Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II

Dear Edge;

quote:

---

When you do so map the world, then you will have evidence. . . . Go and get your data.

---

I intend to do just that. But if I am able to map a global distribution of marine diatoms, will you accept that as evidence of a recent global flood?

Dear Percy;Now Percy, my photos were of good enough quality that you were able to make a fair identification without even having a background in marine biology. I have already done a number of 'null' tests to check that my findings come from my samples and not from lab contaminates. I have also taken a number of negative samples that did indeed turned up negative. What I learned from those negative tests is that the marine diatoms occur as a trace surface deposit and are not mixed in the soil in general. This pattern of occurrence indicates a brief marine submergence, without any major reshaping or general mixing of the earth's surface as the YECs would like to have us believe. Since we are dealing with a believed global flood, all of the earth is "former Biblical flood sea-bottom" which is why I did my negative testing on material that was deep subsoil and hence would have not have been exposed directly to the flood waters.

quote:

---

When you draw conclusions from technical articles that seem at odds with the articles themselves I no longer try to argue with you.

---

Percy, that is a lie. I would suggest you retract your statement or substantiate it by showing how I misunderstood that last article you posted the link to. When I read that article, I was very happy to find that it contained the very information on wind transport sizes of marine diatoms that I had been looking for, I was puzzled as to why You posted it. I guessed that ether you were trying to discreetly give me hand, or you had posted the article after only reading the headings and you hadn't bother to read the entire article. Now Percy, if you are tripping over yourself because you post things without reading them, don't go blaming me for your negligence. Thanks once again for that article, it was very helpful.--Wmscott

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Dear Edge;

quote:

---

When you do so map the world, then you will have evidence. . . . Go and get your data.

---

I intend to do just that. But if I am able to map a global distribution of marine diatoms, will you accept that as evidence of a recent global flood?

---

It would be a major step. But you have to show hard evidence that the
diatoms are actually diatoms, that they are marine and that they are not somehow transported. They must also be found at virtually all elevations. THAT would be evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Now Percy, my photos were of good enough quality that you were able to make a fair identification without even having a background in marine biology.

---

Not really. The photos were of dubious quality. And I don't really want a fair identification. I want a definite id.

quote:

---

I have already done a number of 'null' tests to check that my findings come from my samples and not from lab contaminates. I have also taken a number of negative samples that did indeed turned up negative. What I learned from those negative tests is that the marine diatoms occur as a trace surface deposit and are not mixed in the soil in general.

---

Hmmm, you meant that the diatoms have not mixed in with the soil after laying around for 10,000 years? That doesn't sound very good to me.

I think you persist in seeing what you want to see. As I have said several times now, you haven't yet convinced me your pictures are of diatoms, or even that you can tell the difference between diatoms and other forms of microscopic life. I certainly know that I cannot. Your photos are of such poor quality that identification will inevitably be ambiguous.I also still fail to see the point in convincing non-experts. To me the photos don't much resemble each other. Perhaps in the eyes of an expert the resemblance is striking, and I recommend you stop wasting your time here and put your photos before an expert. A trace surface deposit that lies undisturbed for 10,000 years? Nobody ever walked there? Nothing ever grew there? No flood ever washed over it? No earthworms disturbed the soil? Animals never roamed there? Your unbelievable premises are supported by even less believable evidence. To everyone else the pattern indicates recent import by eolian means. To disagree with you is to lie?Since you believe the article supports your views, a more productive approach than wasting your time with the ignorant liars here would be to contact the authors and describe your diatom findings in Wisconsin.--Percy

Dear Edge;

quote:

---

show hard evidence that the
diatoms are actually diatoms, that they are marine and that they are not somehow transported. They must also be found at virtually all elevations. THAT would be evidence.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

Hmmm, you meant that the diatoms have not mixed in with the soil after laying around for 10,000 years? That doesn't sound very good to me.

---

They are mixed in the top soil, they are not found deeper down in deep sub soil or in deep sedimentary rock formations that the YECs would have us believe were created in the flood. The limited locations that marine traces of the flood are found at, conclusively disproves YEC flood theories.--WmScott

Dear Percy;

quote:

---

A trace surface deposit that lies undisturbed for 10,000 years? Nobody ever walked there? Nothing ever grew there? No flood ever washed over it? No earthworms disturbed the soil? Animals never roamed there?

---

They are mixed in the top soil, they are not found deeper down in deep sub soil or in deep sedimentary rock formations that the YECs would have us believe were created in the flood. The limited locations marine traces of the flood are found at, conclusively disproves YEC flood theories.

quote:

---

To everyone else the pattern indicates recent import by eolian means.

---

The authors of that very nice article you posted earlier disagree with you. According to them, experts in the field, the sizes of diatoms I have found are too large for eolian transport. Perhaps you will need to define who you mean by "everyone else" since you are not referring the people who are knowledgeable in this area.

quote:

---

To disagree with you is to lie? Since you believe the article supports your views, a more productive approach than wasting your time with the ignorant liars here would be to contact the authors and describe your diatom findings in Wisconsin.

---

Lying is not disagreeing with me Percy, it is misstating the facts when you are aware you are doing it. Contacting the authors about my findings is a nice suggestion, but all we need to do is merely quote the article to see if it supports what I have been saying about sizes of eolian transport of diatoms. On page 5 the article states "empty valves of freshwater diatoms are common components in aerosol samples and can be transported around the globe, but these particles are typically

You seem to be forgetting that, as I have stated several times now, I not only don't accept your diatom IDs, I'm not even convinced you can tell diatoms from other forms of microscopic life. As I've also said several times now, when you draw conclusions from technical articles that seem at odds with the articles themselves I no longer try to argue with you. After all the time that has passed in this discussion I do not believe it is within my power to persuade you of anything, something I have also said before. All I said I would do is help you compose a paper by pointing out where I thought your evidence was weak or didn't support your arguments and so forth.I don't find your evidence persuasive, not even remotely. It doesn't even seem to me that you're on to something interesting or that needs investigating. You seem to believe that experienced geologists would be more receptive to your evidence, and that's why I suggest you present your evidence to those you believe more qualified to evaluate it. Why are your wasting your time trying to convince laymen when you believe genuine scientists would be more understanding and receptive, especially since you don't seem interested in accepting feedback from laymen?I believe you are seeing in that article (Glacial Transport of Diatoms in the Antarctic Sirius Group: Pliocene Refrigerator) what you want to see. Your excerpt refers to freshwater diatoms, not marine. Is there a difference in windborne distribution of marine versus freshwater? I don't know.Your excerpt also mentions that the authors don't believe eolian transport was a realistic possibility for particles greater than 100 um. How big are your diatoms? The pictures at Plate P4. say it's about 30 um for an Asterolampra marylandica and about 60 um for an Asteromphalus heptactis. And as I keep saying, I don't even accept your diatom identifications, or that they even *are* diatoms.So if you want to believe the article rules out eolian transport for whatever it is you think you have pictures of then I will not try to dissuade you. Your goal here should be to hone your evidence and arguments in preparation for presentation in a formal scientific setting, but rather than responding constructively to the feedback you instead argue that we don't know what we're talking about, or even worse, are lying. As I keep saying (I ought'a put that phrase on a hotkey), you should be asking yourself, "This is obvious to me, how do I go about making it obvious to others?" I don't think your current course is likely to provide an answer to this question.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
They are mixed in the top soil, they are not found deeper down in deep sub soil or in deep sedimentary rock formations that the YECs would have us believe were created in the flood. The limited locations that marine traces of the flood are found at, conclusively disproves YEC flood theories.

---

Well, let's see what you said:What I learned from those negative tests is that the marine diatoms occur as a trace surface deposit and are not mixed in the soil in general. Sounds to me like you are changing your story.By the way, YEC theory regarding the flood has already been disproven. The problem in front of you is that your theory is a long way from even having any support.

wmscottJust before we go on, can you remind me whether your flood covers the entire Earth? And if not what do you make of the Biblical description of the flood 'covering the highest mountains' and doing it for about a year?

wmscott I have had a quick look and there are dozens of verses describing the mountains quaking and the land being inundated but I'll agree that I can't prove a 'reshaping' Scriptually. But the Scripute is clear in Psalms (as well as Genesis of course) that the entire Earth was covered and if that didn't reshape the Earth then nothing would. I've been using Quickverse for about 15 years now wm! And the web is pretty handy too. At BibleGateway I can access about a dozen translations for free. If you want to take God's patterns to ridiculous extents feel free. Do you believe that the Passover lamb represented Christ? Did the Passover lamb ever teach parables? Of course the Passover lamb represented Christ but we do not need it to have taugh parables. Noah's flood representing the baptism of the Earth is quite reasonable given its birth out of waters and firey refinement in Rev 20-22. How do you know this regarding the Hermite? The so-called 'ground levels' of non-marine beds are so flat that they beg interpretation as huge flood deposits! I think you may have a misunderstading concerning the nature of the Hermite layers wm. They are simply fresh water beds primarily containing fern leaves! Have a look at the Mt St Helen's forests floating on Spirit lake. If you want to rule out the Scriptual timing on that basis that is your decision. Everything else about the Scriptual model is looking too good to rule it out as you do. Baumgardner et al even suggest that much of the heat was expelled through transport of water as superheated jets into space. This may even account for comets the existence of which are a mainstream problem with an artifical solution.The answers to the 'mysteries of the flood' may be far more encompassing than you think. Radioisotopes become the trigger of the flood rather than a method of dating for example. Comets are jets of steam that reached escape elocity. The floodgenerateed the geo-col and is the mother of all extinction level events. Etc, etc. I'm happy to go with the mainstream account of the origin of the waters (ie tectonically generated global sea-level changes). I simply allow for a 100% coverage rather than a 50% coverage of the land. There may have been localized regions devoid of radioisotopes and heating.For every one of your questions there may be an answer that emerges natrually from the model. Catastrophic spreading at rift valleys that traverse the globe over 40 days could generate global rain on a scale never witnessed before or since. You're just making unfounded statements wm! There are plenty of mixed marine/fresh water beds at the boundaries between fresh/marine as you would know. None of us expect instant rocks. We've had thousands of years for rocks to form. The flood didn't need to 'disolve' rock it carved out rock violently at the start of the flood as eveident at the PC/Cambrian layer, for example at Grand Canyon. There is evidence of incredible violence at this boundary. No it doesn't, the erosion from highlands and depositon into basins happens with each surge. Our surges correspond to the mainstream epeiric seas. It's all mainstream. The geo-col is simply a story of about 6 surges of alternating fresh and marine layering, mostly of the latter. Temporary habitation occurred in between surges as it did mainstream. Clearly you are now taking a particular, and non-standard, theological view of God's rest day. It doesn't say that in the Bible translation I have!Why don't you quote it and we'll look at it. Gen ch 2 is clearly a fill in of details for Gen ch 1! I take my direction from the Body of Christ, not science, my own thinking or even para-church creationist groups. The Body of Christ is the only context for revelation. Scripture clearly tells us to hear from outside of ourselves. I do my work in response to a genuine presbytry-calling. Para-church groups and individuals are doing very good work but they really need to come back under the authority of the church. There can be no other way. This is His way. The super-apostles Paul and Peter even submitted themselves to the Jerusalem presbytry.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-13-2003]

Dear Percy;

quote:

---

You seem to be forgetting that, as I have stated several times now, I not only don't accept your diatom IDs, I'm not even convinced you can tell diatoms from other forms of microscopic life.

---

Talk about forgetting, what about your identification of my Asterolampra Marylandica as Asteromphalus heptactis? You are really pulling a fast 180 here to backtrack! We both identified this particular item as a marine diatom, now due to the obvious implications, you are back peddling for all you are worth! This is quite humorous, still I have to ask, are you retracting your earlier identification, and if so, for what reasons? You seem to be tripping all over yourself.

quote:

---

Your excerpt refers to freshwater diatoms, not marine. Is there a difference in windborne distribution of marine versus freshwater? I don't know.

---

No, there is no difference in regard to wind lofting sizes, what matters is the size and shape of the diatom, not whether it lived in saltwater or freshwater. In terms of distribution, freshwater diatoms live in many small bodies of water far inland, which affords more opportunities for shorter distance transport. Marine diatoms being found only in saltwater, restricts them from most inland locations and makes their being found inland even less likely than freshwater diatoms. Thus the sizes stated may be still a bit on the optimistic size for marine diatoms since they generally would have much farther to travel.

quote:

---

How big are your diatoms?

---

Some are small, less than 25um, and some are well above 100um with some possibly above 200um in size.--WmScott

Dear Edge;As you should already know, soil can be quite deep, for example in Yosemite valley it is over 6,000 feet deep in places. Here in Wisconsin the soil can range from nothing to several hundred feet. So when I refer to a thin dusting of marine traces in the top layer of the soil, I am referring to the top soil. In glacial lakes the rate of accumulation of sediments is something like 2 feet per thousand years, since the flood occurred something like over 4,000 to perhaps over 10k, the flood sediment layer is expected to be found a number of feet down. So when I refer to the flood traces as being located in the surface or not mixed in the soil in general, I am referring to the fact that they are located in the top soil layer or the sediment layer that was exposed at the time that the flood occurred and are not dispersed through out the entire thickness of soil which would be the case if YEC was correct or if there was a continuous supply of marine diatoms such as if they were transported by wind.--WmScott

Dear Tranquility Base;Yes I believe that the flood waters covered the entire earth, but since I believe the flood was result of a sudden melting stage in the late ice age, I also believe that there were large ice sheets and glaciers floating in the flood waters. I allow for the possibility that some of the higher elevations may have had their covering of water in the form of ice. But ether way, flooding the entire earth does not require 'reshaping' the earth. The flood in most areas probably occurred as a steady rise in sealevel over a few months, the tide just basically just kept coming in and then went back out the same way.You use Quickverse! I picked up a copy of that once and took it right back off my computer, worst Bible program I ever came a cross, yecch! The "Bible Library" suite is pretty good with 14 Bibles and only costs 20 bucks. Yes BibleGateway is very nice, but I hate to send so much time on the web using it.On the flood baptizing the earth, my point was that it is somebody's interpretation, the Bible does not say that the planet was baptized by the deluge, it is not a biblical teaching. So one can not use this to try to prove anything since the Bible never states it and it is in conflict with basic biblical requirements for baptism. I will agree that the symbolism is nice, it makes a good illustration, but it is not a scriptural teaching and hence offers no support for YEC flood theories.On the trees and the former ground levels, I wasn't referring to the Hermite formation. I was referring to the other formations such as the Yellowstone one and others where this type of evidence has been found. You haven't explained how the trees can sink down and end up lined up with the different former surface layers. You also haven't explained why only the stumps are found, if the trees had sunk all at once, the trees would extend up through the surface layers above them, but they don't.

quote:

---

If you want to rule out the Scriptual timing on that basis that is your decision. Everything else about the Scriptual model is looking too good to rule it out as you do. Baumgardner et al even suggest that much of the heat was expelled through transport of water as superheated jets into space. This may even account for comets the existence of which are a mainstream problem with an artifical solution.

---

I am not ruling out scriptural timing, I am ruling out YEC flood theories. This is the biggest problem with YEC, wrapping it up in the Bible and claiming it is divinely inspired, when it is nothing more than a human interpretation. Cute but not a very bright idea on the heat expelling jets, for how do you expel the heat up out through the atmosphere without heating up the atmosphere itself? And if you expel all the heat out into space, you would have to expel all the hot water as well. You could have the now frozen water reenter the atmosphere, but the heat of reentry will still heat the atmosphere. The YEC flood theories heat problems are insolvable due to their requiring too much to happen in too short of a time.Creating comets by expelling water from the earth is crazy! The earth is far too small to account for the vast numbers of comets that are in our solar system. The earth is also located far too close to the sun to account for the vast cloud of comets far away from the sun. Where did the huge amount of energy come from that it would take to push the comets up the gravity well from earth out to the outer reaches of the solar system? Also how did those ejected comets end up in nice distance circular orbits? I also know of no problems with mainstream theories on the origin of comets, the theories are simple, well supported by evidence and very logical.

quote:

---

localized regions devoid of radioisotopes and heating

---

The amount of heating you are talking would unavoidably effect the entire earth. Our world wind patterns are created by the differences in temperature caused by uneven heating of the earth's surface. As the temperature difference is increased, the force that drives the wind and storms is increased, perhaps you have heard of how the increasing temperatures caused by the greenhouse effect is predicted to increase the number and severity of storms. Even the temperature differences proposed by the worst greenhouse models are nothing compared with the temperature differences you are proposing. Such extreme differences would have created winds of near supersonic speeds, storms of unearthly power, such massive movements of air would have rapidly spread your extreme high temperatures to all of the earth's surface and rendered this planet as nearly hostile to life as the planet Venus.

quote:

---

Catastrophic spreading at rift valleys that traverse the globe over 40 days could generate global rain on a scale never witnessed before or since. You're just making unfounded statements wm!

---

Me, making unfounded statements? I think you may have a rafter in your eye on this one. How would a spreading rift valley create rain? The water content of lava is very low, far less than one percent, so no matter how much YEC flood rifting is theorized it fails as a major source of water.

quote:

---

The flood didn't need to 'disolve' rock it carved out rock violently at the start of the flood as eveident at the PC/Cambrian layer, for example at Grand Canyon. There is evidence of incredible violence at this boundary.

---

No there is not. How did the flood violently carve out solid rock? Look at Niagara falls, since the end of the ice age it has cut it's way back into solid rock a few feet each year. Now Niagara limestone is not really a very hard rock, and here we have the water from all five of the great lakes pouring over these few small edges of limestone. Why isn't the rock beneath the falls 'violently carved out'? Here for thousands of years a truly enormous amount of water has been poured, and yet, none of the YEC effects has happened. And if the flood removed rock in large pieces, where did all the supposed flood sediments come from? The muds, the silts, the sands, where did they come from? Where are the huge piles of giant flood gravel?

quote:

---

Temporary habitation occurred in between surges as it did mainstream.

---

Mainstream theories have from hundreds to millions of years occurring between your 'surges.' Since the habitation involves many generations of animals, long term forest growth, the evidence only fits mainstream theories and is incompatible with YEC.I had stated "The creative days described in Genesis are not literal days as shown by the fact that we are still in the seventh day." to which you replied.

quote:

---

Clearly you are now taking a particular, and non-standard, theological view of God's rest day.

---

Actually this is probably accepted by the majority of christian religions including many who are YEC, you may want to check with your church leaders on this. Nearly all christian religions agree on this point since it is the goal of christianity to enter into God's rest day. The apostle Paul explains this point in Hebrews chapter 4. In chapter 3 he explained how due to their disobedience the unfaithful Jews who rebelled against God did not enter into God's rest day, in chapter 4 he explains how Christians can. If God's rest day, the seventh day, was only 24 hours long it would have ended long ago and it would not be possible for Christians to still enter into it.I had stated."Use of the term day in regard to creation is also shown to refer to long periods of time rather than actual literal days is shown by Genesis 2:4 where the six creative days are referred to as one day." To which you replied.

quote:

---

It doesn't say that in the Bible translation I have!
Why don't you quote it and we'll look at it. Gen ch 2 is clearly a fill in of details for Gen ch 1!

---

Here are seven Bibles that use the word 'day' in Genesis 2:4.
King James
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,-- American Standard
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.-- Revised Standard
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,-- Young's Bible
Genesis 2:4 These [are] births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens;-- Darby's Bible
Genesis 2:4 These are the histories of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens,-- Webster's Bible
Genesis 2:4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.--New World Translation
Genesis 2:4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.It is wise to look at more than one Bible translation, many use the word 'day' in this verse. In the Bible the word 'day' can refer to a literal day or a much long period of time, such as 'in our fore father's day' (2 Peter 3:4). Genesis 50:20 states that one day for God is as a 1,000 years and a 1,000 years as one day. Clearly God's days are not the same as our days. At John 8:56 Jesus referred to his time preaching on earth as a 'day'. At 2 Corinthians 6:1-2 Paul tells the Corinthians that they live in the day of salvation and not to miss it's purpose. At 2 Thessalonians 2:2 Paul warns the congregation not to be deceived that the 'day' of Jehovah or the last 'day' has not yet come. Frequently the Bible uses the word day to refer to a period of time much longer than a literal day. There is no scriptural support for interpreting the creative days as literal days.I am reading the book "Igneous Petrology" second edition by Alexander R. Mcbirney, on pages 186-188 the Bushveld complex in South Africa is described, it is a massive igneous intrusion, a huge mass of magma that came up and forced itself between the existing layers of rocks. Since the overlaying sediments that existed at the time were disturbed by this intrusion, you will probably say it happened around the time of the flood, yet my book states "its original thickness must have exceeded eight kilometers. The time required to crystallize this huge mass is thought to have been on the order of 200,000 years." Now contained in this complex is a unit know as the Merensky reef, which contains rich ores of platinum and gold. The only way these trace elements could be so concentrated in this unit is that the Bushveld intrusion cooled very slowly which allowed time for progressive crystallization and concentration to occur. Now under YEC there is no way this could have happened, if YEC were true the mineral wealth of South Africa would not exist. Hence each gold krugerrand is solid proof that YEC is wrong since under YEC it is impossible for them to exist.--WmScott.

WM 15 years ago it wasn't bad. I use both it and the web now. Thanks for the tip. To be completely logical, I agree. But IMO I think the interpretation jumps out of the Bible though. Have we established that the Yellowstone forests are sitting at 27 levels or is it simply an estimaton that there were approximately 27 gneerations of forest? I severely doubt that there are 27 neat ground levels. I would love to see the data on that. The Bible describes a 76 generation geneaogy from Adam to Christ in one chapter of the gospel of Luke. The jet mechanism is a heat transfer mechanism. The hottest water will be the water near the thousands of kilometres of rift valleys that gets transported into space. It is a biuzaree scenario but who would have ever predicted that there would be water ice objects periodically crossing our orbit. they are bizaree objects. The Ort cloud is just a construction of theorists trying to save the long-age model.And you know of the top of your head the volume of water in the observed comets? Remember we don't need to have the Ort storehouse of comets, we only need the onserved ones. The energy was from the heat of the rift valleys. We are talking the energy output of 550 million years of mainstream sea-floor spreading in a matter of months/years. Orbits are automatic once you escape Earth with insufficent energy to escape the solar system. Circularity per se? I don't know of the top of my head. Someone would have to study this propoerly. Except that there should be no comets in the mainstream scenario! The Ort cloud is like Gould's Puncutated Equilibrium. Agreed. If this is how God did it then he would have arranged it to enable survivability. See above. Catastrophic sea-foor spreading at rift valleys would undoubtedly generate huge jets of steam and rain. You guys can't have it both ways: 'You have too much energy output!' + 'How can you boil water for rain?' Mt St Helens demonstrated on an intermediate scale how solid rock can be carved out catastrophically. Rock would be broken up and sorted into components during transport. We see the geo-col as a snapshot of life. It is simply a mainstream assumption that it is a time series. You may be right about liberal Christianity. In Heb 4 Paul actaully says: There is another rest day. It is not the same one. You failed to quote the most commonly used translation. In the NIV it appears as: In the other translations it is clear that the meaning is not what you imply. In consecutive verses the Bible tells us it was 7 days and then 1. But the one is for 'the heavens and the Earth', not necessarily the filling out of it which took the rest of the creiton week. You come close to mocking Scripture. It is utterly clear what is meant in Gen 2:4. Agreed Agreed. I actually believe the creation week was 7000 years and that we are in the 2nd 'redemptive' week which is just about into it's 7th day which I believe will be the millenium of Revelations. This is not a standard view of course although it has been discussed from time to time in Christendom. I could give you a dozen reasons for this understadning of Heb 4, Rev and 2 Pet some other time. Yes this is hard to beleive in our scenario. Every scenario has 'hard to believe' aspects.