Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

One indication of delusion is the maintaining of contradictory beliefs. When I pointed out that your dates disagree with your source, you said:

---

The dating differences are to be expected considering the preconceptions and how they are arrived at.

---

Then in the very next message, a reply to Joe Meert, you said:

---

I have a theory consistence with what is known about the earth...

---

Obviously your theory is not consistent with what we think we know about ages and dates (and plenty else, but I want to be brief), yet somehow you continue to maintain your belief that your theory doesn't contradict current understanding.I think Discover magazine would be an ironic choice for submission of an article by you, since they just ran an article about people suffering similar delusions in the April, 2002, issue (Discover Financial Services).--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 04-26-2002]

quote:

---

Percy, directed to wmscott: I think Discover magazine would be an ironic choice for submission of an article by you, since they just ran an article about people suffering similar delusions in the April, 2002, issue ( Discover Financial Services ).

---

I didn't dig into the pile of various mags, to re-read that article, but I seem to recall that there was an example of one of the "delutionals" turning out to have a valid concept, a work of genius.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-26-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I didn't dig into the pile of various mags, to re-read that article, but I seem to recall that there was an example of one of the "delutionals" turning out to have a valid concept, a work of genius.

​

Moose

---

Yup - it was Srini Ramanujam, the Indian mathematician. There is a geat account of his work here ... Page Not Found - MacTutor History of MathematicsBut he was not regarded as a delusional. An "outsider" certainly, but well known to mathematicians in India, and not rejected as a crank.

Don't forget our own Brad McFall!!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
Don't forget our own Brad McFall!!

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

​

---

Damn you Joe - I was trying to!

Poor Brad, I think we give him too many 'flat tires' sometimes. We luv ya anyways brad. Just don't let your keyboard catch fire now ------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Poor Brad, I think we give him too many 'flat tires' sometimes. We luv ya anyways brad. Just don't let your keyboard catch fire now

---

Yeah I know, poor Brad - but I bet he was just like you when he was 15

Oh no, don't scare me like that Master P ------------------

edgeOn 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."Can you show us any evidence the crust will flex "rapidly?"" Yes of course. 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. 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, the immediate flexing of the earth must have occurred deeper in the earth where the earth is hotter and more fluid. 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."What do you think of places like Lake Missoula?" 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.
"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'." 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. As for elevations above 4000', Corliss's evidence is by no means complete 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.

minnemooseusYes I am aware of the 'rather harsh review' by someone who only read the first 20 pages. I don't mind harsh reviews if they are honest, that one however is not. My book certainly has it's fair share of typing errors, but the ones the reviewer refers to, don't exist as far as I can tell. Of the three successive errors claimed, on pages 19-20, I was able to find one, 'it's' should have been 'its', hardly a major level of error that would prevent reading comprehension. I think the reviewers real problem was with my exposing the impossibility of YEC. On pages 19-20 there is a rather nice counter argument to the 'light slowing down' theory that will tie a diehard YEC in knots. I was also careful to explain in the beginning of that chapter how OEC is in harmony with the Bible so not to offend needlessly. But as is very apparent, YECs seem to believe they have an exclusive franchise on interpreting Biblical texts, and no other interpretation is possible and fighting YEC is therefore fighting God. Apparently the reviewer found my book too challenging. Hopefully the next review will be from someone that actually reads the whole book.Nice idea on Discover, but I think they would be a better choice for a follow up article written for the general public after publication in a science journal.What ""Talk Origins" counterparts"? I have been checking their board from time to time expecting some posting relating to me, but so far all the flood stuff they seem to have is aimed at YEC flood models. Please let me know if you see anything, I would like to take a look at it as well.

PercipientAs I have been posting here from the very beginning and as I state in my book, I do not believe absolute dating systems are always absolutely right. I strongly favor the Biblical date for the flood while allowing for the possibility that it occurred earlier in time. The genetic dates are based on factors even less certain, and have been revised and will no doubt will continue to be revised in the future. You should also have noted that I stated "consistence with what is known about the earth" and not 'in complete harmony with all current scientific theories'. My theory is obviously in conflict with current scientific theories on a number of points. But then that is the point of every radically new theory, to over turn the old and replace it with a better understanding. If there were no new conflicting ideas, there would be no progress. My 'theory doesn't contradict current understanding' in that it is a geologically workable theory in sharp contrast with the YEC flood theories which are not workable. It is a theory using a chain of natural events in a consistent cause and effect manner that is in harmony with what we know about how things happen on the earth. What we have been arguing about here for the most part, is whether nor not these events actually happened. We argue about how high the flood waters could have reached, or whether or not the earth could have flexed fast enough for the flood waters to have receded so fast and the comparative lack of massive super erosion effects. The overall plausibility of the manner of flooding we have been discussing here, has not even been a major debating point, so I certainly feel justified in stating that my theory is consistence with what is known about the earth. The dating differences will work themselves out once more is known. Our knowledge of the past is incomplete which results in dates which are sometimes in error. It is not delusional in itself to disagree with the current scientific orthodoxy. No doubt if you asked them, a number of the best scientific minds alive today would have some minor differences of opinion with current theories, after all that is what science is all about, questioning. Blindly accepting everything just because it is main stream science is perhaps more reckless than the course I am pursuing. I read a similar article in Scientific American and have been waiting for someone to basically say what you have posted. Reminds me of the old slogan for the Mounds/Almond Joy candy bars.

Joe Meert"most reviewers are not 'knee-jerk' activists." I not did think that they were, but a theory like mine is so far off the mainstream it may very well run into a high level of prejudice. I noticed your use of the word 'most', I will try to keep that in mind when I write my paper."If your ideas are not well received here, have you ever thought that they might be (a) wrong or (b) not well argued?" Yes, 'a' is a possibility, 'b' a probability. One problem is everyone seems to expect a finished product, while what I have is a rough theory that still needs work. If I am correct, this will affect many fields and result in changes that will take many lifetimes of scientific work to complete, which is why I published early on. There is way too much work that will need to be done for me to even to attempt to do it all myself.Yes I would like some input on my paper once it is written. I am an outsider and could use all the help I can get.

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.

wmscott writes:

---

Nice idea on Discover, but I think they would be a better choice for a follow up article written for the general public after publication in a science journal.

---

You could cut the naivet with a knife.

---

Yes I would like some input on my paper once it is written. I am an outsider and could use all the help I can get.

---

You've already refused all help offered you. You didn't respond to the skepticism by marshalling more compelling evidence but instead insisted your evidence was *to* sufficient.I assume you're considering a legitimate scientific journal, not the CRS quarterly or an ICR impact statement.I hope you'll allow us front row seats. Please email me your drafts and I'll post them on the website. If you have a scanner I'd also like jpeg's of the responses after submission.--Percy

Jesus Christ (pardon my French), wmscott, use paragraphs for God's sake (pardon my French again). I mean, take a breath, will ya? Do you shove your steaks whole down your throat, or do you slice them into bite size pieces. It's a good idea for writing, too. Can't believe someone published your book, probably has as many paragraphs as chapters. Your book is self-published, isn't it? If not, I want the name of your publisher - I just know I've got a few books in me!

wmscott writes:

---

As I have been posting here from the very beginning and as I state in my book, I do not believe absolute dating systems are always absolutely right.

---

That isn't the issue. The problem is that you ignore established dates for no apparent rhyme or reason other than that they contradict your pet theory. That's not science, it's story-telling.

---

I strongly favor the Biblical date for the flood while allowing for the possibility that it occurred earlier in time.

---

Let me be sure I understand this. Though you realize your dates are based upon a literal interpretation of a religious myth, you nonetheless are going to submit a paper to a scientific journal. Do I have this right?

---

The genetic dates are based on factors even less certain, and have been revised and will no doubt will continue to be revised in the future.

---

The lack of a scientific reason for your expectation of a possible future revision is a serious deficiency.

---

You should also have noted that I stated "consistence with what is known about the earth"... and not 'in complete harmony with all current scientific theories'. My theory is obviously in conflict with current scientific theories on a number of points.

---

So you're claiming that though your theory conflicts with current theory, it is nonetheless "consistent with what is known about the earth". That you don't see the contradiction sounds like a delusion to me.

---

My 'theory doesn't contradict current understanding' in that it is a geologically workable theory in sharp contrast with the YEC flood theories which are not workable.

---

Your theory isn't as bad as the usual vapor canopy proposals and such, but it's pretty bad. I mean, Al Capone wasn't as bad as Hitler, but he was pretty bad. Claiming you're not as bad as the more popular YEC arguments is damning yourself with faint praise.

---

It is a theory using a chain of natural events in a consistent cause and effect manner that is in harmony with what we know about how things happen on the earth.

---

The only one who believes this is you.

---

It is not delusional in itself to disagree with the current scientific orthodoxy.

---

Agreed, but that wasn't the point. Your delusion is believing you have scientific reasons for rejecting current orthodoxy.

---

Blindly accepting everything just because it is main stream science is perhaps more reckless than the course I am pursuing.

---

No one was advocating blind acceptance of scientific orthodoxy. The foundation of science is tentativity, and change is one of its more dependable qualities.The point you're not addressing is that your evidence is either missing or inadequate, while countervailing evidence is plentiful.--Percy