Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
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.

---

Oh. That's convenient!

quote:

---

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.

---

Should be. So where is the evidence?

quote:

---

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.

---

We are adding up a lot of "maybes" here. I'm looking for evidence to support your theory.

quote:

---

edge: "Exactly what part of the data does the mainstream theory not explain? And how is your theory better?"

​

wmscott: 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.

---

Excuse me, but we have given you standard mainstream explanations for all of these items that fit with the rest of the surrounding data, such as plate tectonics as well. You have simply dismissed them.More later.

quote:

---

wmscott: 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.

---

Not at all. In fact drop stones could conceivably occur anywhere that water could take them. The point is that the water only took them to elevatons as high as 700 feet above present sea level. Don't you think this is a better explanation than a global flood? It explains why I don't have drop stones in my back yard.

quote:

---

Other geologists write them off as all being the results of pranksters out to embarrass them.

---

First of all (and you knew I was going to say this) do you have a reference to this? Second of all, do you think that people do not try to prank geologists?

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, about 700 feet above sea level in a local flood in the proglacial area! No global flood necessary!

quote:

---

My flood theory provides an explanation for what is otherwise in conventional geology is an anomaly or written off as the work of pranksters.

---

Nonsense. I just explained it to you. It took me 15 seconds to think it up. Perhaps most geologists don't believe that it is such a big deal that they need to explain it. Usually these things are covered in Geology 101.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 03-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Hi Edge,

​

We've both been addressing the Driftless Area dropstone issue. As I understand Wmscott's position, it is that there are glacial erratics (boulders carried within glaciers that are left behind when the glacier melts or recedes) in the Driftless area that geologists can't explain since it is not believed the area was ever glaciated.

​

But I've been unable to uncover any evidence for glacial erratics in the Driftless area. In fact, the reason the area is believed to have been unglaciated is due to the absence of glacial erratics and glacial till such as is found is many other parts of Wisconsin and neighboring states.

​

I've therefore come to believe that Wmscott is making up this story of a geological conundrum. Any boulders he's found in the Driftless Area are neither dropstones nor erratics. Geologists are not resorting to claims of pranksters to explain glacial erratics in the Driftless Area because there are no glacial erratics to be found there. I cited this link to an abstract of a paper by David Mickelson in my previous message that is unequivocal about the lack of evidence for glaciation in the Driftless Area.

​

--Percy

---

Perhaps he is confusing the erratics with former stream bed deposits as the article suggests. However, unless wmscott can provide some evidence to support his position, I think you are absolutely correct. This is a wishful story on his part. The odd part is that I don't think he even realizes that this is a just-so story and not evidence. The story has become embedded as fact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
edge & Percipient
Here 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)

---

Fine. Dropstones are found at an elevation of 380 to 480 feet asl. What does this have to do with a global flood? I can see that we are not getting through, wmscott. You need to find evidence that shows not only that there was a global flood, but that your theory is diagnostic in explaining it. You have failed at this.

quote:

---

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.

---

No problem. Glaciers happen.

quote:

---

While nearly impossible to explain under conventional geology, the drop stones are easy to explain using the flood.

---

This is exactly where we have shown you to be wrong. You have not shown that a global flood is necessary to deposit dropstones.

quote:

---

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.

---

Nonsense. This could happen in exactly the same way without a global flood. If your reasoning were correct, every dropstone would be related to a global flood. If so, why do we see them floating in lakes and in the ocean today?

quote:

---

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.

---

This at least makes more sense than a global flood for which there is absolutely no evidence.

quote:

---

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)

---

Are you saying that pranks never happen? Sorry, but having worked in the field for 20 years, I guarantee you that this has more support than a global flood. I have told you this before, but obviously you dismiss it. Why is that?

quote:

---

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.

---

You mean the ones at 380 to 480 feet above sea level? Not very convincing for a global flood.

quote:

---

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.

---

Nope. We are trying to help you with the next version of your book. And no, it has not been our objective to provide better explanations, at least I haven't. When you get them it's just a bonus.

quote:

---

But then instead of showing what these better answers are, you go and ignore the evidence or claim that I made it up.

---

Nonsense. We do not ignore your claims, we refuted them and you had no response.

quote:

---

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?

---

Simple. Because your evidence does not even suggest a global flood, just a proglacial lake or arm of the sea.

quote:

---

By your assertions, you prove my point that these findings are anomalies that geology can not explain without a flood.

---

We just did explain them. Simply, without machination, and most importantly, briefly.

quote:

---

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.

---

Utter silliness. These anomalies are hardly deep mysteries of geology. They are easily explained, but as with most geology, there is insufficient information to prove anything.

quote:

---

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?

---

You have been given several alternative explanations that you simply dismiss with a handwave. Aren't you projecting a bit here, wmscott?

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 03-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
The 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.

---

But, once again, dropstones do not necessarily indicated a global flood. Dropstones are being deposited today. Are we presently in flood? And what are the elevations of these dropstones. I thought you said they were at 380 to 480 above sea level. This is not a global flood!!!

quote:

---

"it has not been our objective to provide better explanations," Exactly, that is why you have failed.

---

Oh, right. Leave out the rest of my reply! You have been getting better explanations all along as a bonus to our editing of your ideas. If you cannot see them then you are too wrapped up in your dogma.

quote:

---

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. [quote] You have been given explanations. Why do you ignore them?

​

[quote]To you I am a heretic, with apostate theories not wroth considering because I challenge what you believe is the one true faith.

---

Actually, we were thinking something else.

quote:

---

Like arrogant inquisitors you cite your orthodoxy as the final authority, when in reality it is the evidence that has the final say.

---

And you don't think that ignoring our questions and suggestions is arrogant? Wmscott, you have some interesting ideas, but you do not understand evidence and what theories do. You have put on blinders and ignored any contrary evidence. You have selected the evidence you want and interpreted it in a vacuum of other geological data. You pass of radiometric ages with a wave of the hand and only call upon plate tectonics when you want some magical process that no one has ever seen. When cornered you quote the scripture. This is not a credible effort.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Good point, but I don't think you have to accept the presence of dropstones in the Driftless Area. Wmscott seems to be the only one who thinks they exist.

---

Of course. I shall remain skeptical of dropstones in the Driftless Area. The overwhelming majority of evidence seems to be against them. I think you perhaps are detecting a note of frustration on my part in agreeing to wmscott's interpretation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Those rocks in the Driftless area are really giving you guys fits.

---

No, wmscott, it is you that is giving me fits. I have no problem with the data at all.

quote:

---

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.

---

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?

quote:

---

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.

---

Exactly! They are a normal phenomenon of glacial lakes and marine glaciers.

quote:

---

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.

---

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!

quote:

---

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.

---

Could it be that no one else attaches any special significance to these erratics?

quote:

---

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.

---

Well, you're going to have to go back in time an debate Darwin, then. Because only we are here. What is your point with this statement? Some people also thought that malaria was spread by breathing bad air. So what?

quote:

---

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?"

​

wmscott: Anything but a flood? What normal proglacial phenomena would drop rocks from far to the north, in a non glaciated area?

---

No, anything with some evidence. Okay, glacial lakes and ocean basins for two. Wherever ice can float.

quote:

---

edge: "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.

---

Are you saying that all areas covered by glacial lakes were glaciated? Nonsense. And what areas "well above sea level?" You mean 480 feet above sea level? No there is no evidence that shows a 480 feet rise in sea level would be global.And no. A rise in sea level is not, by definition a global flood. Did the glaciers reach the Florida peninsula? Would it be flooded by a 480 feet rise in sea level? Would that be a global flood?We keep coming back to the same problem here, wmscott. You have no evidence that such a thing ever happened. 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.

quote:

---

On 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.

---

Are you saying that it is not possible for a lake to be 1000 feet deep? Are you saying that 1000 feet above current sea level would have been a global flood? The logic is not here, wmscott. You are saying that it is too deep for a lake or a sea level rise but that it is okay to infer a global flood? And if the dropstones were deposited during retreat of a global flood, then there should be some at much higher elevations. Where are they? You need a little work on this section of your book.

quote:

---

This would explain the short duration and locations the drop stones are found at, including the ones outside the former area of the lake.

---

So would a temporary rise in sea level over an area depressed by the ice sheets. So would a large glacial lake. You have not ruled out these possibilities only said that the lake is not thought to extend that far... maybe it did.

quote:

---

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.

---

You have not shown a case for a global flood. In fact, you unintentionally admit that it did not happen by calling upon receding flood waters to deposit the dropstones at elevations of 960 feet, but no higher. Not even a nice try, wmscott. You flunk.

quote:

---

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.

---

Does that mean then that if Florida was flooded that it suffered a global flood?

quote:

---

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.

---

What 15 meter sea level rise is that? Did the 1783 jokhulaup raise sea level by 15 meters? I have never seen a reference to that effect. And even if so, is 15 meters a global flood?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
The 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.

---

Hmm, sure wouldn't take a gobal flood to cover this area, then. Why do you extrapolated from Wisconsin to the rest of the vertical world?

quote:

---

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.

---

Of course it slopes to the south. It was once depressed by glaciers. And if it's so hard to hold lakes up there, why do you have the Great Lakes?

quote:

---

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.

---

Neither would it require a global flood. As far as I can see the maximum elevation of dropstones is about 1000 feet. That doesn't even cover all of Wisconsin.

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't know anyone who proposes this. Why do you keep whacking away at this strawman?

quote:

---

There no doubt are many dropstones found in many parts of the world, and many of them are undoubtedly located at high elevations.

---

Good then you can document them and show us that they were related to a global flood and not a local lake or uplifted seafloor. It seems to me that you would have done this before writing your book, though ...

quote:

---

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.

---

What do you mean "before breaking up in the floodwaters?" It sounds to me like you have a presupposition that there was a flood. Thanks for the geology lesson, though. I'm glad we cleared up this controversial point on dropstone deposition.

quote:

---

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.

---

But they must not be, because you know better, right?

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, there are dropstones being deposited today. But I don't see a global flood going on, do you?

quote:

---

"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.

---

Are you saying that a 15 m rise in sea level was a global flood?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
You are correct. If wmscott submitted his paper, it would be rejected. Wnscott would think it was rejected for political rather than scientific reasons and would then parade forth with "Brilliant men are persecuted" arguments. This happens a lot with people, even reasonable scientists. Behe declared his IC idea on par with Einstein, Pasteur etc (usually its peers who laud great ideas, but Behe couldn't wait). He now claims his ideas are stifled in the literature. Gentry is doing the same thing.

---

Interesting how this is in direct contrast to the really great scientists, including Darwin who agonized for years about how to present his evolutionary theory. How many of the giants of science were not appreciated at the time of their discoveries and, in some cases, even till long after their deaths? You would think that ID movement would learn from history on this, but the lesson has somehow been lost.

quote:

---

It's actually a good strategy because we've been conditioned to give 'everyone a fair shake' and 'equal time'. Science is actually a harsh enterprise where bad ideas are called 'bad ideas' and there are no apologies made. Such a harsh attitude means that scientists must develop a tough skin to survive, but the evidence shows that harsh criticism works! Creationists won't ever understand that.

---

Science is not a democracy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
edge
On my posting showing that the physical evidence fails to support a local flooding of the Driftless Area, you responded "Why do you keep whacking away at this strawman?" Am I to understand that you accept the dropstones found there could not be from a local flood?

---

Maybe it was not clear what you were saying. However, I do not remember your evidence saying this. You said that it could not be due to backing up the Mississippi River or some other reason. You did not rule out a periglacial lake.

quote:

---

"Are you saying that a 15 m rise in sea level was a global flood?" I am predicting that the flood was a very brief event followed by rapid flexing of the earth's crust in response to the shift in pressures on it. This would appear in the geological record as a sudden jump from the pre flood sea level to the post flood sea level, since the flood itself was to quick to leave more than a few traces. The post LGM sealevel jump of at least 15m could very well be that predicted jump.

---

Can you show us any evidence the the crust will flex "rapidly?" Am I to understand then that your global flood left no evidence except at elevations lower than 1000 feet? That is convenient for your model, since it relieves you of the burden of evidence.

quote:

---

On lake Michigan, it rests in a bed craved by glacial ice. The Driftless area was never glaciated. Lakes are common in areas that were once glaciated, the kettles and uneven terrain provide many opportunities for lakes to form. But as you move into areas that have not been glaciated, the lakes become few, for the drainage systems have had time to erode material to fill the lakes and cut through glacial till dams. Which is why there are few lakes in the Driftless area, and why large scale local flooding there on the scale we are talking about, is impossible.[/quoe]

​

So, periglacial lakes are impossible on the edge of the ice sheet? What do you think of places like Lake Missoula? Are they imaginary?

​

[quote]Charting the location of every dropstone would be interesting, but very impractical. William R. Corliss in his books and web site on geological anomalies does provide a listing of erratics in locations where they should not be, and some of those could be where they are because they are dropstones. According to Corliss these rocks are found around the world at elevations ranging up to 4,000 ft.

---

Please document this. Show us that the sheets of the ice age left dropstones over large areas of the world at 4000' elevation. Even if so, do you realize that this would still not be a global flood? A significant part of the continents is well above 4000'.Sorry, wmscott. Still not convincing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
On a periglacial lake in the Driftless area, a non glaicated area, runs into the same problems. A periglacial lake covering the Driftless area to a depth deep enough for ice to float dropstones over the Mississippi river bluffs is not a realistic possibility. The area is too well drained and we have no evidence of the massive ice damming it would take to flood this entire area.

---

The point is that the elevation of the highest dropstones is something like 1000'. It doesn't matter that some areas are driftless. Why can't we have a periglacial lake or an inlet of the sea that causes the dropstones to occur at low elevations? And if we find some local occurrence at higher elevations, why couldn't they be due to a local glacial lake?

quote:

---

This is apparent from the rapid uplift that is believed by some to have occurred in a number of coastal and mountain areas. We have evidence of very high rates of uplift occurring along the west coasts of North and South America.

​

Yes, over thousands of years! You are telling us that we have such movements in less than a year! Besides, these vertical motions are not necessarily due to isostasy alone. Remember, that you want to cause sudden offests of thousands of feet in such a short period that no sediments are left behind as evidence.

​

[quote]Since it is impossible for the normal shallow isostatic adjustment to occur at such high rates as are indicated by the rapid recovery from the flood, ...

---

There you go, assuming the flood first and then adjusting the facts to fit your model!

quote:

---

...the immediate flexing of the earth must have occurred deeper in the earth where the earth is hotter and more fluid.

​

And what is your evidence for this, other than the fact that you need it to fit your model? Why do we not see this phenomenon anywhere else in the geological record. If deep flexing can alleviate graviational stresses so quickly, then why do we have normal isostastatic adjustments at all?

​

[quote]If the depths of the flood waters were deep enough over large enough areas, it is possible that this flexing occurred. The on going high rates of uplift we have in the areas cited, are the result of shallow on going isostatic adjustment to the deeper flexing that occurred at the end of the flood in addition to the effects caused by plate tectonics. The extremely high rates of uplift stated to have occurred in these areas among others by some, is far above what can be accounted for by plate tectonic movement.

---

Whatever are you talking about? So we can have rapid isostatic adjustments in the shallow region? Why did this not happen during your flood, then? Your statements are confused and illogical. Who is talking about high rates of uplift? What are those rates? How do they compare with your rates? Do you know that some continental areas are subsiding?

quote:

---

e: "What do you think of places like Lake Missoula?"

​

Wmscott: I am familiar with Lake Missoula and even refer to it in my book. There were many lakes like Lake Missoula at the end of the ice age before the flood and after the flood as well. Lake Missoula's drainage was blocked by an advancing glacier, the same can not be said of the Driftless area. Without a dam, natural or man made, you don't have a lake.

---

First, I was talking about this in reference to the higher elevations where isolated populations of dropstones might be found. You have indicated that they must be due to a worldwide flood. I am pointing out that such lakes occur at higher elevation and that if there are dropstones at higher elevations that they may be related to glacial lakes.

quote:

---

e: "Please document this. Show us that the sheets of the ice age left dropstones over large areas of the world at 4000' elevation. Even if so, do you realize that this would still not be a global flood? A significant part of the continents is well above 4000'."

​

wmscott: I refer to the book "Neglected Geological Anomalies" complied by: William R. Corliss, ESM6 Elevated Erratics in Glaciated Areas, pages 222-226, on erratics believed to be uplifted to elevations above which ice sheets could have lifted them. Also ESM12 Superficial Rocky Debris of Doubtful Provenance, pages 241-252. Some of these examples in this section are applicable to deposition by a global flood.

---

This is not data. You are giving us your conclusions, not the evidence cited by the references. I can imagine a number of reasons for elevated glacial erratics and none of them require a global flood. You do not tell us where these erratics occur, their elevation, their relationship to alpine glaciers, etc., etc.Your statement, "... applicable to deposition by a global flood," is telling. Once again, you are applying the data to a pre-existing model. You have not considered other alternatives.

quote:

---

As for elevations above 4000', Corliss's evidence is by no means complete ...

---

Then you don't have such data? Seems to me that this would be a critical part of the supporting evidence for your theory.

quote:

---

...and the highest elevations were covered by the surviving Ice sheets or mountain glaciers and would not have flood deposited dropstones. The flood waters only had to reach the edges of the ice sheets for the flooding to be global.

---

Nonsense. This is a silly statement. You are redefining the meaning of "flood." By your reasoning, Antarctica would have to be considered flooded. You are so fond of comparing the subglacial lakes in Antarctica with the ice ages. Why couldn't there be mountains (land) rising above the ice age sheets as there are in Antarctica?Wmscott, we are trying to help you with the next version of your book, but you seems obstinate in taking any constructive criticism. In view of this, I seriously doubt that you can take your model to the next level. You are wasting your own time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
On the dropstones in the Driftless area, the reason I have been saying local flooding of the entire area is impossible, is the presence of the Mississippi river valley. Without a massive damming of the Mississippi, the water would just drain away into the Gulf of Mexico.

---

You mean sort of like how the Great Lakes drain away into the Gulf of Mexico?

quote:

---

As already posted, flooding due to isostatic depression below sealevel by the weight of glacial ice is also impossible, due to the fact that the Lake Wisconsin shows only a 40' rise due to rebound from the North to the South end of the lake, showing that this area was not depressed anywhere near enough to put it below sealevel.

---

(Sigh) Wmscott, who said that the lake had to be at sea level? Besides you, that is.

quote:

---

Explaining the dropstones as being from very small local lakes doesn't work ether, since the Driftless area was not glaciated, there were no local glacial boulders. Since the rocks had to come from the glaciers outside of the Driftless area, any 'local' lake would have had to reached from the source to where the rocks are found.

---

No, they wouldn't, but what is the point? This is not even an important issue. Can you show evidence for a global flood?

quote:

---

As we have been discussing, such flooding would have drained down the Mississippi. Without the possibility of massive ice damming of the Mississippi river, the flooding that deposited the Driftless area dropstones would have had to have been caused by a rise in sealevel.

---

Please explain how this is evidence of a global flood.

quote:

---

On the topic of isostatic adjustment and deeper flexing or ice age flexing, you stated. "Your statements are confused and illogical". I am talking about two different types of movement inside the earth with respectively different rates and effects.

---

I understand that, but you have not shown that there ARE two types of movement. You may discuss them all you want, but you have no evidence for the existence of one of them.

quote:

---

First is the shallow normal isostatic which is a slow progressive move occurring over long periods of time. The second is Ice Age Flexing ...

---

Please document this phenomenon. Where is it referred to in the literature?

quote:

---

... which is a sudden deep flexing of the earth caused by the sudden movement of very large masses causing sudden and very large shifts in the distribution of pressures on the earth's crust. Since isostatic movement occurs in the upper mantel, which has a consistency like asphalt, the movement is very slow. While deeper inside the earth at the outer core/ lower mantel boundary, the earth is much more fluid and flexible. But only large shifts in pressure over large areas could cause shifts so deep inside the earth. Now if such a deep shift had occurred inside the earth at the end of the flood, we would expect to see certain effects which have been found. It would be expected that the Pacific ocean floor would have been greatly depressed and the surrounding area up lifted.

---

Actually, I would expect the Pacific Ocean crust to be depressed anyway. So how did it get up to the level of the continents so that there could be a global flood? You have never explained this.

quote:

---

The question is deterring if plate tectonics alone caused this uplift or if part of if it is the result of Ice Age Flexing. Tectonic uplift would be slow and consistent over time. Sudden shifts at the time of the flood would be difficult to prove considering several thousands of years worth of erosion, but a number of authors cite evidence of sudden large scale faulting occurring at that time.

---

We see sudden shifts all the time. So where is the flood? Do your sources give you an idea of strain rates? Or are you just overlooking that detail?

quote:

---

There is also the effect to look for that the sudden deep shifting would be compensated for by a slow shallow shifting over time that would start with a rapid rate and slow down. We would expect to see a faster rate of isostatic uplift slowing to a more modest rate expected of tectonic pressures acting alone.

---

So far, all you have shown is that this happend because you need it for you model. Please give us independent evidence that this has happened.

quote:

---

Now in the case of the west coast of South America, current rates of up lift are high, but are considered to be caused solely by the effects of plate tectonics. However historic evidence reports much faster rates of uplift having occurred in recent geologic history.

---

Ah, the old creationist ploy. All rates have been constant through geological history except for radiometric decay and the speed of light. How do you know that rates were faster in the past? And how does this prove that it all happened at one time?

quote:

---

Darwin described a series of raised beach terraces along the west coast of South American, some occurring at heights 60 to 80 feet, 85 feet and another at 1300 feet above sea level. He also described terraces of shingle and sand extending to heights of 7,000 to 9,000 feet. Darwin stated.
"I am convinced that the shingle terraces were accumulated, during the gradual elevation of the Cordillera, by the torrents delivering, at successive levels, their detritus on the beachheads of long narrow arms of the sea, first high up the valleys, then lower and lower down as the land slowly rose . . . in the same gradual manner as the coasts of the Atlantic and Pacific have risen within the recent period." (The Voyage of the Beagle by Charles Darwin, Harvard Classics Registered Edition, p.320)

---

(emphasis added).There is no argument that the Andean Arc has not been uplifted. However, there is no evidence either that it was not done by normal plate tectonics.

quote:

---

Darwin also discovered ears of maize, plaited reeds and cotton thread mixed in with some of the beach material of stones and shells, showing that much of this up lifting of the coast of the Andes mountains has occurred very recently. (The Voyage of the Beagle by Charles Darwin, Harvard Classics Registered Edition p.374)

---

And some areas have subsided. How do you account for that?

quote:

---

Some modern geologists agree with Darwin's interpretation of the evidence.

---

That a global flood caused these terraces? LOL! There is nothing in Darwin's statement but a description of the features and a suggestion that the land has been uplifted. By the way you will notice that Darwin says the movements have been gradual. Was he wrong about that?

quote:

---

"The modern Andes were created by violent Pleistocene uparching. Accompanied by extensive block-faulting which is not in harmony with earlier structural axes, . . . Tectonic activity has, indeed, not ceased, and volcanic and seismic phenomena still find expression throughout the region.
The Quaternary tectonic forces seem to have operated vertically, with insufficient horizontal component to form nappes." (The Morphology Of The Earth: A Study and Synthesis of World Scenery by Lester C. King 1962, p.519)

---

But, wmscott, there were no continetal ice sheets in the central Andean arc. Why would all of this uplift occur there? The same thing has happened in the Pleistocene of Colorado. Where is the flood evidence? Where is the ocean basin?

quote:

---

Vertical movement is more easily attributable to vertical shifts in the earth's crust due to shallow isotatic or deeper Ice Age Flexing both of which act vertically rather then tectonic movement which is more horizontal with one plate sliding against or over another.

---

Then why do we see so much evidence for convergent boundaries in exactly the same places you are talking about but not in others?

quote:

---

"By your reasoning, Antarctica would have to be considered flooded. . . . Why couldn't there be mountains (land) rising above the ice age sheets as there are in Antarctica?" Actually if you check, most of the land beneath the Antarctica ice sheets is below sea level, so most of Antarctica is flooded by anyone's definition. The Bible states all the land was covered by water, some of that covering could have been in the form of ice.

---

Ah, I see. Defining away part of the problem.

quote:

---

Part of the problem with many flood theories is a tendency towards a very rigid interpretation regardless of conflicting physical evidence. Allowing for the possibility that some high elevations where covered by ice and possibly remained above the sealevel seems a reasonable deduction.

---

So, maybe there wasn't a global flood. I don't suppose you would consider that a viable conclusion, eh?

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 05-09-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
e:"You mean sort of like how the Great Lakes drain away into the Gulf of Mexico?"

​

wmscott: The Great Lakes are east of the sub continental divide and drain into the Atlantic Ocean, not the Gulf of Mexico. A number of the Great Lakes owe their existence in part to the gravel dams created by the glaciers when they plowed out the depressions they sit in. This excavation and damming effect on the south side of the lakes combined with the greater post ice age rebound to the north which elevated their outlets, created a number of the Great Lakes. Then of course there are the movements in the crust which also contributed to the lakes formation such as in the creation of lake Superior. Do you wish to apply any of these effects to flooding the Driftless Area?

---

My only point is that there are lakes that do not drain to the south. You had said that if there could not be any glacial lakes in the area because they would drain to the south. I am simply saying that we have them now, why not in the past?

quote:

---

"Can you show evidence for a global flood?" "Please explain how this is evidence of a global flood."

​

As we have been discussing, the dropstones found in the Driftless Area are not from a 'local' flood, only a rise in sealevel could have deposited them, since any local flooding would have drained away due to the area's well developed river valleys.

---

This is not evidence. This is a story. And it isn't even true. There are lots of periglacial lakes well above sea level in the world. All one needs is a relatively low area. As you point out below, some areas will be relatively subsided during glacial rebound. I reiterate my request: give us evidence for a global flood.

quote:

---

"the Pacific Ocean . . . So how did it get up to the level of the continents so that there could be a global flood?" Through Hydrostatic rebound due to the removal of water during the ice age, the ocean floors were at a higher level, but I doubt they ever 'level' with the continents.

---

Correct. The amount of depression due to the weight of water is actually negligible compared to the relative density and thickness of the oceanic crust. So, how does the water completely cover the land masses up to elevations of even 3000 feet? Where is the independent evidence to support your conclusion?

quote:

---

"Do your sources give you an idea of strain rates?" A number of them speak of late ice age deposits being faulted by sudden offsets of sometimes hundreds of feet, in events that apparently occurred violently in a very short period of time.

---

Apparently? What exactly is a very short period of time? If you have sources, lets see them.

quote:

---

"some areas have subsided. How do you account for that?" Uneven uplift.

---

But if this were a broad, regional uplift as you assert, then why are those areas now below sea level?