Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Do you also agree with Baumgardner that there is no natural way to get rid of all this heat? He has publicly stated that miracles are the only way to reconcile his model with reality."
--I have heard this claim before and have asked for it, but returned no answer?

---

What do you mean? Baumgardner is the one that calculated this.

quote:

---

"I especially enjoy how Baumgardner squirms around on the hook of the atmospheric heating problem..."
--As I stated before, the atmosphere is a big atmosphere, and Volcanic activity being minute compaired to what the thought would be would have not been comparable to the below freezing miles thick atmosphere. and heat tending to rize through cold air, would attempt equalization through the atmosphere, 150-200d.F water would not be a feasable candidate in equalizing such an atmosphere.

---

So boiling away a "significant part of the ocean" and moving that heat into the atmosphere is not a problem for you? Sounds like a miracle to me.

quote:

---

"Do you think boiling the oceans would not also heat the atmosphere to far above the boiling point? How can the "water quickly return as cool fresh water" if the atmopsphere is composed mostly of steam?"
--The atmosphere is extreamly cold after you enter into kilometers of elevation, this steam would not combat with the well below freezing temperatures and even colder temperatures as you reach further into the atmospheric elevation.

---

The problem here is the specific heat of the atmosphere related to the heat of vaporization of the water. I would also direct you to the fact that most weather occurs at very low elevations. You know, where we live at the bottom of that blanket of air? How hot do you think it would get here before the heat reached an altitude where it would be dissipated?

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 01-27-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"What do you mean? Baumgardner is the one that calculated this."

​

--I mean, what is the quote? If he has 'publicly stated that miracles are the only way to reconcile his model with reality' then I think that it was obviously written down, or something of that nature, does such a quote exist?

---

try this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#implications

quote:

---

Runaway subduction. John Baumgardner created the runaway subduction model, which proposes that the pre-Flood lithosphere (ocean floor), being denser than the underlying mantle, began sinking. The heat released in the process decreased the viscosity of the mantle, so the process accelerated catastrophically. All the original lithosphere became subducted; the rising magma which replaced it raised the ocean floor, causing sea levels to rise and boiling off enough of the ocean to cause 150 days of rain. When it cooled, the ocean floor lowered again, and the Flood waters receded. Sedimentary mountains such as the Sierras and Andes rose after the Flood by isostatic rebound. [Baumgardner, 1990a; Austin et al., 1994]

​

The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn't work without miracles [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b]. The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.

​

Baumgardner estimates a release of 1028 joules from the subduction process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.

​

Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms. [Carroll, 1997, chpts. 5, 6, & 13]

​

Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see. [Matsumura, 1997]

---

quote:

---

"So boiling away a "significant part of the ocean" and moving that heat into the atmosphere is not a problem for you? Sounds like a miracle to me."
--It does not seem at all a problem, I attempted to look on the interent for temperatures of the various atmospheric temperatures according to elevation so that I could be more specific, would you happen to know of a location for a reference like this?

---

Well, then just look at the numbers Baumgardner has calculated.

quote:

---

"The problem here is the specific heat of the atmosphere related to the heat of vaporization of the water. I would also direct you to the fact that most weather occurs at very low elevations. You know, where we live at the bottom of that blanket of air? How hot do you think it would get here before the heat reached an altitude where it would be dissipated?"
--In the area above this volcanic action, it probley would get very hot, being it the place where the heat is first risen out of the ocean. The heat would not equalize at this elevation because heat rises ofcourse, have you ever seen a pot of boiling water, it goes straight up untill it cools and is condensed on the side of your microwave above or something, it doesn't flow way towards the right or the left, it will continue going up untill it has equalized with the atmosphere (equalization would intern give you still freezing temperatures depending on the volocity of its rise and thus its elevation before it falls).

---

Nonsense, you don't just hide that much energy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I thought this was comeing

​

"Well, then just look at the numbers Baumgardner has calculated."
--Baumgardner refuted this himself, as true.origins was able to get ahold of him and comment on this material against him. You seem to not have read the quote in direct reference to Isaak's comments.

---

You seem not to have read them either, since the rebuttal does not address the 10^1028 joules that would be released. Read your post again. Baumgardner neatly sidesteps the issue by focussing on mantle viscosity.As to calling on supernatural events, I have seen Baumgardner say basically, that goddidit and the rest is all details. When cornered, he will say that the bible says thus and such. This was the center of your argument, by the way. What about the references to Baumgarner admitting to supernatural processes? Why do you now suddenly ignore these points?Now, find me a subduction zone anywhere in the world that looks remotely like the ones in Baumgardners models and I'll turn in my degree. He is a computer modeler, and there is no evidence to support his model. I'm sure that he could also create a model for you that says the oceanic crust vanished into the atmosphere.

quote:

---

"Nonsense, you don't just hide that much energy."
--Exactly, the fact is, we need that energy.

---

Yeah, and in a few years you will "need" evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Isaak: Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see. [Matsumura, 1997]

​

Baumgardner: Newer calculations I presented at the 4th ICC [August, 1998] indicate the amount of volcanism associated with the runaway process is strikingly small.

---

I assume this is in a peer-reviewed publication? The point here is that you can calculate anything. Just change the input paramaters and voila, a hollow earth!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"1/ He requires an enhanced radioactive decay. Radioactive isotopes have been tested in all sorts of conditions & don’t vary."

​

--Actually they do very in many of the dating methods, by a couple percentages, this is not enough to satisfy evolutionists but it does falsify that they don't vary at all.

---

Please explain. What varies by a "couple percentages?"

quote:

---

--The rest of your text pretty much ties in together, thanx for the information, this is what I was waiting for I'm glad someone gave it to me. What are the sources of the Baumgardner quotes? As if the quotes as they are depicted do indeed give the same relevance as they seem to pertain, it would cause quite a problem, so I would like to read the article it was taken from to come to a conclusion from my present knowledge.

---

You need to go to some of these websites and look at the reference lists. [/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I assume this is in a peer-reviewed publication? The point here is that you can calculate anything. Just change the input paramaters and voila, a hollow earth!"
--Theres some key words here: 'presented at the 4th ICC [August, 1998]'. At a convention such as this, it would be very much peer reviewed, I don't think just creationist go there.

---

Perhaps someone can tell us what the ICC is. It sounds suspicious to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0321acc_beta_decay.asp
-And
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/v14n1_radioact.asp

​

--Sorry if I can't make some key quotes, I would but I am going to hit the hay, gotta get up early next morning. As of getting in depth in all of these porportions in geo-physics it makes me want to be a geophysicist! This actaually sounds acomidating towards my main interest along with cosmology, hey why not a Ph.D in both?

---

Okay, the next time I do a K-Ar date I'll be verrry careful plucking those biotite grains out of the plasma. How long do you think these conditions have existed in the earth's crust?And let's see... 1.5% error takes us from 5 Ga to 4.9 Ga. Okay, I can live with that. Now let's look at some of the errors using creationist clocks...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Grass, a flowering plant appears in the fossil record. Given grass floats to the bottom quite fast (your words), it should appear much sooner. It’s decay is irrelevant, it is COMMON in the record."
--As is evident by fossil pollen in pre-cambrian/cambrian strata as I was unaware of earlier, flowering plants must have existed to produce this pollen.

---

This goes back a way, but at last I have found a recent reference to this material. http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199709/0101.htmlThis is from Glenn Morton, who states:"Like it or not, there is serious question, even among anti-evolutionists, about the validity of this report."He shows that the first people to have problems with the Burdick discovery were other creationists. The whole point is that noone has been able to duplicate Burdick's work and his story has so many holes in it that it probably contains its own pollen deposits. If you want to discuss any details of Morton's analysis, I'd be glad to do so.As an aside, it was interesting to find that the creationist websites on this subject had no links to the evolutionist critiques of Burdick, whereas Morton does link to at least one of the creationist rebuttals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I don't think we have the this problem, as the activity that would cause this would not have been up to your calculations, also, I would rather get the source of those quotes, in which in the source he obviously talks somewhat about his theory, I am questioning the initial conditions to start off the whole thing is my problem currently.

---

Here is another calculation that I found in my archives. I think it's by Tim Thompson, but the author line got lost. My apologies to the author if it is not Tim. At any rate, the calculation is compelling."According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, there are about 3.9x1021 g of Nitrogen and 1.2 x 10 21 g of oxygen in the air, with the other gases being very minor. The heat capacity at constant pressure of either N2 or O2 is about 30 J/degree-C-mole or about 1 J/C-g (A mole of O2 weighs 32 g, N2, 28g). That is, it takes about 1 J to heat a gram of air by 1 degree Celsius at constant pressure(it takes even less at constant volume). For the steam from the boiling oceans to condense to form rain it must release its latent heat of vaporization, 2225 J/g. This means that the condensation of 1 gram of steam to water releases enough heat to raise the temperature of 22.5 grams of air by 100 C. To fall as ‘cool’ rain it must release about another 4.2 J/degree C for each degree it cools. It takes only 5.1x1023 J to heat the whole atmosphere to 100 C. Again according to Britannica, there are about 1.4 billion cubic kilometers (1.4 x 1024 g) of water in the ocean. This means that boiling the entire ocean would release about 6,000 times the amount of heat required to raise the average temperature of the entire atmosphere to 100 degrees Celsius, .... Boiling any truly significant fraction of the ocean will necessarily lead to air pressures well above 1 atmosphere, since atmospheric pressure is hydrostatic and the weight of the steam will be much more than the weight of the air. Temperatures well reach well above 100 C, because the boiling point of water will raise as the air pressure increases.

​

"Yes, some heat will be absorbed on the surface of the earth as water condenses. In that case the water will give up its heat of vaporization to what ever it condenses on and it will still be at 100 C until it gives up more heat. If the ‘significant fraction’ of the ocean that boils is about 10% you will still have 600 times more heat than you need to heat the whole atmosphere to 100C. You will not have cool rain, you will have boiling hot rain and boiling hot water condensing on everything. If 10% of the 1.4 billion cubic kilometer of water in the ocean boils and you condense only 10% of that on the earth’s land mass of about 150 million square kilometers you still have enough boiling hot water to make a layer 90 meters deep. How is anything going to survive that? You can’t condense it on the ocean. According to Baumgardner the ocean is already boiling."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
... You are getting flighty TC. Why not stick to one argument and develop it thoroughly. You're avoiding the details of your model by posting willy-nilly all over this site. How's about we stick to a discussion of your model and the consequences. Focus is important!

---

Must be from all that dancing!

quote:

---

"Some elephants would die before others, and at the same time
as allosaurs."

​

--Why would they die?

---

Right! In fact, why do any elephants die? We all KNOW that elephants never die unless it's a major extinction!You're losing it TC.

quote:

---

"Most (if not all) infants would die before adults, and so the
lower levels of the fossil record should be filled with the
weaker, younger, less-able-to swim creatures, rather than
single celled critters that would float, or marine critters
that would be largely unphased by the flood."

​

--Why would young die if they have the same environmental adaptions as their parents.

---

TC, often, it taks time for infants to develop the ability to outrun predators. They are smaller and weaker. How do you expect them to outrun the flood waters? And the flood should drown them before the adults, because they are smaller. Think, TC, think about the implications of your model.

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
3) WORLDWIDE OCCURRENCE OF WATER-LAID SEDIMENTARY ROCK:
Approximately 75% of Earth’s crust is sedimentary rock, which is rock formed in and by water. The geological and fossil evidence reveals that the world was once inundated by physical forces with which modern man is not acquainted. A global Flood would have deposited huge amounts of sediment throughout the world.

---

Indeed, sedimentary rocks are widespread, but 75% of the crust? I would like to see this documented. I can only find descriptions of the sedimentary record as a "thin veneer" overlying the dominantly plutonic and metamorphic crust. The oceanic crust, for instance, has sedimentary cover of 0 to 1 kilometer, whereas the magmatic portion is 5 to 6 kilometers thick.There is also a reason for so much sedimentary rock above sea level. It's called plate tectonics. You should read about it sometime and see what your professional creationists do not tell you about geology.

quote:

---

4) MARINE FOSSILS ON CRESTS OF MOUNTAINS.
The highest mountain on Earth, Mt. Everest, along with the tops of every other mountain, contains rocks and fossils that were once under water. Marine fossils and salt clusters formed by sea water have been found atop Mt. Ararat. Such evidence harmonizes perfectly with the biblical account: a worldwide Flood which covered every mountain on the face of the Earth.
Fossilized marine life can be found on every mountaintop in the world

---

First of all, this is wrong. There are not fossils found on top of 'every mountain in the world.' Try Mt. Fuji. Any marine fossils? I had this discussion with Fred Williams last year, also. He seemed to think that fossils from the Tertiary/Cretaceous formations under his back yard would be the same as those in the igneous and metamorphic complex that makes up Longs Peak a few miles away. Sorry guys, no fossils up there. Someone is deceiving you.Nevertheless, there is a reason that marine fossils can be found on many mountain tops. It's called plate tectonics. You should read about it sometime.

quote:

---

5) FORMATION OF FOSSILS.
Fossils are found all over the world; but by and large, these are not being formed today. Sudden death, sudden and instant burial and sudden pressureall at the same timeare required in order to form fossils. Otherwise, decay from oxygen and other elements block the process from occurring.

​

...A major flood would generally create a fossil order from the simple to the complex forms of life according to an animal’s habitat, mobility, and density. Hydrodynamic selectivity would then layer out the dense, less mobile marine beings (such as tiny creatures like the trilobites, crustaceans, mollusks, and echinoderms) in the cambrian rock (lowest layer of strata) more rapidly than less dense, more mobile ones.

​

Many fossil graveyards were jammed with every type of creature
they could be buried in a roughly predictable order by rising floodwaters

---

This is worse than I thought. Maybe someone else can address this. So much misinformation, so little time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"The oceanic crust, for instance, has sedimentary cover of 0 to 1 kilometer, whereas the magmatic portion is 5 to 6 kilometers thick. "

​

--Actually ocean basalts may be as thick as 30km if mind serves me right. (we've got cores up to 9 km (or was it miles?) in MOB's)

---

No problem. I'm sure that in some places the sedimentary load is thicker too. The point is that you cannot have 75% of the crust as sedimentary rocks with these numbers.

quote:

---

"There is also a reason for so much sedimentary rock above sea level. It's called plate tectonics. You should read about it sometime and see what your professional creationists do not tell you about geology."

​

--Your correct for the former, though I do believe the latter was uncalled for.

---

It is a legitimate question. No name-calling or accusations. Why do the professional creationists not explain how plate tectonics can form mountain ranges?

quote:

---

"First of all, this is wrong. There are not fossils found on top of 'every mountain in the world.' Try Mt. Fuji. Any marine fossils?"

​

--What Edge? Mt. Fuji is a Stratovolcano silly!

---

It is also a mountain. The original statement said that fossils are found on ALL mountain tops. And yes it is silly. That's the point. There are LOTS of mountains with no fossils on top of them.

quote:

---

"Nevertheless, there is a reason that marine fossils can be found on many mountain tops. It's called plate tectonics. You should read about it sometime. "

​

--Actually it is the other way around, the reason you are looking for is because some 'mountains' are ones similar to Mt. Fuji, a stratovolcanoe. They are technically not due to plate movement, as well as the hawaiian islands and other continental mountain ranges or many single volcanic mountains due to hot-spots.

---

Plate tectonic theory includes the concept of hot spots. And many stratovolcanoes are related to conververgent plate boundaries.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Why do the professional creationists not explain how plate tectonics can form mountain ranges?"

​

--Well it may depend on the scenario given, in most cases as I have read through geology papers from creationists. It like would be in a geology journal be assumed that the reader has previous knowledge on atleast basic or higher type geologic concepts.

---

Or it could be that they don't want you to know. It could be that they are taking advantage of the layman's ignorance of geology. Otherwise why would they ask why marine fossils are found on the tops of all mountains. Do you think they want you to say that it happens because the rocks have been uplifted at convergent plate boundaries? No, they want you to think that there were floods that covered the mountains.

quote:

---

"Plate tectonic theory includes the concept of hot spots. And many stratovolcanoes are related to conververgent plate boundaries."

​

--Well yes, though they are not the cause nor have any large impact on plate boundaries or their tectonics when present in these locations.

---

Of course not. They do not affect the boundaries, the boundaries affect them.

quote:

---

They are self-conceptual magmatic plumes, though they would be included in a conventional plate-tectonics education, they just are not directly related.

---

Hunh? "Self-conceptual?" Even if they are independent of the boundaries they are still part of plate tectonics. In fact they provide good evidence of plate tectonics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Or it could be that they don't want you to know. It could be that they are taking advantage of the layman's ignorance of geology."

​

--Thats a pretty bold 'could be'.

---

I was looking at it from your viewpoint. From mine, there is no question. You are being deceived. Almost certainly intentionally.

quote:

---

"Otherwise why would they ask why marine fossils are found on the tops of all mountains. Do you think they want you to say that it happens because the rocks have been uplifted at convergent plate boundaries? No, they want you to think that there were floods that covered the mountains."

​

--I think your getting Hovind or walt brown mixed up with other Creationist scientists...

---

Yeah, well that's a distinct possibility. But it sounds like you get them confused also. But then, what is your answer to this question?

quote:

---

"Hunh? "Self-conceptual?" Even if they are independent of the boundaries they are still part of plate tectonics. In fact they provide good evidence of plate tectonics. "

​

--Yes, they provide good evidence of plate tectonics by indicating directional plate motion, however they are not directly linked by the cause of their action.

---

Hey, that's clear to me! What is their action and what is the cause?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
In short, creationists have not presented any evidence for a global flood other than to assert it happened. They won't be specific because the specifics challenge their assertions.

---

This is the very point that gave me pause in answering TB's question. What exactly is the flood? It seems like a moving target to me. Every time we make a point, someone comes up with an argument such as:It was really multiple regional floods that culminated in the real flood.

​

The flood was so sudden that it left no evidence. (thankyou wmscott)

​

The rocks you are talking about are post-flood.

​

There we actually two floods.

​

The rocks in question are pre-flood.

​

The continents were being down-dropped and uplifted in different areas.(this explains it all)

​

The flood was before the ice ages.

​

The end of the ice ages caused the flood.

​

The fossils were hydrodynamically sorted.

​

The fossils were sorted by some unspecified process that only acted on certain biomes at any given time.Ultimately, one can explain away any piece of actual evidence with some unsupportable, unobserved, hypothetical process; which in all likelyhood, conflicts with some other hypothetical process. Such is creationist "evidence."

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 05-15-2002]