Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Mark, have you brought your objections to Walt Brown's 'theory' to his attention? You may have valid objections. If you think you do then debate him on it. I have engaged in numerous such debates with evolutionist websites. Just a thought.

---

May have valid objections? I assure you that they are valid and devastating. Walt Brown hasn't a clue as to geological processes. And Walt Brown is free to come here. Mark is debating YOU, JP. If you can't support your points, better concede the point and regroup.

quote:

---

mark24:
I have challenged YEC in this thread to bring forward unrefutable evidence of a flood of biblical proportions. This they have failed to do.

​

John Paul:
How do you know that there isn't any evidence for a Global Flood as depicted in the Bible? Really, what would use as a reference?

---

Umm, because there isn't any? What Mark is asking is for you to provide some. We would use sound, comprehensinve geological reasoning as a reference.

quote:

---

mark24:
It isn’t baseless, there is no evidence of tectonic activity moving continents at 45mph.

​

John Paul:
There is also no evidence to support that the very slow tectonic movements can cause the peaks of mountains to form. So I guess we are at an impasse.

---

Hunh? Sorry, but you are off base on this one. I suppose it is a coincidence that the relative motions of Asia and the Indian subcontinent are perfectly congruent with the uplift of the Himalayas, and that fault plane solutions confirm the uplift. I don't suppose that calcualtions of the timing of uplift and the deposition/erosion of river channels likewise supports the slow uplift of the Himalayas. No, JP, there is no impasse here, just complete deconstruction of your argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
ps Those ICR boys have no shame! I've got stuff that shows they completely deny plate tectonics ever occurred, now they are pretending they got there before science.

---

Heh, heh. If this keeps up they'll someday claim discovery of evolution! (Sorry about the irrelevant post, but I just couldn't resist).

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Over the top of Mt. Everest then? The volume of water would have been astronomical. Millions of cubic miles. Where did it come from? Where did it go? The polar ice-caps are not big enough. The atmosphere does not contain millions of cubic miles of water."

​

--I think I will have to emphesize as keenavin seems to like this very poor argument toward the Flood and Noah's Ark. I have never met anyone attempt to say that enough water was required to cover mount everest as it is today. According to Flood Theories, the mountainranges were created by the mechenism of plate tectonics which would have been going crazy during the Flood and many years afterwords.

---

And your evidence for this is?

quote:

---

And Actually we really only need to use about the same amount of water as there is today. All the water in the world could cover the earth 2 miles deep if land were equalized.

---

I am really curious as to what you do with the continental crust in this case. Where do the continents (geologically speaking) go?

quote:

---

"Using a bit of armchair maths, we can roughly calculate how much water would have been needed to cover the planet to the top of Mt. Everest:"

​

--Don't forget the imagination!

​

"Subtracting the first volume from the second gives approx. 4,493,361,000, or four thousand, five hundred million cubic kilometers of water!"

​

--We don't need that much water!

---

Oh yes you do! Answer my last question and then we shall see. By the way, I have asked creationists this before: why do we have ocean basins at all? None has given me an answer.

quote:

---

"With the Rising of the ocean level, the air pressure would have increased to a level that would turn ordinary gasses like Nitrogen and Oxygen into deadly poisons. When rain falls it also causes heat, when it evaporates, it takes some of that heat away ( That's why it is cooler after it rains ) With all the rain falling, the earth's temperature woudl have risen to nearly 6000 degrees. Good luck trying to survive that!"

​

--This sounds like Talk.Origins Material, 6000 degrees part reminds me of it atleast. And I thought I didn't need that much water!

---

Even Baumgardner thinks that this is a major detraction of the flood model. It has yet to be answered.

quote:

---

"How did the koalas and kangaroos get back to Australia?"
--They do what all cangaroo's do, they hop there!

---

Another substantial response......

quote:

---

"How did the giant tortoises get back to the Galapagos islands?"

​

--They trotted (or whatever they do) on dry land also, if you lower the sea level about 1000 feet all of the major continents are connected.

---

The Galapagos are islands, surrounded by deep ocean basin.

quote:

---

"This is an area that causes problems for Flood-theorists. They usually state that the dinosaur bones we find today are the remains of the dinosaurs that died during the Flood."

​

--I have never encountered a problem on questions of dinosaurs on the ark, their just big lizards. And yes the dinosaur bones we find in strata today were deposited during the flood.

---

Pretty amazing how they left footprints and fossils in the middle of a flood that also killed them! Yes, you've got a great theory!

quote:

---

"Also, if the fossil record was indeed created during the flood, then why do we consistently find that the lower down you go, the smaller the fossils become?"

​

--This is a huge question that we are currently debating, and no it is not without exception, I remember sources that say we find pollen grains in Cambrian or pre-Cambrian sediments, human skulls 212 million years old that even the smithsonain got bagged on.

---

All proven hoaxes or undocumented cases. If you want to bring up a specific example we could discuss its merits.

quote:

---

"What we actually find is the exact opposite, which directly contradicts this part of the Flood hypothesis and supports the evolutionary view."

​

--Overall we find this but it is not at all without exception. Infact the evolution view is in quite a bit of trouble with the fossil record and is getting worse with new discoveries over time.

---

Interesting statement. Can you back this up with actual peer-reviewed literature? I am unaware of such discoveries.

quote:

---

"If all the land animals died during the flood, we would expect the fossil record to be a hopelessly jumbled mess, with human bones being mixed up with dinosaur bones and Trilobites. What we actually find is a neatly layered set of strata that appear to be in chronological order, showing the evolutionary development from early, simple creatures up to modern, complex creatures. Also, creatures of approximately similar size, shape and weight should (according to the Creation theory) sink at about the same rate. Why aren't dog skeletons mixed in with Compsognathus? Why aren't elephants mixed in with Stegosaurus? Why isn't pollen mixed all the way through, instead of starting at the strata containing flowers? Could it be that they were not all alive at the same time?"

​

--The Fossil record defanantly would not be in a jumbled mess at all, infact I am not surprized at all to how we find the fossil record, and nor am I surprized for how much disorder is in its order, supporting the Flood theory. But I am surprized that we find human fossils at all as low as they are. Humans are very smart and would be able to avoid drowning for a long period of time.

---

In the words of one of our favorite creationist debaters this argument is effectively refuted by one word: "trees."......

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Even Baumgardner thinks that this is a major detraction of the flood model. It has yet to be answered."

​

--Disregarding the fact that it would be an argument from athority, whats the source, I'd like to see what he said.

---

This from TO:

quote:

---

Isaak: 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.

​

Baumgardner: Indeed I do believe a significant fraction of the volume of the oceans was boiled away during the catastrophe. But since the atmosphere can hold so little moisture, the water quickly returned as cool fresh water to the ocean surface. ...(emphasis added)

---

The question is how do you boil away a significant fraction of the ocean volume and not end up with ark soup? What do you think the heat of vaporization did to the atmosphere when you condense enough water to rain for 40 days?There is more, but I don't have time tonight. Maybe later.

Moving along to some of your other responses, starting with the Galapagos Islands:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
edge:
"The Galapagos are islands, surrounded by deep ocean basin."
TC:
--Actually after taking a good look at a oceanographic sea floor map you see a kind of mountain range underwater going toward the galopagose Islands.

---

My error. The Galapagos are part of minor mid-ocean ridges. However, if we look at the context of my statement, it was made in response to the following exchange:

quote:

---

"How did the giant tortoises get back to the Galapagos islands?"
TC:
--They trotted (or whatever they do) on dry land also, if you lower the sea level about 1000 feet all of the major continents are connected.

---

The fact is that the Galapagos are not part of a continent. Now, my bathymetry is not very precise and I don't really want to quibble over depths but most mid-ocean ridges are over 1000 feet in depth and the limited map I have shows that these ridges are between 1000 and 3000 feet in depth. Now if you are assuming that the tortoises traveled from some distant point on the globe where the ark landed and crossed several continents and several land bridges to get where they are without being completely predated and/or leaving behind any relict populations along the way, I have another land bridge you might be interested in buying. At the same time it is interesting that your scenario requires that you start with a flood, then it recedes to form land bridges and then we have to have another major transgression, all within an approximated 2000 year span of time. Not to mention how you are going to lose all of that water. Are you sure you don't want to revise your model just a bit?

quote:

---

"Pretty amazing how they left footprints and fossils in the middle of a flood that also killed them! Yes, you've got a great theory!"

​

--I don't see the problem with fossils, but the footprints have been interpereted to be from amphibians (ie they live in and out of water) such as salamanders.

---

Interesting salamanders you've got. Funny how they leave prints that look just like dinosaurs. By the way, have you ever tried to leave a footprint under water? Interesting also that dinosaurs would build nests and lay eggs in the middle of a flood.

quote:

---

The Flood wasn't one huge catastrophy happening within a couple minutes burring everythign at once, if it did then we would find over all a partial 'jumbled mess' But it happend in rapid jumps of deposits of sediments. Hours, weeks, or months could have passed within each deposit.

---

So thousands of feet of water just disappeared and then returned? I don't get your model here. I thought the land was submerged for about a year. Perhaps you could give us a description of how this "fluctuating" model worked. Actual examples in the geological record would be helpful.

quote:

---

"All proven hoaxes or undocumented cases. If you want to bring up a specific example we could discuss its merits."

​

http://www.edconrad.com
Click on the man as old as coal one, you should read all the pages, I found it interesting and we can discuss it if you like.

---

And you think that this rock looks like a humanoid skull? And those other logs or roots look like femurs? Sorry, but if you believe these, you will believe anything and there is nothing I can do for you. As to the big conspiracy to cover up discordant data, do you realize how hard it would be to perpetrate such a conspiracy among paleontologists and geologists? I suggest that you don't know many of them.

quote:

---

"Interesting statement. Can you back this up with actual peer-reviewed literature? I am unaware of such discoveries."
--In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24.   The Cambrian Explosion

---

Really, I hate to burst your bubble but CSC is hardly considered to be a credible reference. I looked at this last night and don't remember much, but I think it was Walt Brown. In that case, your argument is self refuted. Maybe some more on this later.

quote:

---

"In the words of one of our favorite creationist debaters this argument is effectively refuted by one word: "trees."

​

--What about these 'trees'? Apparently I find the way we find trees in the fossil record, coming not as a surprize, but is expected.

---

Okay then how did the flowering plants run to higher ground way ahead of dinosaurs for instance so that they would only occur in deposits younger than Jurassic (I think)?The flood model has been abandoned by mainstream science for nearly a century. It is simply not supported by the facts. Don't you think it is time for you to move on?

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 01-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
(I tried to post a reply for this one a couple times and it kept messing up)

​

"The question is how do you boil away a significant fraction of the ocean volume and not end up with ark soup? What do you think the heat of vaporization did to the atmosphere when you condense enough water to rain for 40 days?"

​

--I remember reading this post from I believe the true.origins archive. Baumgardner in no way exclamed this to be a significant blow if at all any blow to the model. In fact, it contributes to the cause of the ice age. You can boil away tons of water and have virtually nothing happen a hundred miles away, heat would not spread to that degree and equalize like that. And vapor would cool and possibly freeze by the time it gets anywhere near 10 miles into the atmosphere.

---

Here is more from Isaaks in Talk Origins. I'm sorry for the cut and paste job, but I want to emphasize some points.

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]

---

Basically, this model has a long way to go. However, since the biblical flood model has been abandoned, I'm not sure why anyone would want to do so.The thing you have to remember here is that Baumgardner is a geophysicist. These guys are great for determining the properties of the earth at depth, but some are extremely challenged when it comes to calibrating predictions with reality. I have a few stories that we needn't go into right now, but basically the numbers become reality to some people even thought they are based on wishful parameters. I think you derided someone earlier for using imagination in projecting something geological. If so, you should reject completely any of Baumgardner's modeling.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 01-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreopithecus:
Just finished reading this whole thread, and I thought I'd through my two cents worth in.

​

Seems everyone missed this comment by TrueCreation

​

1. What time period are we talking?
If you mean to imply what geologic time period like triassic, jurrasic, etc then I would have to say every time period, but If you are just asking how long ago it happend then I would have to say about 4,500 years ago.

​

Now as an Archaeology student, I find this strange considering 2500 BCE is smack dab in the middle of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the Early Dynastic II period in Sumeria. I would love to know during the reign of which the Flood happened. pharoahhttp://touregypt.net/kings.htm

​

(Hint: there are still records from the 1st and 2nd Intermediate periods, so don't go choosing that one to quickly)

---

This is an excellent point. Creationists like to point out the pervasiveness of the flood story through many cultures, but it is conspicuously absent in the more advanced cultures of the target time. My suggestion is that the Egyptians knew and understood floods and also understood that the world extended beyond their river valley. This is one of the places where creationists have to bend the facts a bit to match their legend.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorenzo7:
Ohhhh I am so glad you said that. As a creationist and a Flood supporter I beg to differ.
Please explain the shell fossils found high up in mountain ranges. The only thing that could have put them up there is alot of water. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that someone put the fossils up there and buried them for others to find. Please explain the uniform current shifts in the sediments found all around the world. ... Wow if i didn't know better I'd say that you all can't show that a Flood didn't happen.

---

Well, I read a newpaper article this morning saying that a rockfall that killed a boy on the interstate was an "act of god." I guess that pretty much explains it to most people. Yep, those fossils are up there because goddidit. No more to be said. Can't make the highway safer. Can't explain those fossils. Yeah, right!If you bothered to learn a little bit about plate teconics and earth properties, half of you questions about an old earth and the lack of a biblical flood would be answered. Of course some of us did this the hard way. We took the college courses. If we had known that you could learn geology be reading some websites we could have saved a lot of time and money. [/cynicism]Regards...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"The fact is that the Galapagos are not part of a continent."
--I would agree today, but would you consider the Florida Keys part of the North American Continent? Whether you do or don't it doesn't make relevance, though that is slightly simmilar to what we would see after the flood (not exactly, it would have been connected).

---

Considering that the Florida Keys are on the North American continental shelf, yes.

quote:

---

"Now, my bathymetry is not very precise and I don't really want to quibble over depths but most mid-ocean ridges are over 1000 feet in depth and the limited map I have shows that these ridges are between 1000 and 3000 feet in depth."
--My Flaw in my reading of the scale. I would allow 1000-3000 (meters), my mind isn't the most reliable . Here is a good screenshot of an Ocean and Continental Floor depth and elevation topography map.

---

Oh, are you sure it wasn't 4,000 feet? Or maybe 5,000? Are you sure you aren't making this up as you go?

quote:

---

--The galopagose islands would have been an attachment to central america and you would have somewhat of a river flowing threw the channel dividing depth from South America.

---

Sounds like an unsupported assertion to me. Do you have anything to back this up? Do you realize that there is a deep sea trench between the Galapagos and both mainland bodies?

quote:

---

"Now if you are assuming that the tortoises traveled from some distant point on the globe where the ark landed and crossed several continents and several land bridges to get where they are without being completely predated and/or leaving behind any relict populations along the way, I have another land bridge you might be interested in buying."
--What kind of relic would you expect to find? Millions of buffalo were killed off by indians and then by white man in which white sport hunters left almost all of the flesh and keeping the tounge. Go there today and you will find virtualy no evidence of the massacre.

---

No just a lot of Native Ameican arfifacts using bison bones, skins, etc.

quote:

---

...Not to mention how you are going to lose all of that water. Are you sure you don't want to revise your model just a bit?"
--Ofcourse I stand completely aware that it could encounter slight revision, though I don't think it will be drastically altered. An effect of magmatic activity in many areas in the earth massive amounts of water would evaporate and when drifting toward the poles would fall and freeze to encounter the ice age. We all know there was at least one ice age, though it is another post to discuss how many and what the evidence is, this was the cause of the Flood. And since then it has receded to what we see today (still alot of ice!). What do you mean by loosing water?

---

I mean: where did it go?

quote:

---

Realatively the same amount of water is being used throughout the Flood Theory.

---

What do you mean "relatively" the same amount?

quote:

---

"Interesting salamanders you've got. Funny how they leave prints that look just like dinosaurs. By the way, have you ever tried to leave a footprint under water? Interesting also that dinosaurs would build nests and lay eggs in the middle of a flood."
--Reptiles are also partly aquatic, many lizards swim threoughout water (Dinosaurs were just overgrown unique lizards from long lived lives, reptiles don't stop growing) Also Leviathan as told in the Bible (I freely admit assuming it could be a dinosaur) breathed fire per se and was a absolutely massive ferocious lizard that was untamable and swam in the depths of the waters. I could leave footprints under water easy as long as it is muddy and I was balanced enough or my body weight very much compaired to the volume of air in my lungs that would overcome floating and thus causing preasure to make the print, also it is possible that water was not massivly deep in this time period as we know that most all the sedimentary layers were deposited in 40 days plus a couple weeks during the active periods in the Flood deposition, also land was reletively equalized, there weren't any mountains, it was all terrain like the State of Florida with elevations of about 300ft at the heighest at the stress point of the flood before it started receding.

---

I think I'll just let this nonsense speak for itself. Do you have any idea how silly it sounds?

quote:

---

"So thousands of feet of water just disappeared and then returned? I don't get your model here. I thought the land was submerged for about a year. Perhaps you could give us a description of how this "fluctuating" model worked. Actual examples in the geological record would be helpful."
--I'll try to give a breif explination as my theory on the simplistic basics of the Flood fundimentals.

---

No, no. I've had enough of simplistic models. Give me references. Give me data and details.

quote:

---

Let us pretend that the 'periods' in the geologic column represent each mass deposit, this may give great difficulties for the Flood to explain but for the sake of simplistic explination lets pretend that these were the deposits. Cambrian would have been the first deposit, as the Fountains of the deep broke loose and killed all these microbes and caused slightly a small amount of water to come with the magma in the earths crust, though nothing to be made relevant. Now all these animals around are going crazy and they don't know whats going on but the flood isn't even puddles to them yet, now these would probley be small catastrophe's and then lets skip up to the 'Permian, Triassic, andJurrasic periods' and whatnot and now theres these rapid sea level rises comeing in and forcing them to start fleeing for their lives, find high ground from flooding. Now all the less intelligent or slow animals are going to get caught and their gonna die and some will be burried from the large sediment deposits coming in from flood sweeping the land and kicking up dirt sending it for roller coaster rides over miles of land to be high in some areas and lower in other areas. currents would kick up sediments and much more would be deposited on the continents than on sea floors. This continues and more verieties of animals die from different obsicles that they face that they can survive or not from. It is difficult to say exactly what my personal conclusive view would be on for the existence of ice caps before the Flood, but I would speculate that there were ice caps before the flood that would have broken up and melted from heat and then frozen again from its polar position over time after the Flood. What exactly would you mean by Fluctuating model?

---

Yeah, let's just skip the Permian, Triassic, Jurassic and the rest...Now if slower organisms were going to be covered by the flood and buried first, why are flowering plants only found in the latest part of the geological record? Were they more intelligent and faster than dinosaurs for instance? And what is this about killing off all of the microbes? I'm sorry but your model is gibberish.

quote:

---

"And you think that this rock looks like a humanoid skull?"
--I thought the same untill I read further.

---

Then you understand the power of suggestion.

quote:

---

"And those other logs or roots look like femurs?"
--I beleive that this is another article, and this 'rock' wasn't a 'rock' and is evident that it is actual bone.

---

That cannot be inferred from the article.

quote:

---

"Sorry, but if you believe these, you will believe anything and there is nothing I can do for you. As to the big conspiracy to cover up discordant data, do you realize how hard it would be to perpetrate such a conspiracy among paleontologists and geologists?"
--Is there not reason to believe that this is not bone? You can't really refute anything by saying, well it isn't a bone, its a rock, look at it, its a rock. I could simply say anything such in this nature and would get nothing but critisizm from you for the same assertions. I see how hard it would be to perpetrate such a conspiracy, this is why these papers are real, do you believe these faxes/letters were frauds?

---

The lack of scientific description is suspicious. I respectfully suggest that I have seem more geologica frauds than you. And, oh yes, there have been very nice letters connected with them.

quote:

---

"Really, I hate to burst your bubble but CSC is hardly considered to be a credible reference."
--For one, why so, they have a brain just as compadible with reality as we all do. Second, it isn't really CSC reference, it is their source, the page is theirs, but their sources arent.

---

Right. I stand by my assessment.

quote:

---

"I looked at this last night and don't remember much, but I think it was Walt Brown. In that case, your argument is self refuted. Maybe some more on this later."
--There really isn't anything such as a 'self refutation' from an assertion of it being the relevance of an individual. I would like some more on this, this does not excuse the relevance of these findings.

---

It is just a joke. Walt Brown has been refuted so many times that I consider anything he writes to be erroneous before I read it.

quote:

---

"Okay then how did the flowering plants run to higher ground way ahead of dinosaurs for instance so that they would only occur in deposits younger than Jurassic (I think)?"
--The existence of pollen grains shows that they were existing in pre-cambrian time, this is relevant until it can be refuted by logic, not by methodology.

---

This has been adequately refuted also. Pollen grains in the Hakatai shale are exactly the same as those falling on the ground today. They are found only in cracks and open spaces. They are contamination permitted by sloppy sampling, probably by a creationist.

quote:

---

"The flood model has been abandoned by mainstream science for nearly a century. It is simply not supported by the facts. Don't you think it is time for you to move on?"
--I would have to abandon it if it was not supported by the facts, I find the contrary. I think that when I move on, there will be good reason.

---

I'm sure it will be good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Oh, are you sure it wasn't 4,000 feet? Or maybe 5,000? Are you sure you aren't making this up as you go?"
--Tell you the truth, I was in your shoes, I would suspect the same from myself. Though in truth, it was about the depth of the continental shelf, which is deeper than 1000ft, which is what my memory told me.

---

I think you are deep enough here. I rest my case. Your explanation is an ad hoc theory that makes little sense when viewed with all of the data.

quote:

---

"No just a lot of Native Ameican arfifacts using bison bones, skins, etc."
--I didn't read the first question right, so let me just emphesize that the ark wasn't going anywhere, landing in the Middle east region, assuming the bible is right, landing in the mountains of Arrarat. Also something to consider is that Before the Flood there wasn't the killing of animals as we were all vegetarian. And in response to the comment, the reason is because they were preserved by the people, not left to decay and rot.

---

Egad, you really believe this, don't you?

quote:

---

"I mean: where did it go?"
--a majority of it is still in the pollar regions, some of it is out in space as is shown by water vapor floating around, though this could also be explained by comets or other sources, but the rest is right where it is now, the ocean basins sank and mountains were uplifted and as it is told in the bible God changed the earths topography so that it would never again return to flood the earth, God's promise.

---

Perhaps you can answer my question then since you know so much about the ocean basins. Why do we even have ocean basins?

quote:

---

"No, no. I've had enough of simplistic models. Give me references. Give me data and details."
--Entire books and series of books are written on the subject, and like evolution there are different theories, I am not ready for a massive post of a couple hundred thousand words to explain to you the details, I think you would agree that starting and going threw the subject throuroughly, smoothly and in small quantities is much more effective for the discussion. Pick an area to start and we can work our way through.

---

Wrong. You are the one who says there are books written about this stuff. Assume that I have never seen one. What is your best piece of data supporting a young earth and/or a flood.

quote:

---

"Yeah, let's just skip the Permian, Triassic, Jurassic and the rest..."
--I can't write you a book, your question was very vague and non specific.

---

So, you wish to ignore wide tracts of the geological record? Give us something to talk about. Enough arm waving.

quote:

---

"Now if slower organisms were going to be covered by the flood and buried first, why are flowering plants only found in the latest part of the geological record?"
--Pollen grains are found in early strata and untill you can refute that with reason it remains valid.

---

You are the one saying that they exist. Seems that it's up to you to produce the data. Funny how we find all kinds of branches, roots, stems and leaves in Mz/Cz rocks but only pollen in the Precambrian shale... How do you explain that?

quote:

---

"That cannot be inferred from the article."
--Sertainly can, why can't it? Did you read it all, and where did the femurs come from?

---

You don't get it. They are NOT femurs.

quote:

---

"It is just a joke. Walt Brown has been refuted so many times that I consider anything he writes to be erroneous before I read it."
--Reference..Tell you the truth, I have found very little refutation of his work, accept for his Hydroplate theory (I believe this is Walt Brown's theory).

---

Good. Then you know how silly it is.

quote:

---

"This has been adequately refuted also. Pollen grains in the Hakatai shale are exactly the same as those falling on the ground today. They are found only in cracks and open spaces. They are contamination permitted by sloppy sampling, probably by a creationist."
--Whats the reference? Also, how far did you have to dig to find these pollen grains in the cracks? Also, being they are the same ones falling down today would be expected. Whats the source of your claim, I'd like to read it anyways.

---

The point is that they didn't dig very deep. Don't have the ref any more. Someone named Chadwick, I think. Maybe someone here has it. Doesn't matter anymore. Creationists have rebutted it all after the fact, saying oh yeah, forgot to tell you, we did that! Of course it's never been done again...

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 01-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"lithification of the Grand Canyon."

​

--When Mt. Saint Helens erupted, it created a still massive miniature Canyon 1/40 the size of the Grand Canyon. Producing enormously tall vertical canyons of strata created by that one catastrophe. Still standing there today and slowely becoming even more like the Grand canyon today through erosion. That little stream flowing at the bottom of it is not what created the canyon as is known from Mt. Saint Helens.

---

Now there is a valid comparison! Fresh, unconsolidated pyroclastic flows on the flank of a stratovolcano with continental shelf sediments on a passive tectonic margin. TC, do you get the least impression that these settings are just a little bit different?

quote:

---

"This evidence included striae on rocks and some huge boulders deposited far from their place of origin. By the mid-1800's, many scientists believed that the evidence resulted from the movement of glaciers that had covered vast areas of Europe and North America. By the late 1800's, researchers concluded that certain moraines and other material left behind by glaciers in North America resulted from four ice ages. They named these ages the Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoian, and Wisconsin."

​

--Now they are talking about 4 ice ages and how 'recearchers concluded', but by what evidence to they conclude this from? Boulders being moved from their place of origin is evidence of an ice age...period, not millions of years, not multiple ice ages, or anything like that, they lack the specifics.

---

TC complaining about lack of specifics? This from a person who wants to just ignore the Permian, Triassic, Jurassic and such. Hmm, I'll have to think about that. Anyway there are a large number of ways to determine relative ages of glacial or other types of deposits. If you doubt me I'll get into more detail. However, suffice it to say that geologists have actually thought about these things.

quote:

---

"The researchers concluded that the times of sediment build-up were interglacial periods."

​

--There they go again, right into what the researchers concluded, from this rather vague presentation of this 'evidence'.

---

How do you know this? Did you read the literature?

quote:

---

"There is more evidence at the site given."

​

--From my readings of the article, it simply continues on assuming evolution happend and making vague statements regarding this evidence that they don't even talk about.

---

You have the advantage of me here. I thought this as about ice ages not evolution......

quote:

---

"You cannot supply a mechanism that explains the deposition of the fossils."

​

--I do believe I can, as fossil succession is dependent an many variables and factors, not just hydrologic sorting, and habitat.

---

Then please do so.

quote:

---

...(various details from the fossil record)...

​

Ammonites. There are three different orders, alike in size & outward appearance, but appear in different rocks (slight overlap). The last appeared in the Cretaceous. Again, they ALL float, so why the early deposition?"

​

--G whiz, I respect this but I think it is a little much all at once wouldn't you say? Too much information to comment on in just one post, even you would agree I would hope. Pick some so we can start somewhere, this is a little much.

---

You said you wanted data, specifics. Now you don't want them? How about just addressing one of these specifics?...

quote:

---

"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.

---

I reiterate an earlier question. Why do people (creationists only, it seems) find pollen in the Hakatai Shale but no other fossils of flowering plants? Leaves, roots, branches and stems are common in the younger fossil record. Why can't "evolutionary" scientists find the same pollen in the Hakatai Shale? Surely someone would expose this evolutionist fraud.

quote:

---

"What you need is a coherent model that can be applied anywhere, without contradiction. I put it to you that such a thing cannot exist without contradiction. Ergo, the fossils were not deposited in the biblical flood scenario."

​

--It seems there is an abundance of variables and factors that would contribute, and shouldn't be ignored.

---

But this is EXACTLY what you do. You ignore the molluscs, the ammonites, the flowering plant fossils, the Permian, Triassic, and Jurassic periods.

quote:

---

"I get 6 miles from Everest being (nearly) 6 miles above sea level. I have shown with seafloor spreading that nothing catastrophic occurred from a plate tectonic point of view. Everest was roughly the same height 4,500 years ago. "

​

--Everest along with the Himalayas was a little hill during the flood. These extra miles are not needed, as we can use the same amount of water as is in the oceans today.

---

So Mt. Everest rose to some 30,000 feet in elevation in 2500 years or less? Do you have some evidence for this?

quote:

---

"Evidence of world geography in that day pls."
--It would be as if you highered ocean basins and lowered mountain ranges, what contredicts it.

---

How do you do this? Explain it geologically.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I think what you might be missing is that though uplift is a well known and widely accepted geologic process, it cannot be invoked merely because it's convenient to your point of view. Edge is asking for the evidence of radical unprecedented uplift of the Himalayas in the last 5000 years.

---

Yes, this is my main point. Where is your evidence and why ignore so much of the other data pertinent to the discussion?And indeed, we can't just go uplifting continents and downdropping ocean basins. There are reasons that the continents are high and reasons why the ocean basins are low. And they always have been.Also I'd like to point out that the uplift of the Himalayas would have had to occur between 4500 years ago and probably about 2000 years ago because we have no (that's NO) record of them ever being low. Now, is it just a coincidence that the Himalayas would stop rising just at the same time that we began observing them? And is it just a coincidence that the relative rate of motion between the Indian and Asian plates is concordant with the present known uplift of the Himalayas? We know the rate that the Himalayas are risig now. Why would it have to be different in the past other than to fit the creationist fable?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
edge: "And indeed, we can't just go uplifting continents and downdropping ocean basins. There are reasons that the continents are high and reasons why the ocean basins are low. And they always have been."

​

--So you deny that uplift occurs, and that it has always been the same elevation?

---

Not at all, you just can't do it at a whim....

quote:

---

edge: "Now, is it just a coincidence that the Himalayas would stop rising just at the same time that we began observing them?"

​

--But they didn't stop rising, they still are, slowely though and we have only obtained accurate measurements for about 10 years.

---

Okay, okay, I was exagerrating. However, the abrupt change in uplift would be akin to slamming on the brakes....

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Not at all, you just can't do it at a whim.

​

Okay, okay, I was exagerrating. However, the abrupt change in uplift would be akin to slamming on the brakes."
--Analogy - It would be simmilar to the way a stress ball works, squeeze it as hard as you can and let it go, it quickly returns to its normal state but it slows down and goes very slowely to returning to its normal details, as it takes about a second for it to return to close to its normal diameter and it slows as it again reveals its details over many seconds and possibly a minute. This is simmilar to what we are seeing in the uplift rates today, it has probley been moving at this rate we see it at today (if it is moving at all of course) for hundreds of years.

---

However, we know that the stresses are still working on your ball and there is not reason to think that they have been released since the convergence of Indian and Asian plates began. Unless you have some other data, that is...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--You guy's must be purposely tryin to discourage me or something, its quite hard to answer 30+ posts directed toward my literature each day, though very intersting and a quick availability to the evolutionists mind. I'll get to them.

---

Well, you provide so many targets...