Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

Can you provide a reference for your dropstone excerpt?--Percy

Thanks!The boundary of the Driftless Area is not marked on your map, so I pulled out a map of Wisconsin and found the towns, and it turns out that Glacial Lake Wisconsin occupied perhaps 15% of the Driftless Area of Wisconsin on it's northeastern portion, centered approximately on the current locations of the Petenwell and Castle Rock Reservoirs. In other words, Glacial Lake Wisconsin was approximately centered on the word "CENTRAL" near the center of this map from the same website. Note the boundary of the Driftless Area:So Wmscott needs evidence of Driftless Area dropstones outside the Glacial Lake Wisconsin area. He also needs to explain the evidence of shortlived lakes mentioned in your excerpt (ill-defined shorelines, beach gravels, lake bottom sediments), and the absence of evidence of ocean inundation.--Percy

Hi, Hieyeck, welcome aboard!I don't blame you for not reading the 17 pages of this thread, but you might want to read the first 3 or 4 posts just to get a feel for the topic. This thread is for discussing Wmscott's theory that the global flood actually occurred at the end of the last ice age due to a comet strike that ruptured glacial margins releasing torrents of sub-glacial water. You comments may fit better in the Some help for the TC model thread.--Percy

---

wmscott writes:
Since we are all descended from him and his family, they carried all of our genes, except for the mutations since then.

---

There is no genetic evidence that all humans alive today are descended from a small family group of around 10,000 years ago.The unique genes of Chinese, Africans, Australians, Japanese, North and South Americans, etc, were not have resident in the members of Noah's family.A small family group could not have repopulated the world and demonstrated all the genetic, cultural and social diversity of all the different regions in so short a period of time, and especially not in a way so as to appear identical with the groups living in each location before the flood.There is no indication that the entire world was repopulated around 10,000 years ago such as might be indicated by a morphological break. For instance, the bush people of Australia of more than 10,000 years ago appear to be the same as those from later times. If they'd all been wiped out during the flood and then Australia was resettled by Noah's descendents, there would be a marked difference in morphology between the old inhabitants and the new settlers. Not to mention different forms of habitation, tool use, diet, etc.

---

This would make each pair of them more genetically diversified than nearly any two people alive today, so inbreeding was not a problem.

---

Genes reside on chromosomes at locations known as loci. Each locus can contain two genes. The relationship between the two genes can be complex, but most people are familiar with the common dominant/recessive relationship (eg, that a gene for brown eyes is dominant over one for blue).Since the members of Noah's family were presumably human, they had the same DNA we have and their chromosomes had two genes at each locus. Squeezing more diversity into normal DNA would be akin to putting more than a dozen eggs into an egg carton. Just as there's nowhere to put the extra eggs, there's nowhere to put extra genes into a chromosome.Further, the members of Noah's family came from the region where he lived, and so would not have had genes from other races from more remote locations around the world.

---

Even those who believe we evolved, also believe mankind is descended from an original pair, a genetic Adam and Eve.

---

You've misunderstood the science. There was no "original pair." Mitochondrial Eve did not live at the same time as Y-Chromosome Adam.Mitochondrial Eve represents the most recent common ancestor of all humans alive today when traced matrilinearly, ie, traced back through the mitochondrial DNA, which is only passed on maternally. Unlike nuclear DNA, which is very different in the child from that in the parents since it represents a combining of the genes of both parents, the mitochondrial DNA in the child is identical to that in the mother, except for mutations. Since the mutation rate is known, the changes in mitochondrial DNA represent a molecular clock.Mitochondrial Eve was uncovered using statistical analyses and is thought to have lived approximately 140,000 years ago. Naturally, our nuclear DNA derives from a far wider variety of sources than mitochondrial DNA, since nuclear DNA is a mishmash of all our ancestors. Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common maternal ancestor, not the only ancestor from that time.Y-chromosome Adam is the male equivalent of Mitochondrial Eve. The Y-chromosome is analogous to mitochondrial DNA in that it can only be passed down the paternal line. He is thought to have lived approximately 60,000 years ago.None of these research results are consistent with your Noah's flood scenario of only 10,000 years ago.--Percy

wmscott writes:

---

Recent genetic work has also been published with results stating that mankind is descended from just a few women who lived at the end of the ice age. See (Oops, something lost)

---

You cited a website that sells fake genealogies. For a mere $250 they'll sequence your DNA and tell you which ancient matriarch you're descended from, as well as details of her life and times. Nice twist on an old fraud. Hey, send me $100 and I'll mail you your family's authentic coat of arms as well as pictures of your ancestral castle! Hurry while supplies last!By the way, even this fraud of a website contradicts your dating and agrees with science - at least they did *some* homework. It says the Seven Eves lived 150,000 years ago, not 10,000 years ago.The actual positions of science (eg, dating, geology, genetics) appear to be of no interest to you. You just mention a mystery here, make up a few dates there, and the next thing you know we're off on another journey into wmscottie-land.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 04-19-2002]

Hi Joe!I'm guessing we're both pretty certain that if wmscott were to submit his ideas in the form of a technical paper to any relevant geology journal that it would be rejected out of hand on so many grounds as to not be worth enumerating, though among them would be lack of understanding and familiarity with basic geological principles and lack of supporting evidence. I don't think the editors of any journal would even bother circulating it for peer review. In fact, most would probably stop reading after encountering "global flood" for the first time, since this phrase makes clear the religious nature of the work.In his book wmscott is following a time-honored Creationist tradition by bringing his views to those unable to critically assess them, but discussion with us here is a different story. While it's nothing like peer-review, it's certainly much more courageous than many other original Creationist thinkers.But wmscott is also, I believe, an example of a not uncommon delusional psychological condition which is best described by example, such as in people who believe they've found evidence of alien visitations or think they've invented perpetual motion machines. In other words, I don't believe he's a fraud because I think he honestly believes what he's saying.Having a delusion does not mean that one's other mental faculties are impaired, as journal editors who receive submissions from Einstein-wannabes can well attest. Wmscott has successfully maintained a moderate and well-reasoned tone, and has often argued ingeniously for his point of view.Nonetheless, the filters he has to employ in order to avoid perceiving the weaknesses and contradictions inherent in his position are still occasionally visible in the form of his occasional whoppers, such as his recent genetic arguments, and especially the referencing of the Seven Eves genealogy website. An earlier whopper was when he completely misinterpreted a paper on diatoms in Antarctica as supporting his global flood views.I'm of a mixed mind as I consider whether further debate with wmscott is worthwhile. The fallacies are just so obvious that it's hard to resist pointing them out. On the other hand, wmscott's opinions have so far proven impervious to evidence, so would there be any point to further discussion? I haven't decided yet.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 04-19-2002]

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]

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

Since you didn't answer the question about whether your book is self-published, I looked into it myself. Your book was published by Xlibris, a firm which provides services for people to publish their own books. This is from their website:

At Xlibris, we give you everything you need to become your own publisher. We work with you to create your book, then print copies on-demand for your readers. You keep all rights to your work. We also offer services that give you all the control you need over your book. So head on over to the Publishing Services area and get published now.

I could never understand how you found a publisher for your book, and now we know you never did. So, did you use the Basic Service ($500), the Professional Service ($900), or the the Custom Service ($1600)?

wmscott writes:

---

Incorrect, historic dates always takes precedent over all other dating methods...

---

Your preferred date is about 10,000 years ago, which is pre-historic. You don't have any historic dates.

---

...and as I have stated I allow for the possibility that the other dates are correct.

---

No, you don't. Weak as your ideas are, they make even less sense if you accept established dates.

---

I have also stated a known effect which if things happened as I believe they did, would account for the difference in dating.

---

There's no evidence for releases of large amounts of old carbon in your timeframe, no evidence that old carbon is replaced with young carbon when ground water passes over buried whalebones, and no evidence that the genetic clock evidence used to estimate dates for Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam are off by 1000%.

---

No I am not planning on using biblical dating in a scientific paper. The dating issue is a major topic all by itself and would best be addressed in a separate paper on that issue alone. You are free to submit any thing you want.

---

I'm not the one naive enough to believe I have anything original to contribute in fields outside my specialty. But, anyway, can you makes drafts available so I can post them on the website? We'd all love to follow your progress and provide you feedback.

---

The technical reason for expecting future adjustments in genetic dating is that these dates have been changed a number of times already, so the expectation of more changes is to be expected.

---

That's not a technical reason, plus the revisions you require are in the neighborhood of 1000% in magnitude, not the 5% and 10% revisions to which you may be referring.

---

I would suggest you read up on the history of science. Plate tectonics when first introduced was very much in conflict with the then current theories and yet as history has shown,...

---

As Joe has already pointed out, it seems it's you who needs to do some reading. Wegener's ideas were not accepted because he could identify no mechanism capable of moving continents, not because of lack of evidence that they had moved. Geologists of the period believed the continental and oceanic crusts to be fixed, and it was unimaginable that a continent could somehow be pushed through a "sea" of oceanic crust. Where would the sea floor in front of the continent go? How would sea floor fill in behind the moving continent?Thinking changed dramatically once we had evidence of sea-floor formation and subduction, and that combined with a better understanding of convective forces within the earth provided all the support necessary for Wegener's ideas.In contrast to Wegener, you have no evidence.

---

...it is in harmony with what we know about the earth.

---

Repetition won't make this true. Your ideas aren't at all in harmony with current understanding. There is no evidence of a world-wide flood, and much evidence that there wasn't.

---

Keep an open mind, as you said "The foundation of science is tentativity, and change is one of its more dependable qualities."

---

My mind is open to evidence, not story-telling. Evidence is the bricks and mortar of science, and you have none.

---

Then why are you resorting to windy debates of words based on generalities?

---

Trying to introduce the delusional to rationality is like pushing on a string. I tried evidence-based discussion with you for a while, but you shed rational arguments like rain off a slicker. You also ignore some arguments, like why your "mountains were lower then" argument is wrong, and why your "the world-wide flood would have left no evidence" argument is wrong, and why your "there would have been no genetic-eye of the needle" argument is wrong.--Percy

wmscott writes:

---

I used the Professional Service. What took you so long to figure out that I self published my book?

---

Because I believed no self-respecting person would fail to make that clear at the outset. But at least you're consistent. In your first post where you promoted your book you didn't even reveal you were the author.I concede I possess a fair degree of naivet, for I am always surprised when I encounter people for whom embarrassment and shame are foreign emotions.

---

The biblical date for the flood is about 2370 BC not 8000 BC, but I am open to the possibility that it happen earlier.

---

But you've been arguing all along that it happened earlier. Your claim is that the Biblical flood was due to the sudden and rapid release of water at the end of the last ice age, which occurred about 10,000 years ago. There is no evidence for a world-wide flood ever, let alone 10,000 years ago, and if you shift your date to 2370 BC then you no longer have melting glaciers as a source of water. No matter which date you pick, your ideas don't hold up.

---

The flood is a very historic event found in flood tales from all around the world. The flood is also extensively described in the Bible, a very historic book. For an event to be prehistoric would mean that we would have no verbal or written account of it at all. Since we have a large number of accounts which all refer to the flood, it is by definition a historic event.

---

Historic periods are those from which we have a contemporaneous recording of events. There are no contemporaneous accounts from the flood period, hence it is prehistoric. Plus the flood is mythical anyway, since there is no objective evidence supporting such an event.

---

The science of genetic anthropology is in its infancy, and is in conflict with the historical information found in the Bible. To provide a more authoritative date for the origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens the Geneticists will have to really improve their procedures beyond using estimated rates of mutations, estimates which are possibly based on wrong expectations.

---

In other words, you have no factual basis for rejecting the genetically established dates.

---

The time shifts found in some ocean floor cores is evidence of a large sudden release of old carbon,...

---

"Some" ocean floor cores? You mean like here and there, as might be expected for sea floor near glacial runoff outlets to the sea, but that would instead be global had the runoff been so huge as to flood the world?Anyway, you've never presented this evidence, so could you present your evidence for "time shifts found in some ocean floor cores". I couldn't find any at the Marine Reservoir Correction Database, so maybe you could go find it there and point me to it, or to wherever your evidence comes from.

---

...and there is evidence of the rain water effect flushing out old carbon.

---

You've never presented any evidence for this, either. It seems to me that carbon would be locked up in the bone matrix, and that carbon in groundwater would be locked up in CO₂, so you'd need a chemical reaction for an exchange or carbon. Plus the amount of carbon in water is tiny compared to that in bone. While I'm sure the effect is greater than 0, I doubt very much if it is the 1000% error that you require in order for your Michigan whalebones to be 10,000 years old.

---

The flushing effect is fairly well known, a carbon dated sample has to be isolated from the environment to be dateable.

---

Flushing effect? On soil, sure. On bone, though? Can you point me at the evidence for this?

---

"my specialty" Well don't leave me hanging, what is it?

---

I think the point was that most people know better than to believe they can make original contributions in areas outside their specialty.

---

Considering the fact that Wagner's theories were accepted for years in Europe before they were in America, this still seems to be a sore spot with American scientists.

---

Even if this silly statement were true, what on earth has it got to do with the inappropriateness (not to mention sheer chutzpa) of you comparing yourself to Wegener. He had evidence, energy, and a gift for theorizing, you do not.

---

As for having no evidence, then what have we been arguing about all this time? You may not accept the evidence that I have presented, but it is untruthful to say I don't have any.

---

Your "evidence" isn't evidence. Just to make clear why, let's just explore your "dating evidence" a little.You cited whalebones in Michigan that are dated to around 900 years ago, then claimed they supported your view of post-glacial inundation 10,000 years ago because the date is wrong. But you submitted no evidence for a 10,000 year old date (other than saying "the date could be wrong"), so this isn't evidence for you.You cited a fake genealogy site that nonetheless got the date of 140,000 years ago right. You submitted no evidence for a 10,000 year old date, (other than saying "the date could be wrong"), so it's not evidence for you.This is just a couple items from your dating evidence, and all your "evidence" has similar significant and serious problems that aren't deep or controversial but are obvious on their face. At the end of the day, you have no evidence.The best example of your lack of evidence is the global flood. You yourself even say there is no evidence, because it was so short-lived.

---

To the contrary you have failed to supply convincing evidence to support your argument, repeated references to the scientific orthodoxy is meaningless when the whole point of what I am doing is to challenge that orthodoxy.

---

Science arrived at the current view through the gathering of evidence. To challenge that view you must have countervailing evidence. Since you have no countervailing evidence, you cannot legitimately challenge what you call scientific orthodoxy. That's why it's so silly for you to try to submit a paper to a mainstream journal, which endeavor I notice you didn't mention this time. Have you come to your senses and realized that someone who has to self-publish his own ideas hasn't got a prayer of getting those same ideas published in a journal of science?

---

You need to support your argument on solid evidence,...

---

I can't believe you, of all people, are saying this. Yes, absolutely, you need to support your argument with solid evidence. You can't support your argument with evidence where the dates are off by 10X. I don't need to come up with counter evidence for such silly "evidence" - your "evidence" is already self-evidently wrong.

---

...not vague references to main stream scientific thinking. You have been debating without making specific points, a debate is like a sword fight, without any points you are unarmed.

---

You're just making this up as you go along. I *have* made specific points, you just chose not to respond to them. For example, I mentioned three of my points where you dropped you ball in my previous message, and you can find my last post on each of these topics in messages 11 (mountain ranges) and 230 (lack of flood evidence, genetic eye-of-the-needle).--Percy

wmscott writes:

---

I would suggest you get yourself a subscription to Consumer's Digest since basic marketing seems like a major deception to you. Hope you never have to buy a car. (LOL)

---

You're comparing yourself to a used car salesman? Geez, I was only trying to say you have an underdeveloped sense of openness and honesty.

---

Why are you so shy about your specialty? You are beginning to make me wonder what it is that you are so embarrassed about it.

---

My specialty, indeed anyone's specialty, is irrelevant here, for two reasons. First, relying upon association as a means of persuasion is one of the seven major fallacies of debate. "I have a degree from Incredible Reputation University, so you can trust me when I say...etc..." is a fallacious form of debate.Second, you're already disagreeing with people whose professional credentials are much closer to this debate than mine are, so what would be the point?If you're really sincerely interested in my professional credentials then let me know via email and I'll send you PDFs of some of the stuff I've authored professionally. But even if I were a Nobel prize winner and you were a wino it wouldn't be relevant, because what matters is the cogency of the arguments we post here.The most important point everyone is trying to make to you is that your arguments do not qualify as good science. You can't have just stories, you have to have evidence. Some of your stories are credible, some are not, and few have evidence.Oh, and I loved your example of someone contributing to fields outside his specialty:

---

Tell that to Fred Hoyle and many others.

---

Hoyle is one of the best examples of why one should stay close to home, scientifically speaking. After Hoyle's early contributions, which were significant and important, he not only went off the deep end outside his specialty, even delving into Creationism, he even went off the deep end within his specialty by continuing to back a steady-state universe long after evidence for the Big Bang (a term he himself coined, intending it to be derisive) became incontrovertible. It is suspected to be one of the reasons he did not win a Nobel prize - too much of an embarrassment.

---

"I don't need to come up with counter evidence" And that is why you are losing this debate.

---

Gee, I don't know, usually one finds that when opponents start quoting you out of context and begin declaring victory it's because they're in a weak position. What I actually said was:

"You can't support your argument with evidence where the dates are off by 10X. I don't need to come up with counter evidence for such silly 'evidence' - your 'evidence' is already self-evidently wrong."

In other words, when your dating evidence is off by 10X it is already so wrong that no counter evidence is necessary.The problems with your arguments can usually be summed up as either a lack of a mechanism, or a lack of evidence that the proposed mechanism took place, and often lack of both.Your argument involving the porosity of bones is a good example. I doubt many here are ignorant of anything you said, but the original question posed to you concerned how you were going to *replace* old carbon in the whale skeleton with new carbon. The carbon in bone is mostly tied up as a compound with calcium called calcium carbonate or calcite, CaCO₃. You need something to drive this chemical reaction:

CaCO₃ + CO₂ => CaCO₃ + CO₂

Where the CO₂ on the left is new carbon and that on the right is old carbon. Certainly bone is porous to ground water, so the dissolved carbon dioxide in water is going to rub right up against the calcite, and nothing's going to happen. This is an example of lack of a mechanism. And certainly with no proposed mechanism for carbon substitution, you cannot have any evidence of such a mechanism taking place.

---

Presently I am finishing up on some other projects so I can make time for researching and writing a scientific paper. If things go well, I hope to have my paper ready for submission before the end of the year. The person who never tries is the one who fails at everything.

---

More research? Why would you need more research? Your argument here is that the evidence you've already presented to us is sufficient, and that we're all basically just scientific ninnies because we don't accept it, won't even admit that it's evidence in most cases.If you really believe that the problem your having convincing anyone here is really just due to lack of sufficient background on the part of your fellow protagonists to properly interpret your arguments and evidence, then you don't need more research. So what's the real story?

---

On the date for the flood. As I have stated so many times, I prefer the biblical date, but allow for the possibility that it occurred earlier.

---

If you don't have a date then you don't have a theory.

---

The record of the deluge recorded in the Bible is a contemporaneous record of the event.

---

This is one of the wonders of the Internet - you can actually find people willing to argue simple facts.Even if Moses wrote the Pentateuch, which is what most evangelicals believe, he lived long after the flood, and so the Biblical account of the flood is not contemporaneous with it. A contemporaneous account of the flood would have to have been written by someone who lived through it.You cited a dictionary definition of prehistoric but seem not to have read or understood it, since it defines prehistoric in basically the same way I did. Your definition says that prehistoric means "prior to recorded history", which means when no one was recording events. Since no one was recording events during the flood, there was no contemporaneous account, and the flood was prehistoric.It was also mythical.

---

Under my theory it was a deep flexing not a shallow flexing, with the result that most of the heat energy would occur below the earth's surface. For the most part, areas of the earth's surface where merely lifted or lowered, which would not result in surface heating.

---

Under your theory, the deep flexing was still reflected by a severe sinking of ocean basins and rising of mountains, which are surface features, not deep at all. Plus in your time frame you have no evidence for either deep flexing or severe ocean basin subsidence or rising mountains. All you have is a story. And the only reason you propose mountains were lower then was so water could cover them so that the claim of the flood story that it was world-wide could be true. In other words, your theory is not based upon evidence.The weight of water in the world is roughly a constant. It doesn't matter whether it is tied up in glaciers or lies in ocean basins, it's still the same amount of weight. A catastrophic flow of water from glaciers to ocean basins doesn't cause mountains in the tropics to pop up. What it does is cause the ocean basins to depress somewhat (water is spread across much greater area) while the former glacial regions rebound.

---

I am advocating the large scale survival of many animals outside the ark, which if enough survived here and there, the total could be equal to entire herd surviving. And there have been a number of genetic bottle necks found at this time and no doubt more will be found as more studies are done.

---

First, this is ridiculous on its face. Is this going into your paper?Second, entire herds surviving a worldwide flood by floating on flood detritus? Including elephants and giraffes? This seems possible to you? I guess it must, so can you add anything that would make it seem less utterly ridiculous to everyone else?Third, okay, I'll bite. What's your evidence for genetic bottlenecks 10,000 years ago.

---

Nearly all ocean sediment comes from the land, which is why sedimentation rates on the ocean floor decrease with greater distance from land. A global ocean would have a sediment rate of near zero, since there would be nowhere for the sediment to come from.

---

But your global flood was short, remember? You claim it coincided with tsunamis and a massive comet strike. These cataclysms would have kicked up huge amounts of sediment at ocean margins world-wide, and as the rising water levels caused the oceans to move across the land it would have brought sediment with it and the tidal waves and climatic disruptions would have kicked up huge amounts of additional sediment.There's no evidence of any of this.I keep forgetting that you live inland. Have you ever been to the ocean? Encroachment of the ocean onto land would not be a quiet affair, would not be a "gentle rise in sea level". If the sea was everywhere 10,000 years ago there would be evidence of it everywhere.

---

Your general rejections merely show a stubborn refusal to accept something new because it is different. You are free to disagree, but without any evidence to back up your position, it becomes merely your personal opinion. Unless you can come up with some solid evidence, I will consider your position overturned.

---

That's nice, but you have no evidence which requires countervailing evidence. All you have is stories.--Percy

wmscott writes:

---

This vertical upward movement is still going on and is wide spread in places were current scientific opinion has no explanation for it.

---

edge replies:

---

Where is this? What other, and how many vague unsupported assertions can you make in one post?

---

I believe Wmscott's point is, in part, correct. If memory serves me correctly, Scandanavia (in part or in whole I do not remember) is still rising due to the lifting of the weight of former glaciers. I forget the rate, maybe a few inches per century? Maybe Wmscott knows.Wmscott may also be referring to the ongoing uplift of the Himalayas due to the continued northward movement/collision of the Indian subcontinent into/with Asia.Where Wmscott is, I think, incorrect is in stating that it is "widespread" and that "current scientific opinion has no explanation for it."--Percy

I'm going to take a different tack in this post. Since you want to write a paper, I'll provide the responses you'd possibly get from a kind-hearted reviewer or editor of a mainstream journal. My own personal comments appear in small text between square brackets.I realize your post was not a technical paper. I simply respond to each topic as I might had it appeared before me for review properly written up in a technical paper.

Percy writes:

---

On the carbon flushing of bones you stated. "And certainly with no proposed mechanism for carbon substitution, you cannot have any evidence of such a mechanism taking place."

---

wmscott replies:

---

Actually I do. "Because the rather numerous attempts at C14 dating of the present materials shed light on certain sources of error implicit in the radiocarbon method they are of interest from a methodical point of view, too. Determinations made on reindeer antlers have produced inconceivably low values (11,000-12,000 years BP), evidently owning to the fact that the CaCO3 contained in the porous antler material has reacted with CO2 and younger carbonates in the percolating groundwater." (The Pleistocene; Geology and Life in the Quaternary Ice Age by Tage Nilsson 1983, p.304)

---

Never heard of in situ CaCO₃ substitution. Please provide references.[Means references to the primary literature. If you visit Bone you'll see no such process is mentioned, Dr. Nilsson notwithstanding.]

---

Yes Moses wrote the Pentateuch...

---

[Do not under any circumstances cite anything Biblical or religious.]

---

It should be remembered that in the ice age all the mountainous areas were glaciated and would have been subject to a degree of depression. Also that the depression of a tropical ocean area, will due to displacement can cause a rise in adjoining areas.

---

Never heard of Wisconsian glaciation being worldwide. Please provide primary references.Unaware of contrapuntal depression due to adjacent rise. Please provide primary references.

---

I have also stated that some high elevations may have been merely covered by a glacial covering rather than having to have been depressed below the level of the flood waters. This would greatly reduce the amount of flexing required.

---

[Biblical references would be a killer. Most any reviewer would stop reading once he saw the Biblical connection. In case I'm not being clear enough, and no matter what you personally believe, "flood waters" is a dead giveaway of YEC views.][You probably realize you can't wax Biblical in a scientific paper, so one thing about your posts here is very puzzling. Biblical references in support of scientific claims carry negative weight, detracting from whatever merit your ideas might have. What makes you think that science buffs and scientists here are any more receptive to Biblical references than technical journals? I recommend that from now on you attempt to carry the day without Biblical references, because it'll be more effective here, and it's what you need to do for a journal anyway.]

---

Then of course we have rafting and such. Animals surviving this way may seem impossible until considering island animal populations. Many very remote islands have terrestrial animal populations. Their arrival on some of these islands may have required a sea voyage of longer duration than the deluge. All because something is improbable, doesn't mean it is impossible.

---

Speculative, probably wrong. Any primary literature to cite in support?[This is probably dead wrong. The evidence from recent volcanic islands like the Galapagos is that only small animals like lizards successfully raft. Large animals are never found on such islands. Speculation in and of itself is fine, usually in the conclusion. But speculation as supporting argument is worthless.]

---

Second we have the pronounced differences in many animals between their ice age form and modern form. This change is indicative of the modern population being descended from a small selection of the ice age animals resulting in a change in the genetic average of the species.

---

Not familiar with genetic bottlenecks being responsible for significant morphological change. Please provide primary references.

---

Thirdly we have direct evidence of this genetic bottleneck in the results of genetic testing with ice age genes that do not appear in modern populations such as the total lack of Neanderthal genes in Homo Sapiens Sapiens despite the fossil evidence of such in the past.

---

Far off the mark, seems dead-wrong. Please correct, delete, provide evidence, or cite primary literature.

---

The postulated comet strikes are theorized to have impacted the continental ice sheets, there may have been no ocean impacts.

---

Please provide evidence or cites to primary literature.

---

There is evidence of tsunamis hitting a number of coastlines in this general time period which may or may not be connected with this event.

---

Please provide evidence or cites to primary literature.

---

We also have the reported account of 40 days of what was probably an impact rain, which would have been an earth wide steady heavy rain that would have tended to flatten the waves and may have stilled the winds.

---

Please provide evidence or cites to primary literature.

---

As I have been repeatedly pointing out, we do have evidence of this type of flooding event occurring while we have no evidence of a massive sediment creating flood you seem to be envisioning along YEC lines.

---

Please provide evidence or cites to primary literature.

---

Although I should mention I recently had a conversation with a soil geologist who stated that he had observed in his field work at all of the surface soil layer in the entire Midwest area that he had examined over the years had been worked by water, he even attributed it to a sudden release of glacial water that briefly flooded large areas of the world. It was interesting meeting a total stranger who yet seemed to share my thoughts. Now I haven't seen what he has seen, so perhaps what he saw was the result of many smaller separate events, but they all did have to occur recently and he was knowledgeable in glacial deposits. This does point out the possibility that the reworked by wave action surface deposits that you are looking for may actually exist and have been misinterpreted and overlooked.

---

Anecdotal speculation.[Anecdote as an adjunct is okay, though not recommended. Again, speculation as supporting argument is worthless.]Okay, I'm back to being Percy again. I hope this helps. This was meant to be helpful, not adversarial.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-01-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
I was referrring to the 'no scientific explanation for it' part.

---

Ah, yes! Sorry about that, couldn't tell.Perhaps we should colloborate on a book called Solving the Mystery of the Creationist Mindset. Though Wmscott consistently professes a strong desire to be scientific, he possesses all the typical characteristics of the Creationist mind, in this particular case inventing mysteries where none exist, then treating it as evidence for his position.--Percy