Global Flood

[otseng]

One of the significant parts of the Creation Model (CM) is that a world-wide flood occurred. This flood covered the entire world. Naturally, many questions arise out of this:

How can a world-wide flood feasibly happen?
Where did all the water come from?
Where did all the water go?
What significance does it have on the CM?
What evidence are there of a global flood?

[fried beef sandwich]

<otseng calculates the earth's population>

Being that I'm not a math major, I'd welcome anybody to check my math.

You're certainly on the right track with the population growth rate equation (PGRE), but as I understand it, there are a few problems with your application of the eq'n (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

IIRC, the PGRE is only accurate when you have:
(1) Unlimited resources for continual exponential growth
(2) No deaths (PGRE does not take into account death rates)
(3) All organisms are capable of reproducing
(4) Organisms are fertile right off the bat (no lag).

The only place in the world that you can use the PGRE with accuracy is in the laboratory, where you keep feeding the bacteria with agar or sucrose solution, or you're always transferring the mice to new cages to prevent crowding. Thus, the PGRE is only good for theoretical what-if calculations.

Real-world populations, when given a fresh new start, always tend to level off (in the absence of a predator-prey relationships). This levelling off effect is due to the members of the species competing with each other for food, space, mates, etc. As far as the human population is concerned, our exponential growth can be directly attributed to advances in technology that make food acquisition more energy efficient (agriculture, etc) and, most recently, advances in public health, sanitation, and scientific medicine that allow us to increase our average life span.

Even if we take the post-flood environment as a "Fresh Start", my biggest objection to the FM is that -- if we take it as a literal description of the Bible and an actual historical event -- after the flood, the entire ecosystem of the earth was devastated (covered by water, dontcha know)

There is no way that the population of the earth would have recovered, both human and non-human. You can't rebuild an ecosystem with only two of each kind of animal. In any stable biosystem, the number of prey always outstrips the number of predators. This is because predators have to actually hunt for their food, and there's always a chance (and a high one at that) that their prey will get away, or that other animals will steal the kill (think leopards and cheetahs), or what not. That's why there are so many more zebras and gazelles than lions and tigers.

Even if you started off with 2 of each kind, there would not be enough foliage to support a stable food supply for the herbivores in a post-flood environment.

If the animals didn't eat each other on the boat, they most certainly did afterwards (especially after God established predator/prey relationships).

Also keep in mind that some animals occupy very specific niches and have very specific requirements for survival...

[otseng]

So this guy is a mechanical engineer who teaches math and CS? I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt that he's qualified to speak on matters of geophysics, geology, etc.

If you see a problem (whether it's logic or geophysics or geology) with the hydroplate theory itself, then you can point them out. However, to question the person who presents information is a logical fallacy. This is called an ad hominem argument.

People believe that the identity of the speaker is important because they think they must be watchful for bias or hypocrisy. This is incorrect, in the context of evaluating arguments. It is true that bias can cause people to be dishonest, and you should be concerned about bias when you evaluate whether or not to believe a person's reports of fact. However, this is still irrelevant to an argument, because the premises are either true or untrue on their own merits. If you decide not to believe a biased speaker, it essentially means that you refuse to evaluate an argument that contains the questionable statement as a premise. It is no criticism of the argument that you are skeptical of the reliability of its premises. In order to refute the argument, you need to prove that one of the premises is false.

If he wasn't poached, he was steamed. If the water "lost a lot of its energy during the rupture phase of the flood," that energy has to go somewhere, and that means kinetic energy and heat.

Yes, the energy had to go somewhere. I'll explain more about where the energy went when I explain what happened during the flood.

Have you been to Yellowstone National Park to look at their hot springs and geysers?

Actually, I have. It's quite a remarkable place to visit. I have some pictures from my trip in my photo album.

IIRC, the PGRE is only accurate when you have:
(1) Unlimited resources for continual exponential growth
(2) No deaths (PGRE does not take into account death rates)
(3) All organisms are capable of reproducing
(4) Organisms are fertile right off the bat (no lag).

Real-world populations, when given a fresh new start, always tend to level off (in the absence of a predator-prey relationships). This levelling off effect is due to the members of the species competing with each other for food, space, mates, etc.

Looking at this graph, we see that the exponential growth has not started to level off yet. Perhaps around year 2025 will it start to level off.

The way that I used the PGRE was to go back in time. So what it assumes is that the rate of growth (including deaths) is constant. Of course, this is not true, so that is why I used several different computed rates to determine a range of values.

I think we can safely assume points 3 and 4 to be true with the people who stepped off the ark.

The only place in the world that you can use the PGRE with accuracy is in the laboratory, where you keep feeding the bacteria with agar or sucrose solution, or you're always transferring the mice to new cages to prevent crowding. Thus, the PGRE is only good for theoretical what-if calculations.

I'm not using the PGRE to accurately determine values. I agree that to get accurate numbers, everything must be in a controlled environment. However, I'm using the PGRE to estimate values. If there is a better equation to use, please let me know.

[otseng]

Another indirect evidence of the date of the flood is the origin of written languages (and oldest civilizations). All written languages came about after 3500 BC. Here is interesting timeline of ancient languages - Ancient Scripts.

[fried beef sandwich]

If you see a problem (whether it's logic or geophysics or geology) with the hydroplate theory itself, then you can point them out. However, to question the person who presents information is a logical fallacy. This is called an ad hominem argument.

I was not attacking you. I was questioning your claim that Walt Brown is an authority on geological matters. And with all due respect, there is only one occasion when ad hominem is an acceptable argument, and that is in response to another logical fallacy, an an argument from authority.

Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument. For instance, the argument may depend on its presenter's claim that he's an expert. (That is, there is an Argument From Authority.) Trial judges allow this category of attacks.

Otherwise, you and I can keep on throwing "experts" at each other that are immune to criticism and scrutiny. I stand by my claim: Walt Brown's PhD in Mechanical Engineering (a largely irrelevant field) does not make him an expert in geology, earth sciences, or petroleum engineering (the 3 fields most relevant to our discussion). They don't even cover the same classes.

As far as the problems with the hydroplate theory itself, I have pointed them out already.

Actually, I have. It's quite a remarkable place to visit. I have some pictures from my trip in my photo album.

Nice photos!

I'm not using the PGRE to accurately determine values. I agree that to get accurate numbers, everything must be in a controlled environment. However, I'm using the PGRE to estimate values. If there is a better equation to use, please let me know.

I can check into it for you.

[otseng]

I was not attacking you. I was questioning your claim that Walt Brown is an authority on geological matters. And with all due respect, there is only one occasion when ad hominem is an acceptable argument, and that is in response to another logical fallacy, an an argument from authority.

To clarify, I never suspected at any point that I was under attack.

My point is that debating about Walt Brown is pointless in this debate. I'm not saying that you have to rely on Walt Brown's "expertise" and take everything he says by his authority. What I ask is to analyze the FM based on the evidence for and against it.

Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument. For instance, the argument may depend on its presenter's claim that he's an expert. (That is, there is an Argument From Authority.) Trial judges allow this category of attacks.

However, I'm not presenting Walt Brown as an expert. I could just have easily not even mentioned his name and it should have made no difference in the debate.

Otherwise, you and I can keep on throwing "experts" at each other that are immune to criticism and scrutiny.

What we should throw at each other are evidences and logic. It's pointless to say, Mr Brainiac has three doctorates from Yale, Harvard, and Princeton, therefore everything he says is right. Or similarily, Mr Ignoramous didn't even graduate from college, so everything he says is suspect. The evidence should be able to speak for themselves.

I stand by my claim: Walt Brown's PhD in Mechanical Engineering (a largely irrelevant field) does not make him an expert in geology, earth sciences, or petroleum engineering (the 3 fields most relevant to our discussion). They don't even cover the same classes.

You can have whatever opinion on Walt Brown, but it does not invalidate the Flood Model. The only thing that can invalidate it are arguments against the model itself.

[fried beef sandwich]

Umm.... but you were the one who brought up WB's credentials in the first place b/c someone questioned his credibility...

Nevermind, back to the flood model:

It's clear you don't believe that the majority of the water came from the atmosphere: fine. But how do you respond to my other objections in the other link:

(1) that there is no evidence of a global catastrophic rupture of water from "subterranean chambers"

(2) Containing that volume of water in subterranean chambers would be well-nigh impossible. The water pressure buildup from the heat of the earth would have forced it out a long time ago.

[otseng]

(1) that there is no evidence of a global catastrophic rupture of water from "subterranean chambers"

OK, let's get into what happened during the flood and we can see the evidence.

We all know the idea that the land mass of Europe/Africa and the Americas were once one land mass. The commonly accepted idea is that plate tectonics broke up Pangaea over millions of years. There are many problems with this theory. But the most notable one is the existence of the mid-Atlantic ridge. It is the longest mountain range in the entire world. It spans from Iceland to Antarctica (46,000 miles).



Just looking at it, it is exactly halfway between Europe/Africa and Americas. And it looks like this is where the two split. Looking at this, it seems like the E/A and Americas were once joined at the mid-Atlantic ridge, then it got split apart.

This split occured during the flood. During the initial stage of the flood (rupture phase), the crust split along where the mid-Atlantic ridge is. During the split, the subterranean water gushed out of the crack and eroded the the soil/rock on both sides of the crack. Meanwhile, as water was coming out, the two sides slid away from each other.

The two land masses were not once connected where the beaches are now, but they were connected where the continental shelves are. This explains the origin of the continental shelves.



During the rupture phase as the subterranean water gushed out, the force of the water coming out eroded a lot of the soil/rocks and carried it high into the atmosphere and deposited it rapidly around the world. This destroyed the water canopy that had existed in the atmosphere. The pressure of the water gushing out would have formed the mid-Atlantic ridge.

[fried beef sandwich]

Just curious, how do you account for the other ridges and underwater mountain ranges besides the mid-atlantic ridge?

[perfessor]

Otseng, I'm going to wait until you have presented your full scenario before I weigh in with objections. But at some point, I'm going to hold your feet to the fire about non-biblical dating techniques. Yes, I know that the YEC's have objections to carbon dating - but is it any less reliable than, say, your hypothetical-laden population extrapolations?

[otseng]

Just curious, how do you account for the other ridges and underwater mountain ranges besides the mid-atlantic ridge?

Actually, practically all the underwater ridges were formed as a result of the crust splitting. So, where you see a mountain range, the crust cracked at that point. As the water gushed out of the cracks, the hydrodynamic forces formed a mountain range.

The major land mountain ranges were formed as the water under the crust diminished. While there was water, the crust was free to move since water has a low friction coefficient. But once the water was gone, the crust hit the basalt underneath. With the large friction coefficient, the crust started to buckle. The crust had a huge lateral momentum as it was sliding away from the mid-Oceanic ridge. The momentum caused the crust to form the Rockies, Appalachians, Andes, Himalayas, etc.

Notice that the major mountain ranges of the Americas (Rockies, Andes) run parallel to the western coastline. Why is that? It is consistent with what should happen if the entire land mass was moving westward, then abruptly stopped. Sort of like what happens when a car crashes into a wall. If a car runs into a brick wall, the front of the car would buckle up.