Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

edgeI 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. 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). 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). 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." 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. 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.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.doctrbill"am I entirely missing your point?" Yes you are! As I and the references I cited have been saying, the Hebrew word for earth has MORE THAN ONE MEANING! It can mean the dirt, the land or the planet. Even if you disagree with the planet definition, referring to all the land would in effect mean the same as the whole planet when referring to a global flood. For if you flood all the 'earth' or land areas you have a global flood. I should also point out that using the definition of 'all land' would harmonize with both usage's you cited where you claim I contradict myself. (you also misquoted me by failing to mention that my statement was made in regard to the use of the word earth in specific verses and not usage in the whole bible in general.) I want to keep this from getting too far off track, so I am not going to argue about the bible writers knowledge of the size or shape of the earth.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. You also haven't addressed the basic questions I raised in my last post.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 stand by my earlier "tirade," in fact since you have still failed to support your interpation, I could repeat every word again since it still applies, but to save space and time.<<< Insert Earlier Tirade Here >>>

edgePoint taken, I will try to be more carefully in using figures of speech if you find such confusing."Okay, show us a jokulhlaup that has raised the global sea level even an inch." 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.Global ice volumes at the Last Glacial Maximum and early Lateglacial, lambeck, Yokoyama, Johnston, Purcell, Earth and Plantary Science Letters 181 (2000) 513-527.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."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. 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. 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."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. 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."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." The effects or fall out of an impact winter are global and would not be limited to a local area. 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.doctrbill;"Our local library has access to nearly one hundred Bible commentaries, each by a different "authority". Imagine how harebrained it would be of me to base my opinions on a single one of these!" When I read this I had quite a laugh. So it is apparently less harebrained for you to base your opinion on nothing at all. I will take from this response that none of those nearly 100 bible commentaries support your position, or else you would have quoted them. I take it as quite revealing that out of so many conflicting opinions, none of them apparently supports your theory.Exodus 19:5 Even using the most favorable translation you could find towards your theory, it still stated "all the land is mine." Another bible translation renders this phrase as "the whole earth belongs to me." The wording is clear on referring to all of earth, or everything. Jehovah is here stating he has the right to give the promised land to the Israelites because as the creator, the whole earth belongs to him. I am surprised that as a claimed bible scholar you didn't know that in this verse Jehovah is using his ownership of the earth as the creator as evidence for his right to give his people the promised land. I was also surprised you made the statement, "Do you imagine that the speaker here is creator of the universe?" and you claim to be a bible scholar. It is a very very basic fact that the Israelites worshipped Jehovah god as the creator. Moses wrote the book of Genesis as well. In reading this verse it is not a question of what you or I believe, it is a question of what the writer believed. And Moses the writer of Exodus most clearly believed that Jehovah was the creator of heaven and earth. On the 'contextual analysis' of this verse, I noticed on "ignores both the stated and implied parameters of the context" that you didn't consider the next verse which states " And YOU yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Which of course refers to the promise made to Abraham by Jehovah that "by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves." Genesis 22:18 Even in dealing with the Israelites Jehovah always had the future of all of mankind in mind, for in Exodus 19:6 we see a reference to future events that would find fulfillment in connection with Christianity which is not limited to a single people or land. So restricting the meaning of the word earth here to a limited area based on a mistaken idea that there is no thought of other people in these verses is clearly wrong.Daniel 2:35 In the dream here, the entire earth is referred to, which you would be able to see for yourself, if you only could understand what the dream is about. As this is apparently too deep for you to understand, in interests of trying to keep this discussion focused on the flood, it may be best to skip trying to teach you about the prophetic meaning of Daniel's dreams for now.You referred to the "Early translators of the Bible", "Martin Luther" and "The Roman Catholic Church" and asked "Do you think you are a better scholar than were those men whose words you read with such reverence?" With all the many very good bible reference books available, that you write off biased, it isn't very hard to surpass what was known in earlier days. It is sometimes referred to as 'standing on the shoulders of giants' for by using the vast resources we have today, it is possible to built on what is already known. So to answer your question, I would have to answer yes, at least in a limited way. Since as you yourself pointed out, we know many things they didn't know. With today's computer technology it is possible to do word searches and comparisons in a matter of minutes that in the days before bible reference books would have taken months. We stand on the shoulders of the great scholars in the past when we avail ourselves of their findings, or at least I do, since you seem to write off their work as biased and of little value. Maybe that is why you seem to have such trouble understanding even minor bible points.As for Hitting you with my 'best shot', there doesn't seem to be any point in rolling out the nukes when you can't handle a few well tossed stones. You have still failed to answer the basic questions I raised earlier.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" Here this verse being in the Greek scriptures uses the Greek word for world. I suppose you are going to tell me the Romans and Greeks had no concept of the earth ether."no real evidence that any biblical author ever stated, alluded to, or imagined that earth might be a globe, rotate on its axis, orbit the sun, or wander among the stars." As stated earlier I am not trying to, since that is outside of trying to support a global flood theory. I am restricting my efforts to proving that the bible refers to the entire earth at times, not that they knew the size or shape of the earth. My point is that when the bible refers to flooding the earth, it means a global event rather than a limited one. That regardless of whether or not the flood was really earth wide, the bible writers believed it was.Percipient;Wow, top billing. Thanks. Love the picture of the Carolina Bays, really shows the impact pattern.Let's take a look at your objections to a global flood and water from sub-glacial lakes.
"1. Contained sufficient water to flood the entire earth, including the glaciers from under which they flowed (now there's a trick);" Incorrect assumption on two points, the sub-glaical lakes were not the only source of flood water and the glaciers floated in the flood waters if they were deep enough."2. Released that water suddenly so that sea levels could rise rapidly;" That is what is currently believed by scientists who support the subglacial mega flood theory, and sudden rises in sea level of up to 15m are shown to have occurred."2. The ocean basins depressed world-wide and the land popped up world-wide relatively rapidly in order to follow the Biblical timetable, but leaving no evidence;" 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."3. A world wide flood would have left little to no silt, nor evidence of other kinds," 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. Which I take as one of the most believable parts of my flood theory and the most unreasonable of the YEC theories. And as I have been posting over and over again, the rate of sedimentation in the ocean is very minor compared to river water. 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. 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, or for the whale bones found in the state of Michigan. 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. To keep this short I have a whole book of information on evidence for the flood and how it happened and how all the pieces fit together. I appreciate what you said about changing world views, I had to do that a number of times before I arrived at a theory that worked and agreed with the evidence. I would also like to say in response, that my theory is a work in progress. That I wish people would at least consider it as a possibility, that yes this may of happened. For what new theory every had all the answers when first published? I am hoping that my book will spark research that will find all the evidence any one could ask for. 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.Joe MeertActually Joe, I spend a whole chapter on the history of the flood debate and how and why it was abandoned by geology. The whole idea behind my flood theory was to come up with one that agrees with the geologic evidence, so considering the evidence has been very important and has been the key means of finding out how a global flood could have occurred. The posting on this board is much more extensive than what I have done on other boards, so I would suggest you read it over and I believe you will find may of your potential objections have already been addressed. You will also need to break free of habit of confusing this new flood theory with YEC silly flood theories as the others who have posted here have had to do over time. It will also help prevent you from constantly reinventing the wheel.

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.

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.

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?

edge"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?"
The ice sheets melted taking much of the evidence with them. This leaves us with secondary evidence caused by the impacts, the sudden very large release of water from the ice sheet for unexplained reasons. Impact dust layers in ice core records, such should be found at the time the Carolina bays were created. There may even be found impact craters on the edges of the former ice sheet from impacts that occurred just clear of the ice or ones where the ice was thin. ( some of the Carolina Bays occur in the NE with a round shape that is hard to match with the alignment of the other bays and may be from a second impact pattern over the ice sheet to the north.) In the glacial out wash till traces of cometary trace elements may turn up."Exactly what part of the data does the mainstream theory not explain? And how is your theory better?" better at explaining Michigan whale bones, glacial erratics in places the glaciers didn't reach, super floods erosion, traces of marine diatoms found underneath drop stones, raised shorelines, the pluvial period, Pleistocene extinction and animal distribution, pattern of human migration and genetic distribution patterns, relic lakes at high elevations, evidence in the Carolina bays of being submerged after being formed, and may other little odds and ends.On the drop stones in the Driftless area ( an area that was not glaciated) and geology, they are an anomaly, some geologists attempt to explain the lower elevation ones as drop stones from huge floods on the Mississippi from temporary ice dams with no real explanation for the ones at high elevations. Other geologists write them off as all being the results of pranksters out to embarrass them. In general they are ignored as an unexplained anomaly. In fact, they are easy to explain if a global flood occurred, they are indeed drop stones from a flood on the Mississippi, just that the flooding was caused by a rising sea level that rose high enough to cover the elevations where the higher drop stones are located. My flood theory provides an explanation for what is otherwise in conventional geology is an anomaly or written off as the work of pranksters.doctrbillLots of fancy foot work, but you still haven't answered the question. At Genesis 1:2 what 'earth' is being referred to before the creation of the land in verse 10?

edge & PercipientHere are two references to the drop stones found in the Wisconsin Driftless area.
"The presence of rare erratic bowlders on the Mississippi bluffs in the Driftless Area may be explained by the possibility the glacial Mississippi was temporarily dammed at the south. Such a damming would form a long, narrow, valleylake. Erratics might be rafted out by floating ice to positions high above the present flood plain, and into the mouths of tributary, non-glacial valleys, as in Grant River where such erratics of granite, diorite, porphyry, and quartzite have been found.
On the other hand, the small pebbles of granite, trap, porphyry, jasper, quartzite, found near the Mississippi at several localities east of Trempealeau, La Crosse, and De Soto, at elevations of 380 to 480 feet above the river, may very well be older drift," (The Physical Geography of Wisconsin, Third Edition by Lawrence Martin 1965, pages 130-131)
There is of course no evidence for the giant damming of the Mississippi, and raising the level of the river 380 to 480 feet above it's present level is of course impossible, which is why the drop stones at those elevations are assumed to be from older glacial activity. While nearly impossible to explain under conventional geology, the drop stones are easy to explain using the flood. What happened is simple, the super flood of water and ice flowing down the Mississippi was backed upped by the rising sea level and icebergs drifted over the Driftless Area dropping stones as the ice melted.
The occurrence of rare glacial boulders in the Driftless Area has long been noted and has lead to some rather unorthodox scientific explanations to try to account for their presence. "Geology and geography professors have long been taking their classes to the Driftless Area of southwestern Wisconsin and parts of neighboring states, that "island" that escaped being run over by the ice sheets. Students know that on a field trip to that area the professor would be stressing the absence of glacial deposition. So before these trips it would often happen that practical jokers would haul boulders and smaller rocks from surrounding glaciated territory and place them conspicuously were they would be encountered during the field trip, to the embarrassment of the professor. No one knows how many of these glacial erratics have been scattered through the Driftless Area by pranksters." (Ice Age Lost by Gewn Schultz 1974, p.270)
If you carefully read the article you guys posted the link to on the Driftless area, you will notice that the writer refers to glacial erratics in the area that he explains as being carried into the area by water. The erratics he refers to are some of the drop stones long noted to be found in the Driftless area. His explanation however fails to account for the all drop stones such at the ones that are found along the Mississippi bluffs described in the first reference above.Now Guys, the reason we are having this debate, is you are trying to convince me that my views are in error and to provide better explanations for what I have found, and I have repeatedly asked to hear any better answers. But then instead of showing what these better answers are, you go and ignore the evidence or claim that I made it up. How does this possibly convince me when I have references like the above and my own findings that I can see with my own eyes? By your assertions, you prove my point that these findings are anomalies that geology can not explain without a flood. You also demonstrate that so far, I seem to be the only one with a theory that solves the mystery of these anomalies, if in attacking my theory you need to resort to claims of fabrication. For if you had better answers, wouldn't that be a far more convincing line of attack then claiming that things I can see for myself are not really there? Percipient wrote "This isn't a case of denying evidence before my very eyes but rather one of you citing evidence that doesn't support your hypothesis." Well, maybe you should open your eyes.Percipient wrote "You believe all land animals of the world were saved on Noah's ark 10,000 years ago." Incorrect assertion. It is obvious that many land animals survived in their locations without a migration to and back from a point in the middle east. Many animals managed to survive the flood on their own by rafting or other means. As I have been posting many times.Percipient wrote "there are about 30 different theories for the origin of the Carolina Bays, and at this time there is no consensus." The reason there are so many is because none of them is any good, only the impact theory makes sense. I noticed that you didn't post descriptions of any of the other theories, do you favor the creation by spawning fish theory perhaps? or maybe the Indian religious mound theory? The rest are not much better, like I said, only the impact theory is a plausible theory for the formation of the Carolina Bays.Percipient wrote "impacts so large as to cause shock waves that crumpled entire ice sheets" Not part of my theory, the ice sheets were too large to have been 'crumpled' by a single impact that the biosphere of the earth could have survived. The Carolina bays point towards multiple impacts spread out over a large area which would have resulted in large scale surface abrasion, but 'crumpling entire ice sheets' is a bit of over statement.doctrbillThen at Genesis 1:2 how can your interpretation of 'earth' be referred to before the creation of the land in verse 10? It is impossible for the 'earth' in verse two to be land since at that point there was none. The only 'earth' that this verse could possibly be referring to is the planet earth. This simple little fact disproves your entire argument. The Bible does have references to the entire earth or planet, and your objection to a global flood based on a restricted interpretation of the word earth in the Bible, is shown to be in conflict with scripture.jozOn the impacts you stated "As for secondary melting why the atmospheric temperature would barely change around the glacier..."Some references on the Tunguska impact event and its effects.
"Recent computer simulations account for the Tunguska event in terms of a 15-megaton blast created when a small comet or stray asteroid slammed into the atmosphere. A searing fireball ignited everything within miles and then the fire was almost immediately extinguished by the blast wave created by the explosion. . . . Seismographs sensed slight tremors, and barometric data recorded the passage of a pressure wave from the blast that rounded the planet several times." Impact! the threat of comets and Asteroids by Gerrit L. Verschuur, pages 109-110."After impact, a column of flame and clouds of thick black smoke billowed up from the site. Hurricane force blasts of hot air knocked people and animals off their feet and broke windows. . . . More than 1,000 square kilometers of forests were flattened." Cosmic Collisions by Dana Desonie, page 88.A comet impact on earth is accompanied by a large release of heat hot enough to start forest fires at considerable distances from the impact area. Notice also that the Tunguska impact was detected by Seismographs in other parts of the world, and this was back in 1908. Please remember that we are talking about a Carolina bay type impact pattern, one author estimates there are 500,000 bays with 2,500,000 having once existed, before being erased by erosion. Considering the effects of the Tunguska event and the possibility of multiplying it by thousands or even millions, the amount of heat dumped into the earth's atmosphere and surface would be staggering. The termors from so many impacts would be like a rain of giant hammer blows. It would also be impossible for the atmosphere to hold the water vapor from so many impacts, even if could have, it would have rained out in a period of heavy rain storms (40 days?) which are a part of an impact winter predictions. So even if all the water went into the air as vapor, much of it still would have ended up in the sea. But, as I stated, it is not possible for the atmosphere to hold so much water, so much of it had to fall out at once, which due to the abundance of heat released, much of it would have been in the form of rain. The explosive blasts of each impact would have blown surface materials out from each crater and the heat blasts would have melted or vaporized much of such as well.Another author even speculated. " what actually happened eight thousand to ten thousand years ago to end the hunter-gatherer chapter in human history? Quite suddenly, agriculture appeared. Writing was invented, giving rise to record-keeping and literacy. And the earliest human records all record stories of floods that devastated civilization. The Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, the Greek Flood of Deucalion, and the Noahic flood are merely the most familiar examples. The study of the literature of catastrophes even has a name: it is called eschatology. Modern biblical scholars seem generally intent upon tracing which eschatological writings may have been imported from other cultures, completely ignoring the important question: What actually happened? central Asian land and Amerind traditions describe the emergence of dry land from beneath a global ocean (a peculiar concept to arise among Plains Indians if they "invented" the story!). What did happen then? Was the clock of human history reset to zero by an event ( or more than one ) that devastated civilization?" Rain of Iron and Ice; the Very Real Threat of Comet and Asteroid Bombardment by John S. Lewis, page 185. A number of authors writing on the subject of comet impacts have speculated along similar lines.

doctrbill"The first paragraph of this chapter (verses 1 and 2) also mentions creation of the heavens, which are said to have been created (again?) on the fourth day." There is no big mystery here, this is believed by many to refer to a clarification of the atmosphere so that the lights in the heavens could be seen clearly from the ground. (a blow against the canopy theory by the way.) "If the heavens and the earth already existed, then how is what follows an account of their creation?" The Genesis account opens with an existing universe and the planet, having been created earlier before the account starts, in the beginning. It then proceeds with a step by step account of the terra forming of the planet earth. The 'creative days' are time periods or stages in development. Most of the work described was no doubt done using natural means. Since Genesis is an account of the development of the planet, it is by its very nature referring to the entire planet, since it is about creation of all things. The very fact that Jehovah is credited with the creation of the universe or heavens should clue you in to the fact that the account deals with all the earth. In presenting your interpretation you focus on what many people believed about the earth in times past, but you have overlooked the fact the creator of the earth and inspirer of the Bible certainly knows the true form of the earth. So even if you are correct in what the ancient Hebrews believed about the earth, it would make the Bibles references to the whole of the earth that much more miraculous if as you claim, it was written by men who didn't know the extent of the earth.You also made a reference to 'good scholarship', you can not make that claim since as you have already admitted you don't even understand the dreams of Daniel which are mostly explained right in the book of Daniel. Having such a limited knowledge of basic Bible context clearly disqualifies you from 'good scholarship.' Since the meaning of many words is determined by the context, and as you have already shown an extremely low level of comprehension of Biblical context, you are completely unqualified to determine the meaning inferred by the usage of words in the Bible. Your low level of scholarship is also shown by your refusal and inability to post any references which support your interpretation. Considering the fact that your viewpoint is in conflict with biblical Hebrew dictionaries and biblical reference works, and you have responded to that conflict by labeling such works as biased and wrong, the only support for your interpretation is your own personal opinion based on a very shallow and erroneous view of the Bible. Your erroneous theories on the word circle at Isaiah 40:22 highlight your biased view, not even taking into account Job 26:7 stating the earth is hanging upon nothing. Both scriptures referring to the whole earth. To ignore the obvious meaning of these verses and many others such as Genesis 1:2, referring to the whole earth, requires a level of biased interpretation that renders your opinion valueless. Due to the fact that you support your opinion on a claimed standing as some sort of Bible scholar, it is time to rip that phony sheepskin off your back. I don't know if your body physically sat in the appropriate class rooms, but even if so, is clear that your mind failed to absorb much of anything. If you have a piece of paper, it would seem that is all you have, for you certainly are no Bible scholar in biblical knowledge or understanding.jozThere would be both steam and water from the effects of the impact heat depending on the distance from the impact. Frankly, it doesn't matter too much whether the water was liquid or vapor since the vapor would have rained out anyway and the effect would be pretty much the same in the end. I was only looking to the impact shocks as a source of hydraulic pressure shock waves in the sub glacial lakes and water, resulting in simultaneous releases and the possible cause of some surging triggered by the termors. Whether or not the shocks shattered the ice into pieces doesn't matter much, how much ended up in the sea to raise the level is the important part. The change in things at the end of the ice age was to pronounced to be the result of a mere change in life style. Read about the Pleistocene extinction and the disappearance of Neanderthal man. Yes they did get to the Americas by crossing water, but when did they get there? And why do the people living in Asia who didn't have to cross water at all, still have the same story? This suggests a common source before migration occurred.edgeThe drop stones at the higher elevations are evidence of a global flood due to the fact that it is impossible for the local terrain elevations to contain water to that depth. In other words, to get the water that high, you would need to flood the world. Which is why as I have been saying that these drop stones are an anomaly for the geologists."it has not been our objective to provide better explanations," Exactly, that is why you have failed. You have based our arguments on a great faith in orthodox theories. The absence of better explanations in your arguments shows your blind faith in the absolute correctness of orthodox science. To you I am a heretic, with apostate theories not wroth considering because I challenge what you believe is the one true faith. Like arrogant inquisitors you cite your orthodoxy as the final authority, when in reality it is the evidence that has the final say. When you can't over turn what I say, you claim I made it up or refer to your orthodoxy while failing to explain or provide evidence. When I make valid points about the effects of rain water and meltwater containing old carbon, you call it a 'wave of my hand' and ignore it, and insist on a total adherence to the absolute accuracy of carbon dating. You demand absolute compliance with the doctrines of your high priests, yet your blindly following and rejecting contrary ideas just because they are contrary to what you believe, goes against the spirit of what you claim to believe in. Science isn't suppose to be a orthodox religion, is should be open investigation of the evidence. If science rejected all new ideas and instead always based their arguments on the orthodoxy as you have been doing, scientists would still be preaching middle age science as fact. The pursuit of true science is to question and not to blindly believe because it is the accepted theory, for that reason I feel that I have been truer to the faith that you think you are defending.

See post 142 for a start, and I was referring to certain posters on this board, not to scientists.

Joe MeertYou are right, I really should quit wasting my time arguing that the sky is blue with people who don't want to believe it, and focus more on research and writing. This debate has been going around in circles away. It is time to reduce the time I spend on this board. It will take some time to prepare a paper or papers. Why don't you read my book or the many postings here and let me know what, if any, that you think could be the basis for an article that would interest you as an editor. You can e-mail me through my publisher. I have some ideas I want to pursue, some field work to do this year. What type of paper would you like to see? My thinking is the whole theory is too much for one paper any way and too controversial, so I have been thinking of trying a series of articles, one on each major part. The scientific community may find it easier to accept that way. What journal and journals are you the editor of and on the board of, maybe I will submit a paper to you some day.edge & PercipientThose rocks in the Driftless area are really giving you guys fits. I agree with the paper on the Driftless area never being glaciated, that agrees with my theory and explains the erratic the author of the paper reported. No matter what I say you two are not going to believe me anyway. Considering what a problem this seems to be for you guys, if I ever do a second edition, I will have to try and include some pictures of these trouble some rocks. By the way, these drop stones are not limited to the Driftless area. If you check the state geology books for the states that line the Mississippi, these rocks turn up in a number of river valleys that connect with the river. Drop stones also turn up in other parts of the world in places where glaciers could not have left them without a flood. It is not a local occurrence limited to just one area. One book states " erratic boulders comprise one of the important items that are ignored by orthodox geologists except as they occur in glaciated regions. There is not doubt that ice did carry these boulders for many miles and did deposit them on entirely different formations. Such 'erratics' are quite common in northern Europe and the glaciated area of North America. However, these boulders are also found in warmer climates far from any sings of glaciation. For example, in southern California there are many places where erratic boulders occur, but we have yet to read any geological report of their existence." Neglected Geological Anomalies, William R. Corliss, page 246. As usual Corliss is out in left field, but the author he quotes does make some interesting points about the occurrence of erratics in areas not reached by glaciers. A number of people over the years have pointed to ice rafting as the only way some of these rocks could have been deposited, Charles Darwin was one.doctrbillPsalms 14:1 & Romans 1:18-22.You never did explain how at Genesis 1:2 the word 'earth' is really referring to a land region when the land doesn't rise above the waters until a later verse. In fact what I posted earlier is still true.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 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.Of course the reason why you have failed is best summed up in an other earlier post.You also made a reference to 'good scholarship', you can not make that claim since as you have already admitted you don't even understand the dreams of Daniel which are mostly explained right in the book of Daniel. Having such a limited knowledge of basic Bible context clearly disqualifies you from 'good scholarship.' Since the meaning of many words is determined by the context, and as you have already shown an extremely low level of comprehension of Biblical context, you are completely unqualified to determine the meaning inferred by the usage of words in the Bible. Your low level of scholarship is also shown by your refusal and inability to post any references which support your interpretation. Considering the fact that your viewpoint is in conflict with biblical Hebrew dictionaries and biblical reference works, and you have responded to that conflict by labeling such works as biased and wrong, the only support for your interpretation is your own personal opinion based on a very shallow and erroneous view of the Bible. Your erroneous theories on the word circle at Isaiah 40:22 highlight your biased view, not even taking into account Job 26:7 stating the earth is hanging upon nothing. Both scriptures referring to the whole earth. To ignore the obvious meaning of these verses and many others such as Genesis 1:2, referring to the whole earth, requires a level of biased interpretation that renders your opinion valueless. Due to the fact that you support your opinion on a claimed standing as some sort of Bible scholar, it is time to rip that phony sheepskin off your back. I don't know if your body physically sat in the appropriate class rooms, but even if so, is clear that your mind failed to absorb much of anything. If you have a piece of paper, it would seem that is all you have, for you certainly are no Bible scholar in biblical knowledge or understanding.You silly guy, you think I wrote that to insult you. Not insult, expose you as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, and you failed to answer a single charge I made against you. Hence it seems I was right. You ignore biblical reference works and even widely used biblical dictionaries that clearly contradict your theory and call them wrong and biased. You ignore other scriptures that conflict with your interpretations. You twist scriptures and ignore the context in a fruitless attempt to support your assertions. In fact in writing the above exposing you as a fraud, I probably didn't go far enough. If I was to peel away all the layers of lies wrapped around you, what would I find in the center? Probably someone else, a lying conniving atheist using a false persona as a 'Bible scholar' in a desperate attempt to discredit the word of God. Your methods, aims and lack of understanding all point to the very real possibility you are a total fraud, not just in your ridiculous anti-biblical claims, but also in who and what you claim to be. In short to sum things up, I can quote you.I have examined your scriptural evidence.
It does not threaten my position.
Theological arrogance (and ignorance) underpins your belief.
Scriptural evidence does not support your argument.wehappyfewLong time no see. You are thinking too sudden, and some of the evidence you are asking for does exist, see the beginning of this post. You may also want to look at the earlier posting we had here while you were gone on super floods and the Mississippi river valley. By the way I have been thinking of getting off this board to do other things, been boring without you and Patrick. And I really should get back to my reading and research. Make sure you take a look at post 142 if you haven't already. I would be interested in your thoughts.

Joe MeertWhat journal and journals are you the editor of and on the board of?jozOn 'water running off the ice sheet' we are wasting our time splitting hairs. As I posted earlier on the Tunisia impact, there would have been plenty of heat involved which would have resulted in large amounts of ice melting. I am not even looking to impact melted water as the major source of flood waters, so this is really a pointless argument."your own source for the Siberian impact states "Seismographs sensed slight tremors" note "slight tremmors".." The Siberian 'impactor' exploded at 10,000 ft above the ground and still caused a tremor. Direct impacts exploding on impact would create much larger termors. Think about it, what would you expect from a hyper velocity impact, a little tap or a big wham? Think about getting rear ended at a stop light, the faster the car that hits you is going, the larger the jolt is going to be."The shock wave does have to shatter solid ice in order for any sub glacial lake release" Not directly, the pressure wave created in the sub glacial water could have been the hammer that broke the ice dams. Also, large ice sheets frequently, if not always, have a vast plumbing system of moving water draining over, through and under the ice sheet.On the information you posted on the change in live style recorded at the end of the ice age, none of it really answered why it happened. The over hunting, climate change and super germ theories are not very plausible which is why there are three theories in stead of just one.PercipientSo do you believe are the rocks are there or not? Theories come and go, but the evidence remains, if people have reported these rocks as being there, then they are still there whether they can explain them or not. The Driftless area was not glaciated which is what makes these rare rocks an anomaly. The references you cited on the lack of glacial erratics in the Driftless area are correct since they are speaking in general terms, and the few that turn up are the exception to the rule.Haven't had the chance to see these rocks for myself, so no, I don't have any pictures of them yet. The Driftless area is large, but perhaps someday I will happen to come across some of these odd rocks.doctrbillWhen I posted Psalms 14:1 & Romans 1:18-22. I made no application, I posted the verses as a sort of rorschach test. I found your test results very revealing. So far you have been making statements like ""Jehovah" is not credited with creation in the First chapter of Genesis" which considering the wording at Genesis 1:1 demonstrates a level of obtuseness that is off the charts. Yet you understood the thrust of the above two verses without any problem and applied them both to yourself, very interesting. Since you were able to understand the verses, you are not as dimwitted as your other statements would imply, rather this points towards the possibility that your apparent failure to understand simple scriptures is an act. Your haste in applying the verses to yourself would also support the idea that you feel guilty or at least recognize the wrongness of this masquerade.On the "attempt to assassinate my character was wonderfully venemous!" You are missing the point as always. The key point was "atheist using a false persona as a 'Bible scholar'" which you have failed to rebut. I went out on a limb and made a charge against you that if I am wrong, it should be easy for you to disprove by proving that you are who you say you are. Why haven't you done this? I actually want to be wrong about you Doctrbill, I would very much like it if you would prove that you are an actual Bible scholar and not just some "lying conniving atheist using a false persona as a 'Bible scholar' in a desperate attempt to discredit the word of God."Since your misunderstanding of basic scripture is just an act, there is no point in my continuing to respond to your posts. We have already demonstrated that your interpretation conflicts with what the Bible states on the matter, conflicts with biblical Hebrew dictionaries and Bible commentaries. You have based this interpretation solely on your standing as a Bible scholar, which has also been disproved. In short, there is nothing left to respond to.Edge;"As I said I have no problem with the data at all. If there are dropstones there, then they are readily explained by normal proglacial phenomena. Why invent some wacky scheme to get them there?" Anything but a flood? What normal proglacial phenomena would drop rocks from far to the north, in a non glaciated area?"They are a normal phenomenon of glacial lakes and marine glaciers. Yes, they can end up anywhere that water takes them from the icecaps to the tropics. It happens today. No flood necessary. An ocean takes them to such places. Please show us evidence for a flood!" When they turn up far inland, in places where glaciers never reached and at elevations well above sealevel, you are by definition talking about a rise in water level that would be a global food.wehappyfewI have to apologize for my overly brief response earlier. I generally down load a copy of this page and work up my responses in my word program and post it later, to reduce the amount of time I am on line. I had just popped on line briefly to post what I had written, and noticed your post and wrote a quick reply. To expand on what I posted, you are thinking of the release of glacial water as happening too fast to create the effects you predicted. Your description sounded like the effects of a release of all the water in less than a day. If the water was released over ten days, than would reduce the flow size by a factor of ten, over a hundred days would reduce it by a factor of 100. And the Scabland erosion you cited is believed to have been created by the run off of glacial melt waters from the emptying of lake Missoula, and is not unique as similar erosion is found in a number of other places around the world. When I use the word 'sudden' you have to remember that I am generally using it in the geological sense. Any thing that happenings in just a few days, months or even a few years, is extremely sudden to geologists. The flood which occurred over a period of months, was an event that happened so fast for the geologists that it was quicker than a blink of an eye and was to quick to have left more than a trace in the geological record. The draining melt waters would for the most part probably lack a huge head pressure due to draining constrictions in the ice. Water that drains from beneath huge glaciers doesn't exit at high pressures like water coming out a fire hose. I would like to think that may have been the case for some of the water releases, particularly the first surge of subglacial water as the ice broke, but in general it was probably a low pressure release. even water flowing down off a glacier loses its potential energy in flowing over the ice, only if it were to drop all the way in a water fall would be able to deliver it to the surrounding landscape. Ice sheets sliding into the oceans would not create 'tsunamis that should have been dozens of miles high' even a huge impact tsunamis are believed only to reach a height of something like 1-3 miles high. Additionally, passing tsunamis leave no evidence of their passing on the ocean floor. If the release of sub glacial water which had to raise the sea level high enough for surging to occur, also flooded the land deep enough, the effects of any tsunamis would have been greatly reduced with increasing water depth and any 'shoreline' they hit may have been far inland and not recognized." dropstones" you have found, you would realize that they are certainly valid evidence of flooding... but without a correlated sequence of transgressive marine sediments, they are actually just as valid evidence for local non-marine flooding." We do have a 'correlated sequence of transgressive marine sediments' in the form of marine diatoms and the Michigan whale bones. We also have the topographical consideration that the surrounding terrain is not high enough in relief to contain a local flood to the necessary depth."the Driftless Area was never glaciated in Wisconsian time. Yet you also claim that the ice sheets could have been far more widespread than geologists currently believe. These positions are also mutually exclusive" Incorrect, the ice sheets could have been more widespread without covering the Driftless area, the 'expansion' could have occurred in other areas. The maximum extent of the ice sheet in North America is well know, the extent of the ice sheets in other parts of the world is not as well defined."Patrick presented several converging lines of evidence to rule out ice volumes significantly larger than 40-50,000,000 cukm" His conclusions were shown to be based on incomplete information as shown by the references in post 142. He has yet to respond."post 142 ...that post also gives a glaciated area of 192,400,000 sqkm, while your post 87 lists "45,000,000 sqkm believed to have been glaciated"" The 45,000,000 was a figure supplied by Patrick. The much larger figure of 192,400,000 is from an estimate in one of the references for post 142. The exact area that was covered by the ice sheets is not known for sure, hence the estimates. I hadn't been able to locate much in the way of numbers on the total area covered and was very happy to find the estimate in that reference. With an area of 192,400,000 sqkm, a large release of sub glacial water could have easily flooded the world to the edges of such a large ice cover."Problem 1. It appears that this figure ignores isostatic flexing under the ice sheet. The weight of that much ice would depress the land to far below sea-level, and only the portion above sea-level can contribute to a global flood. Therefore your total ice volume needs to be about 50% larger to get the required amount." Many areas once covered by the ice are still below sea level today are still rebounding such as Hudson's bay. The isostatic problem you point out was taken into consideration, it is only a problem if all the ice were to melt. A major release of water at the Late Glacial Maxim would have left plenty of ice to fill such depressions, and the huge area covered by the ice sheets reduces the required thickness of the ice sheets to be able to produce a global flood, to thinner ice thickness so that the amount of isostatic depression beneath the ice is greatly reduced and is much less of a problem then it appeared at first. This is a problem that had bothered me early on and I was greatly relieved by the large figure for the area of the ice sheets that eliminated this as a possible major problem. So far I believe you are the only one to catch this point, very good."Problem 2. 50% larger than 621,000,000 cukm is essentially ALL THE WATER ON THE SURFACE OF THE PLANET!!!! The ocean basins would be dry plains with a few puddles on the bottom." Actually it would be some thing like 75%, but spreading the ice out over the larger area reduces the thickness and the isostatic depression and reduces the requirement to increase the water volume."The only option is to drastically reduce the size of your flood. As soon as you get into a realistic range for ice volume, your mechanism for unprecedented and unsupportable deep-mantle flexing disappears. The weight of a few hundred feet of water redistributed over the planet is inconsequential to deep mantle dynamics. There simply isn't enough energy to flex that much mantle rock. Until you show equations using actual values for mantle rheology, your idea is an elaborate fantasy that adds an interesting wrinkle to an old myth." I am impressed. you recognize the effect of massive shifts in water depth would have on the earth in flexing it as I have stated, without even reading the theory in full detail. You are quick! I agree with you on there being some sort of minim depth necessary for this deep flexing to occur, but have not been able to determine what that depth would be. From what I have seen in mantle rheology, the variables are not precisely known enough to do such a prediction, at best only a wide range of answers would be possible. Unless you have got a short cut or better numbers than the ones I have seen. I would not exclude the possibility of the minim depth for triggering this deep flexing being less than a 1,000 ft, perhaps a few hundred feet would be enough to trip it. Remember we are talking about a global effect, not a local effect. The weight spread out over all the ocean floors would add up to quite a force.

edge & Percipient & wehappyfewOn the relationship of Glacial Lake Wisconsin to the Driftless area, I would suggest the book "The Physical Geography of Wisconsin" by Lawrence Martin. On page 130 Lake Wisconsin is discussed as a possible source for drop stones found in the northern part of the Driftless area, while a temporary damming of the Mississippi is mentioned as a possible source for the drop stones found on the bluffs by the Mississippi. The reason the drop stones to the west are not thought to have been left by lake Wisconsin is that it is not believed to have extended that far, and it would have required a very large rise in sea level to be able to do so. It should also be noted on lake Wisconsin. "It existed so short a time that the shorelines and deltas at its borders are in most places too faint for recognition." P.130. Considering the brief existence and its high elevation of 960 feet and a depth of 70 to 150 feet, it seems probable that this lake was possibly created at the end of the flood as the waters drained from the land, some of the ice floated south and blocked the valleys acting as dams, which created a temporary lake. This would explain the short duration and locations the drop stones are found at, including the ones outside the former area of the lake. The lake existed on the northeast edge of the Driftless area, the Driftless area extends to the southwest into Minnesota and Iowa. Glacial stream deposits are also found in the Driftless area as glaciated areas around the Driftless area drained into the Mississippi through valleys in the Driftless area. The drop stones I am referring to in the Driftless area, are not found in the valleys or areas that were part of lake Wisconsin. The first edition of "The Physical Geography of Wisconsin" was published in 1916, so these facts have long been known, and would have been invoked as an explanation if the evidence would have permitted, but it did not, which is why a 'giant' damming of the Mississippi was invoked by Martin. Nice try guys, but no cigar.edge- "Florida peninsula? Would it be flooded by a 480 feet rise in sea level?" Considering that the highest elevation in Florida is 345 ft, I would say yes most definitely.
edge- "The largest known jokuhlhaup had virtually no effect on sea level and yet you say that such events did, in fact, raise the sea level significantly." I would say the 15m sudden rise in sea level we have been discussing would be a significant rise.Percipient- "What is it about these rocks that leads you to believe they're drop stones when professional geologists think they're just rocks?" Martin also thinks they are drop stones, but he credits them to a giant damming of the Mississippi rather than a global flood. While Gwen shultz thinks they are all the work of pranksters out to embarrass her in front of her class."Where does this claim of marine diatoms under dropstones actually come from? I thought you'd found this evidence yourself, but I guess not since you've never seen a dropstone in the Driftless Area." My research has been done in SE Wisconsin, the Driftless area is in SW Wisconsin.wehappyfewOn the depressions ice sheets create you stated " Ice OR water in these depressions cannot contribute to a global flood." Correct, I was referring to the fact that a flood occurring at the LGM would have been caused by a large release of water and ice from the ice sheets. Since the ice sheets themselves did not disappear at the LGM, plenty of ice remained to 'fill the holes'. Since the 'holes' were filled by the remaining ice, they are not a problem since the ice sheets were probably far too thick to float, no flood water is required to fill them."150% of 621,000,000 cukm is 931,000,000 cukm. The total volume of ALL free water on the planet is 1,400,000,000 cukm. That means no matter how much the ocean basins rebound, there would be water (very SALTY water) only in the deep ocean trenches and the very oldest and deepest abyssal plains. The rest would be dry. There simply wouldn't be any water left to fill them." You seemed to be locked in a very rigid view of the oceanic crust. If large percentages of water were removed from the oceans, the ocean floor would rebound, making up for much of the removed volume. Hence even a very large reduction in ocean volume would not result in water "only in the deep ocean trenches and the very oldest and deepest abyssal plains". The ocean water would be saltier, just how much is unknown. The oceans have mechanisms that regulate the salt level in the oceans and prevent the oceans from becoming too salty over time. One of these mechanisms is the passage of water through the hot crust forming the hot springs on the ocean floor, another is the formation of salt pans as the ocean retreats from shallow areas. Then once the level rises again, some of this salt is reabsorbed. Before the flood, I would expect the oceans to be much shallower and somewhat saltier, but still occupying most of their area. What the % the flood waters were I don't know, but I like to use 50% as a maximum figure."The total continental surface area today is 148,000,000 sqkm. Your number must actually refer to the amount of continent exposed above sea-level at the LGM." The number comes from "Ice Sheets By Volume" by Peter U. Clark and Alan C. Mix, Nature, vol 406, 17 August 2000, page 689. Where it states "At the LGM, ice sheets were nearly 4km high, covered some 13 times more land than they do today (excluding Antarctica, where the ice area did not change appreciably), and lowered the sea level to expose an extra 2.8 x 10-6 km2 of land now under water (nearly equal to the area covered by the additional LGM ice)." I multiplied the present glaciated land area by 13, when what the author meant was( present glaciated land area - Antarctica) x 13. Subtracting Antarctica results in a much more modest figure. So it looks like for the moment I am stuck with smaller estimates than what I would like. I am of the opinion that major areas such as in northern Asia, the continental shelves in cold areas, and all high elevations where more extensively glaciated than is currently believed. Considering the fact that the ice age lasted so very long, the low stand of the ocean level had been fully adjusted to by isostatic forces. Removing the water from the sea and putting it on the land, doubles the compensation on a global average, plus there is the gravitational effect of the ice itself, which is believed to have raised local sea levels along side some of the ice margins by as much as a hundred feet. In order to create the low shorelines of the ice age, huge volumes of water would of had to have been removed, and as more is removed, more isostatic compensation takes place. All of this ice has to go some where, and there plenty of places that may have also been glaciated. In misreading that journal article I was thinking that was the position the author was taking, but unfortunately he was not. So I am lacking a good quote to support my view of larger ice caps."how snow can fall at an elevation of 45,000 ft?" Snow storms occur on top of Mount Everest at 29,028 ft the highest point on earth. Proving that snow can fall at elevations higher than the highest elevation occurring today, is not too difficult. Snow falls from clouds, so what is the highest elevation for cloud formations? Clouds do occur as high as 45,000 ft, and since they are composed of ice crystals, snow fall at that elevation is technically possible."figure out how much water flowed out (enough to raise sea-level to reach the toe of an ice sheet?), how long it took, then divide. Now compare to the annual flow of the Amazon. I dare you." It is first necessary to know the length of the ice sheet margins that released the water in order to estimate the rate of flow in a given area. Many of the ice margins were in position to discharge melt water directly into deep ocean waters, which would leave little erosional evidence other than a few drop stones on the ocean floor, which we do find. As we have been discussing, many rivers draining glacial areas show signs of super floods of melt waters surging into the sea towards the end of the last ice age. The trend in science is also moving towards the acceptance of a very sudden end of the last ice age.
"Climatologist Peter deMenocal told Time magazine in April, "When I began my Ph.D. in 1986, the conventional wisdom was that it took 1,000 years to end an ice age; in '91 that figure was lowered to 100 years, and then just two years later Richard Alley at Penn State published a paper about climate changing in two to five years."" Britannica.Such an abrupt end of an ice age would release a very sudden surge of water and ice into the oceans, raising sea level faster than isostactic forces could adjust.Your problem with the lack of a extremely high head pressure for water from beneath a ice sheet is probably best answered by considering spring water. In a number of places there are springs that come to the surface from great depths, yet many of them flow peacefully and lack a high head pressure. Water from beneath a ice sheet is similar, it can have a high head pressure as some springs do, or it may exit peacefully. It depends on the pressure the water is under, whether it is supporting the ice sheet or merely in ice caves beneath it, and on the amount of constrictions in the exit channel which creates back pressure which in turn reduces the exiting head pressure.Joz"there wouldn't be any "impact melted water flowing off the ice sheets" as you put it for the simple reason that the heat released by the impact would vaporize rather than melt" There would be much vaporization of ice, but we are not dealing with a binary situation. Ice in the center of an impact would be vaporized, ice outside the crater would still be ice, and in between would be a zone where the heat would not be enough to vaporize, but enough to melt. Additionally in a dense impact pattern of multiple impacts as we have been talking about, there would be too much water vapor for the atmosphere to hold, due to the heat imparted to the vapor or steam, and the atmosphere, the excessive vaporized ice would rain out in a very heavy rain. Also in reading a journal article on this, they mentioned extensive fracturing of the ice with passage of the shock wave. Thus a Carolina bay type pattern of impacts, could have turned an ice sheet into a huge unstable pile of broken ice. Since a ice sheet grows as large as it can support itself, such a fracturing could result in a massive surging all by itself."solids transmit shock waves better than liquids? What does this do to the idea that the shock wave was chanelled along the liquid chanel untill it hit an "ice dam"?" Actually it makes things easier, since the ice is extensively fractured by the shock wave itself and this can cause the collapse of an ice sheet without requiring the presence of large amounts of sub glacial melt water."the move to agriculture from hunter gathering cannot solely explain the changes in human society, I would like to see some sort of justification of that statement." Consider the disappearance of Neanderthal man, and the change in populations that occurred at the end of the ice age. The study of human genes shows that the end of the ice age was a time of major change, for example, although there are a number of skeletons of human 'hybrids' no one a live today has Neanderthal genes. We also have the Pleistocene extinctions, the sudden climate changes and the sudden disappearance of ice age societies, whole tribes of people or in one case a whole race, up and disappeared. That is why I feel a gradual change from hunting to farming, fails to account for the many profound changes that occurred at the end of the ice age."i.e pressure.Yet you seem to think that its force. When reading up on hypervelocity impacts read an introductory level physics text while your at it." We are not in a introductory physics class. This may come as a shock to you, but words are not always used as they were in your physics class. In general usage, words are used much more loosely and frequently with more than one meaning. So chill out, unless I start using the wrongs terms in equations then you can point it out to me. On reading up on hypervelocity impacts, The university sent a lot of recent journals out to for binding, so I was only able to read one. Feel free to e-mail me any articles you think I should read. Otherwise I will just have to wait until they come back from the bindery.HieyeckWelcome. You seem to be making a basic error by assuming Noah and his family were genetically just like us. Since we are all descended from him and his family, they carried all of our genes, except for the mutations since then. This would make each pair of them more genetically diversified than nearly any two people alive today, so inbreeding was not a problem. In fact inbreeding is only a problem when the population is already partualy inbred. Even those who believe we evolved, also believe mankind is descended from an original pair, a genetic Adam and Eve. What is argued about is how that first couple came to be, not whether or not they existed, since genetic studies show mankind had a genetic Eve or one mother for of all mankind. Whether you believe in evolution or creation, mankind had to have a genetic starting point.

edgeThe geology of the state of Wisconsin is of a gentle rise in average elevation from about 1000 ft in the south to about 1500 ft in the north with hills in the north reaching nearly 2000 ft. The Driftless area is sloped to the south and west towards the Mississippi and is crossed by a number of very well developed river valleys. Due to this general slope and the presence of valleys draining this area to the west and south, the terrain does not permit the formation of a large glacial lake since the water would drain to the southwest. In order to flood this area, it would require a massive flood on the Mississippi on a scale that could only be the result of a rising sea level since the river would otherwise be able to flow around any obstruction across the plains to the sea, since the continent continues sloping down to the gulf of Mexico. Claiming greater glacial depression of the area to flood the Driftless area doesn't work ether, since the faint shore lines of lake Wisconsin only show a 40 ft rise from south to north. The only possibility for flooding the entire Driftless area that I can see aside from a global flood, is to claim that this non glaciated island was just that, that the glaciers surrounded the area to the south and pinched off the Mississippi river, damming it and flooding the Driftless area. The retaining glaciers to south would have had to collided which would have formed a distinctive pattern of land forms like we find in the kettle moraine area where two lobes of the glaciers met. But we fail to find such formations in an appropriate area south of the Driftless area. Which is just one of a number of reasons why a giant damming of the Mississippi river flooding the Driftless Area is unplausible.There no doubt are many dropstones found in many parts of the world, and many of them are undoubtedly located at high elevations. Dropstones need to be carried by ice, which restricts their locations to areas where floating ice from a glacier could have carried them before breaking up in the flood waters. Most of the dropstones from the flood are to be found in areas near the locations of the former glaciers and are mistaken for normal glacial erratics. Only in the Driftless area do these dropstones stand out since this is an area that is very close to the former glaciers and yet is expected to be free of glacial erratics. Yet they do turn up in other areas as well, one dropstone I found here in SW Wisconsin is at an elevation of 1000 ft. It is possible to identify these dropstones by the occurrence of marine traces beneath them. But without checking these dropstones appear to just another erratic boulder. We have also been focusing our discussion on the dropstones in the Driftless area, but that doesn't mean that is the only place they turn up. They are found in many places around the world and have been commented on by a number of authors, and by testing the soil beneath erratics many more would be found."What 15 meter sea level rise is that?" The 15 m rise in sea level that occurred after the LGM as a result of a sudden movement of meltwater and ice into the sea.

PercipientI would prefer to keep this thread focused on the geology of the flood, so I don't want to get overly side tracked in Genetics so I will try to keep this brief. My point was that whether you believe in creation or evolution, mankind had to have a starting point, a first pair. Therefore it makes no sense to argue against the genetics of the story of Adam & Eve. Even if you are an evolutionist, descent from a single pair is not a problem in itself and is what the findings of recent genetic tests point to. The differences are once again a matter of timing, how long ago was that origin, not whether or not it happened. the only other alternative to a single pair would be some sort of group suddenly appearing out of nowhere which would be harder to believe than the garden of Eden story. For we differ greatly from our supposed ancestor Homo Erectus and under the evolutionary theory the change to mankind must have been very abrupt since it occurred recently in a brief period of time and left no fossil traces of a progressive change from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. (remember that a number of finds have recently been reclassified as belonging to Homo Erectus.) Recent genetic work has also been published with results stating that mankind is descended from just a few women who lived at the end of the ice age. See ( Oops, something lost ) While the indicated number was higher then the biblical 4, it does point towards a bottle neck occurring in the human population at that time. It has also long been noted that at the end of the ice age many peoples disappear and are replaced by other people who migrate into that area. The Australian Aborigines you refer to, are not the same people as the original inhabitants. In the Ice Age, Australia had two difference distinct population types, both of whom disappear, the aborigines are later immigrants. The dates given for the arrival of the aborigines are much too early for my liking, but other than a possible dating error, the data supports a wiping out of the original population with the area being recolonized through later migration. I am very happy with the results of genetic testing and look forward to future findings. The differences between biblical dates and the genetics dates do not alarm me when you consider how they are arrived at. "Molecular dates, which depend on a lot of assumptions, will always be argued over." The Fossil Trail; How We Know What We Think We Know about Human Evolution by Ian Tattersall, page 221.

Joz"ability of the atmosphere to accommodate the vaporized material."- the atmosphere is generally stated as containing enough water that if it rained out evenly over the entire globe, that it would at the most amount to only 1 or 2 inches of rain. Local concentrations could in theory be higher, and a local infusion of a large amount of water could be defused over a wider area. However we are discussing too large of an area for defusing to matter. The amount of cratering I am considering would have potentially removed more ice than the 1 or 2 inches the atmosphere can hold. Additionally it can not be assumed that the area was at zero % humidity to start with. Even with the rapid heating of the atmosphere, there would have been more than what the atmosphere could hold, and even if it could have held it, as soon as the air began to cool the excess moisture would have condensed and fallen in a heavy rain as is predicted by impact models."Which journal article?" The 15m rise in sea level that occurred at the LGM is mentioned in a lot of journal articles. Here are a few I happen to have on hand.
Global Ice volumes at the Last Glacial Maximum and early Lateglacial, Lambeck, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 181 (2000) 513-527
Timing of the Last Glacial Maximum from observed sea-level minima, Yokoyama, Nature, VOL 406, 17 August 2000, page 713-715"could" at least you are now accepting the feasibility of the events."shock wave gets more diffuse and thus causes LESS damage at the edges of the ice sheet or at those "ice dams" of yours." Not even a problem if the impact pattern extended to the edge of the ice sheet."Neanderthals went extinct 35,000 years ago not 10,000" The date has slowly been reduced over time and currently now stands at 28,000 years ago and will probably be further reduced as time passes. Plus the finds we have tend to be of earlier burials which would further reduce the difference in time. It is apparent that they went extinct at the end of the ice age, and their disappearance is unexplained."Also the statement "no one a live today has Neanderthal genes" may not be as true as you think it is:" Don't tell me you are going to claim to be a Neanderthal descendant, maybe I had better check your brow line. (LOL) I would suggest consulting any of the number of journal articles on the total lack of Neanderthal genes in modern man. Here is one I happen to have laying around.Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans, Krings, Cell, vol 90, 19-30, July 11, 1997.The link you provided is referring to a possible indirect effect on Rh% in a population and is disproved by the findings on human and Neandertal DNA. Here is a link on Neandertal DNA.http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/03282000/grapha.htm