word Kosmos Paul was clearly not referring to an event that effected only a portion of mankind living in one region of the earth.edgeWhat 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. 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. 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, impact melted water flowing off the ice sheet and into the sea, release of ice dammed lakes, 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. 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.PercipientSources of water in addition to sub glacial lakes include impact melted water flowing off the ice sheet and into the sea, release of ice dammed lakes, and ice/water blasted into the atmosphere of which some will fall into the oceans and glacial ice surging into the seas."You once offered evidence of marine diatoms on Antarctic ice in support of submergence of the Antarctic ice sheet" My mistake, I had thought at the time that the marine diatoms referred to were found in one of the dry valleys, which of course would not have floated in the flood. Ice sheets always float of course if they are in deep enough water. 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. I don't want to be like the YEC and read more than what is there in the Bible account by demanding the mountain tops were under liquid water when water in the form of ice could have been the case. It is a possibility I don't want to omit. 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.On evidence for the flood, I have been posting some and there is more in my book. It is more a matter of the fact that you disagree with the interpretation of the evidence. 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. So that raises the question of can you explain all the evidence presented here and in my book in a non flood manner? 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."Slow, quiet floods leave copious amounts of evidence. For example:" You then go on to cite a number of floods all caused by rivers. Rivers carry sediment loads and flooding rivers tend to carry very high sediment loads. Just look at a picture of the ocean, is it brown or muddy looking? Are corals smothered beneath sediment? Are the ocean basins in danger of silting up like the lake behind a dam? Think of all those nice ocean shots you like of swimming whales, try taking a picture like that in a flooding muddy river. The ocean are almost sediment free, it drops out on the bottom in deltas and river fans as the river water slows as it enters the ocean. A brief submergence under the sea would leave only a thin trace of microscope marine organisms along with the rare marine fossil like the whale bones in Michigan."Do you ever ask yourself why professional geologists have never identified this evidence?" Sure, I discuss it in my book." 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.To find information on marine diatoms in Wisconsin you will have to consult the book "Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood" where the results have been published. To find information on the drop stones, you will have to at least use the term "glacial erratics" or "glacial boulders" since geology doesn't accept the drop stone theory, so I would hardly expect them to show up in such a search unless you come across a creationist site."What is your evidence of dropstones covering marine diatoms in the driftless area of southwest Wisconsin?" None, all of my work has so far been in SE Wisconsin. I would expect to find such, but I haven't had the opportunity to look yet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott
Mister Pamboli
... perhaps by passage you meant the chapter rather than verse.

---

No real Bible scholar would have misunderstood Pamboli’s use of the word ‘passage’.

quote:

---

wmscott - Re: Kosmos
the word does having the meaning of humankind as a whole,

---

Kosmos is derived from kosmeo, the root of our word cosmetic. Kosmeo is translated adorn, garnish, and trim. Kosmos is translated primarily as world, but is once rendered adorning. It suggests the transient, ephemeral, accouterments of human civilization. The word world from the Old English weorold (age of man) is certainly appropriate. Jesus’ famous statement, I am with you to the end of the world, is in modern versions rendered, I am with you to the end of the age. Kosmos is about world order, not integrity of the environment.

quote:

---

wmscott
the physical earth was not destroyed in the flood,

---

God said to Noah, I have determined to make an end of all flesh; ... behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Gen. 6:13. You seem to be confused about the meaning of destruction.

quote:

---

wmscott
As for myself, I believe God's word,

---

Really? You believe the biblical date for the flood (sort of), but do not believe in the biblical date of creation? Do not believe Adam was the first man? Do not believe God destroyed the earth?

quote:

---

wmscott
Clearly the Bible writers believed it was a real event that affected all the earth, or all the world of mankind, the cosmos.

---

You don’t sound very clear on this.

quote:

---

wmscott
in the cases you like to cite, such as "Nebuchadnezzar is said to be the destroyer of "all the earth"" it refers to the known world at the time or the known civilized world.

---

Even less than that. It refers to the Babylonian Empire. But when "all the earth" is mentioned in a verse you like for your theory, it has to mean "the whole planet" or "all the dry land" on the planet. Isn't that special!?

quote:

---

wmscott
I am still unaware of any commentators supporting your position because you still haven't posted any of them.

---

My position is not on trial. Yours is.

quote:

---

wmscott
I have been trying to goad you into supporting your argument, then I could go after the supporting arguments.

---

Once again. It is your theory which is under consideration here.

quote:

---

wmscott
it isn't whether you believe in a earth wide flood, the question is what did the Bible writers believe.

---

You are on the right track but the station, to which you are headed, isn’t there.

quote:

---

wmscott
Since you have still failed to answer any of my objections, I will repost them. For unless you can answer them, I consider your position disproved.

---

The task at hand is to prove your theory, not to disprove mine.

quote:

---

wmscott
You have still failed to successfully rebut any of the scriptures I posted.

---

So you say.

quote:

---

wmscott
you believe that some verses only refer to part of the earth, therefor no other verse can refer to all the earth

---

Wrong. I believe that no verse refers to the planet. Show me any passage where the word earth clearly refers to the planet. Neither Bible writers nor early Bible translators thought of earth in that way.

quote:

---

wmscott
The context clearly contradicts your line of reasoning at Exodus 19:5 and Daniel 2:35

---

Repeat the lie often enough and you will believe it, but it won't make it true. The land mentioned in Exodus is the land promised to Abraham. Jehovah owns that land. The dream land mentioned in Daniel is filled by a magic mountain. We've been over this before. You want to try a fourth time?

quote:

---

wmscott
Failure to cite a single reference that supports your unusual interpretation.

---

My interpretation is not up for scrutiny. Yours is.

quote:

---

wmscott
Genesis 1:10 it is referring to all the land.

---

Your assertion. Your burden of proof.

quote:

---

wmscott
explain what 'earth' is being referred to in Genesis 1:2 before the creation of land.

---

Read Genesis 1:2 in the Living Bible, or the Anchor Bible. These offer a rendering which eliminates the apparent contradiction of verse 2 and verse 10. Applying two different translations of erets in the same sentence is confusing to readers, including yourself.

quote:

---

wmscott
Genesis 26:15 "As for all the wells that the servants of his father had dug in the days of Abraham his father, these the Philis'tines stopped up and they would fill them with dry earth.

---

This passage is irrelevant to discussion of erets. The Hebrew word here rendered "earth" is aphar or "dust". One more evidence that Bible translators of the seventeenth century played fast and loose with the word earth.

quote:

---

wmscott
Hebrews 11:7 "Noah, condemned the world" ... In using the word Kosmos Paul was clearly not referring to an event that effected only a portion of mankind living in one region of the earth.

---

In using the term Kosmos, Paul was clearly not referring to destruction of the environment. If he were, he might have used genesis or physikos both of which are translated "nature" and "natural".------------
db

quote:

---

As I have been trying to get across to doctrbill, it isn't whether you believe in a earth wide flood, the question is what did the Bible writers believe. The description in Genesis clearly shows the writer believed the event was earth wide in that all the land was covered, even the mountain tops and land animals needed to be in an ark to avoid drowning. As for myself, I believe God's word, but even if you just think it was a story, why would the author have his main character build a 450 foot long ark and fill it animals if he was only describing a regional or local flood? Clearly the Bible writers believed it was a real event that affected all the earth, or all the world of mankind, the cosmos.

---

Another lengthy post, so I'll only reply to part of it.You raise a good point - that we must try to understand what Bible writers believed. One of the reasons I wanted to include the quote about the sun shining on the whole world was that it shows that their knowledge of what "the whole world" entails is limited. No shame in that, of course, but it does show that even if they say the flood covered the whole world (and I don't agree with that reading) it, they did not comprehend what that would entail.Evidence from Montana or the Arctic or even Auchtermuchty does not support their story of the flood, for we have no evidence that even when speaking of the whole world they knew the extent what they said. Remember, do, that historical accounts, even detailed personal accounts by reliable eyewitnesses, often use language in this way.I myself was witness to an accident and referred to the victim as "covered in blood." My words were accurate in terms of the ordinary usage and appropriate in their context but were not accurate if someone chose to interpret them in a far more precise context.

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

---

What?Look up papers by Dr M.J.Burchell the next time you have a chance, he`s done work on impact cratering in ice...On impact some ice is vaporized (forming the crater) the rest predominantly remains solid (hence there is something for there to be a crater in)...If there was any water around it certainly wouldn`t be running off into the sea it would be in the bottom of the crater....Oh and for reference it would be highly unlikely that an impact crater would form in rock shielded by kilometers thick ice, the crater would be in the ice itself....

quote:

---

On evidence for the flood, I have been posting some and there is more in my book. It is more a matter of the fact that you disagree with the interpretation of the evidence. But then it is up to you to put forward an alliterative explanation that better explains the evidence

---

An alliterative explanation? Gee, these creationist types just get more and more demanding. Ok here goes ...Evidence of eons of erosion exposes examples of ecological and environmental eras earlier in the extreme than exegetical explanations erected on extrapolations from earth-engulfing effusions.

doctrbillGen. 6:13 is not a reference to destroying the physical earth. Look at verse 12 where the 'earth' is said to be ruined because of the abundant wickedness, 'earth' in both verses is the "system of things" or the world of wicked men. You have to look at the context to determine the meaning of the word used. You cannot lock words into just one of their definitions and insist on that meaning regardless of the usage."You believe the "biblical date" for the flood (sort of), but do not believe in the biblical date of creation? Do not believe Adam was the first man? Do not believe God destroyed the earth?" Honestly doctrbill, what are you on? Why do you think one has to accept YEC to believe in the Bible? Learn to read the Bible with a little intelligence and some faith. Yes, faith, for if you keeping looking for reasons not to believe, that is what you will find. If you have some faith, you will see that many of the objections to believing have solutions if you look for them. Sounds like you have made failure a precondition.In my last post I stated "the earth, or all the world of mankind, the Kosmos" to which you replied. "You don't sound very clear on this". Doctrbill, the three terms can mean the same thing, that was the whole point. The biblical references to destruction of the 'earth' in regard to the flood or Armageddon, refers to the destruction of the wicked world of mankind, not the literal earth."I believe that no verse refers to the planet. Show me any passage where the word "earth" clearly refers to the planet." Sounds like you have clarified your position, perhaps I should ask you to clarify it some more. Do you accept the bible does refer to all the land on earth? If you accept that the Bible refers to all the land being flooded, we would have nothing left to argue about, since a flood the covered all the land would be global whether writer knew what a globe was or not.On Daniel 2:35 you stated. "The dream land mentioned in Daniel is filled by a magic mountain." Oh my, you really don't know the meaning of Daniel's dream do you? How can you claim to know anything about the Bible and not know something as basic this? Well, like I said, if you don't understand the context here, I will not be able to show how the usage here shows that reference is made to the whole earth, or more correctly, the whole world of mankind.I had asked, "explain what 'earth' is being referred to in Genesis 1:2 before the creation of land." to which you replied. "Read Genesis 1:2 in the Living Bible, or the Anchor Bible. These offer a rendering which eliminates the apparent contradiction of verse 2 and verse 10." The Living Bible reads. " the earth was a shapeless, chaotic mass, with the Spirit of God brooding over the dark vapors." So, in the Living Bible at Genesis 1:2 what 'earth' is being referred to before the creation of the land in verse 10?On Genesis 26:15 "As for all the wells that the servants of his father had dug in the days of Abraham his father, these the Philis'tines stopped up and they would fill them with dry earth." you replied, "This passage is irrelevant to discussion of "erets". The Hebrew word here rendered "earth" is aphar or "dust". One more evidence that Bible translators of the seventeenth century played fast and loose with the word earth." Actually we were discussing the English word 'earth' and how it is used in the Bible. I take that we both agree that in this verse the Bible uses the word 'earth' and it is not referring to a region or land area. You may need to clarify your position in regard to specific Hebrew and Greek words, on whether any refer to the entire physical earth, all the land, or all of the world of mankind, the system of things, or do you believe they are all restricted in only being able to refer to a portion of the preceding.I had posted. "Hebrews 11:7 "Noah, condemned the world" ... In using the word Kosmos Paul was clearly not referring to an event that effected only a portion of mankind living in one region of the earth." to which you replied.
"In using the term Kosmos, Paul was clearly not referring to destruction of the environment. If he were, he might have used genesis or physikos both of which are translated "nature" and "natural"" Doctrbill, you are missing the point again. We are talking about whether Paul believed the flood effected only a portion of mankind or all when he used the Greek word 'kosmos'. I wasn't referring to the environment, nor as you point out, was Paul. The world Paul said Noah condemned was the wicked world of mankind that existed before the flood. So how much of the system of things that existed before the flood did Paul thing was condemned by Noah's faith when he used the word Kosmos?Mister PamboliYou make some good points about figures of speech, yet you insist that such was not used in certain verses. Like you pointed out, we use figures of speech that are not correct technically, might not that be the case with many of the verses that some seem to thing supports a biblical flat earth view? On your second post, cute.edge"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, significantly reducing the amount available to flood the land or depress the ocean basins? Have you ever calculated 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?" The depression is caused by the weight of the ice, since ice is about one third the density of rock, only a third of the ice at most would be in the depression. If any ice sheets did float away, didn't do as in one piece. Due to the enormous size, the ice would have surged and collapsed into the rising water. A ice sheet is ice plied as high as it will stand. Any reduction in friction on the margins holding it in place, can result in a major collapse. It is possible, even believed by a number of geologists, that the sudden release of sub glacial water at the LGM resulted in a rise in sea level that destabilized the ice sheet edges and resulted in wide spread surging that greatly thinned the thickness of the ice sheets. (see post 142 and ref.s ) Can't say that I have done the exact calculation you suggest, but since my flood theory doesn't require the sudden melting of so much ice, I didn't see the point. There were sub glaical lakes, ice dammed lakes and ice melted by comet impacts and ice that didn't need to melt to surge into the rising sea level. Never heard of Baumgardner, post a link if you want. Have seen a few crazy YEC theories on something like that, is it one of those?"Mainstream science has more than adequate explanations that can easily accomodate the local anomalies that you describe." Really? post them.jozThank you for the reference on impact cratering in ice, I will have to pick up those articles next time I am at the library."If there was any water around it certainly wouldn't be running off into the sea it would be in the bottom of the crater...." In a idealized flat ice surface, absolutely. However, the ice sheet surfaces were not ideal nor were they flat. A large ice sheet has a gently sloping surface complete with a drainage system flowing over, through and even under the ice sheet. Any crater intercepting the drainage pattern, would have a potential drain. Also many of the Carolina bays show a overlapping pattern which combined with even a gentle slope would allow for some drainage to occur. Most of the freed or melted water however, would be the part that is gone, blasted high in the air to fall who knows where. As long as it didn't land in a non draining crater, it would be free to flow to the sea. Some of the impacts may have been large enough, or the ice thin enough in some places, for the crater to reach the bottom of the ice."Oh and for reference it would be highly unlikely that an impact crater would form in rock shielded by kilometers thick ice, the crater would be in the ice itself...." I agree entirely. Perhaps there was a thin spot, or an unusually large comet fragment that punched right through, otherwise yes the ice sheet would have absorbed the impacts without leaving a trace. Which is why I don't expect to find many if any impact craters beneath the former ice sheets.

You seem to have missed the point, you used the phrase "...impact melted water flowing off the ice sheet and into the sea..."There wouldn`t be any because impact cratering on ice works by vapourizing the ice that was where the crater forms and the rest of the ice remaining solid so that there is a crater....IOW no impact melted water.....

---

wmscott writes:
Sources of water in addition to sub glacial lakes include impact melted water flowing off the ice sheet and into the sea, release of ice dammed lakes, and ice/water blasted into the atmosphere of which some will fall into the oceans and glacial ice surging into the seas.

---

Oh. The way you were talking I thought it was some significant new source of water. This is just different ways for water previously locked in glaciers to be released.

---

On evidence for the flood, I have been posting some and there is more in my book. It is more a matter of the fact that you disagree with the interpretation of the evidence. But then it is up to you to put forward an alternative 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.

---

I haven't seen any anomalous evidence that needs explaining. As far as I can tell, you're the only one in the entire world who thinks marine diatoms are hiding beneath dropstones in the driftless area of Wisconsin. Or that there's evidence of marine sedimentation in the same area. Evidence of catastrophic glacial flows and rising sea levels is not evidence of a flood - that's why I asked you for evidence that the water released was sufficient to flood the entire earth. You appear to be the only one who thinks there's a 1000% dating error on 1000 year-old whale bones in Michigan. You've invented all your supposed anomalies yourself.Your evidence doesn't support your contentions because their source is a creation myth instead of evidence. You believe that the Genesis flood account is largely accurate, that all the animals of the world were somehow saved on Noah's ark, that the flood covered the entire earth (even though people then could not have known whether it did or didn't), that the flood left no evidence behind, and that after the flood the animals somehow returned to their original lands.There's no genetic "eye of the needle" that all species would have passed through 10,000 years ago.There's no mountain rain shadows suddenly appearing 10,000 years ago when your low elevation Himalayas and Andes and Rockies and Alps suddenly popped up a couple miles.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.Anyone who could be persuaded today on the basis of your slim-to-none evidence could just as easily be persuaded of the opposite tomorrow.

---

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

---

You're welcome to discuss away here.

---

"...carbon dating (a bargain at only about $500)," Really? Tell me more, I am interested.

---

Google's all you need. Shouldn't take you longer than a minute to track down labs that list their prices on the Internet. I'm sure that if you contact them they can tell you if they'd have any trouble dating diatoms, and what additional information they'd need to provide accurate dates.

---

To find information on marine diatoms in Wisconsin you will have to consult the book "Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood" where the results have been published.

---

If your participation here sells some books that's great, but replies of "It's in my book" kind of puts the kibosh on discussion.

---

To find information on the drop stones, you will have to at least use the term "glacial erratics" or "glacial boulders" since geology doesn't accept the drop stone theory...

---

What leads you to believe that what professional geologists think are glacial boulders are actually dropstones?--Percy

quote:

---

wmscott
Gen. 6:13 is not a reference to destroying the physical earth. ...
The biblical references to destruction of the 'earth' in regard to the flood ... refers to the destruction of the wicked world of mankind, not the literal earth.

---

"What a tangled web we weave ..."!
First, you want us to believe there was a global (earth-wide) flood which destroyed all life. Then you want us to believe that the Hebrew word "erets" means Planet Earth. Now you want us to believe that references to this "earth" are not literal!? That the earth in question was not physical?!

quote:

---

wmscott
at verse 12 where the 'earth' is said to be ruined because of the abundant wickedness, 'earth' in both verses is the "system of things" or the world of wicked men.

---

It means planet wherever you want it to mean planet.
It doesn't mean planet to you here because you don't like the word "destroy." You want to believe that "destroy" refers only to the "all flesh...corrupted" in the previous verse. Yet, the god says, "I will destroy them with the earth." What do you make of that?

quote:

---

wmscott
You have to look at the context to determine the meaning of the word used.

---

In the context of the flood, you want erets to mean "the planet". Also in the context of the flood, you don't want it to mean the "physical" planet or the "literal" planet. Your choices seem to be guided by religious prejudice. They are apparently not guided by the ancient language, nor by an understanding of the ancient worldview.

quote:

---

wmscott
Honestly doctrbill ... Learn to read the Bible with a little intelligence and some faith.

---

Honestly wmscott ... Learn to read the Bible with a lot of intelligence and more faith in your own powers of reasoning (less in the reasoning of others).

quote:

---

wmscott
Do you accept the bible does refer to all the land on earth?

---

Ask me a silly question. Ask me about Christopher Columbus.

quote:

---

wmscott
On Daniel 2:35 ... I will not be able to show how the usage here shows that reference is made to the whole earth, or more correctly, the whole world of mankind.

---

You got that right.

quote:

---

wmscott
... in the Living Bible at Genesis 1:2 what 'earth' is being referred to before the creation of the land in verse 10?

---

My mistake! I meant to direct you to verse one.
"When God began creating ..." Think about how this rendering affects the sense of what follows. This is one of the few places where I like what these guys have done with the ancient lingo.

quote:

---

wmscott
You may need to clarify your position in regard to specific Hebrew and Greek words, on whether any refer to the entire physical earth,

---

You have asserted that one of these words means "the planet." I realize you get this second hand, but you must know by now that proving it is important to the biblical side of your argument.------
db

jozI haven't got the chance to get the journal articles you referred to, But the abstract seemed to imply that the paper was on ice impact events in a vacuum designed to investigate impacts between material in the solar system such as comets. Which is why a number of the experiments have been done with a mixture of water ice and dry ice CO2.. In an impact event in space, yes there would be no melted ice, at least not for very long. In an atmosphere, heating of the air and surface, results in temperatures very possibly above the freezing point. In the case of an over lapping pattern of Carolina bay type impacts, wide spread heating of the atmosphere and ice surface is to be expected. If nothing else the ejected ice fragments would gain enough heat to melt at least partly from the kinetic energy imparted to them. 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? 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.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."a creation myth" The flood is not a 'creation myth', it occurred long after creation and hence could not be such since it is not even part of the creation events."There's no genetic "eye of the needle" that all species would have passed" Who says there was? Sounds like you are slipping back into some old YEC debate." There's no mountain rain shadows suddenly appearing 10,000 years ago when your low elevation Himalayas and Andes and Rockies and Alps suddenly popped up a couple miles." I guess that you have never heard of the pluvial period when rain regularly fell in areas where the rain shadows are today."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?" 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.doctrbillAt Genesis 1:2 what 'earth' is being referred to before the creation of the land in verse 10?

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott
At Genesis 1:2 what 'earth' is being referred to before the creation of the land in verse 10?

---

Creationists want to depart from the traditional translation here and use two different English words for the one Hebrew word in question. The problem began when creationists realized that the Bible does not support their modern view. The fact that evangelical creationists have published such a revision doesn't make it valid.They call the first erets "earth" because they want it to mean "planet", and they call the second erets "land" because they don't want it to mean planet.This was not a problem before invention of the telescope. At that time people realized that earth must be a planet after all. Interpretation of Genesis has been different ever since but there have been no new discoveries in the text to support Copernicus.If one reads the first sentence of the Bible as, "When God began creating ..." (Anchor Bible & Living Bible) then this particular "problem" loses its significance.Rather than attempting to re-write The Book, why not try to understand what the ancients thought of the universe. No need to answer this; I am quite aware of how religious tradition enslaves the mind. Nevertheless, if you will:Imagine an invisible dome (firmament AKA Heaven) which is inserted into a limitless dark and formless body of primeval water. This dome holds "the heavens" (sun, moon and stars) while they revolve around the earth and sea. Imagine this tidy little universe (Heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them) ensconced in that dark primordial water which is called "the deep" (Hebrew -tehom). Then, and only then, one may begin to understand what the ancients envisioned when they looked up, into the Deep Blue "waters above the heavens." (Psalm 148:4)-----
db