Was the Flood Literal? Osteng vs. Zzyzx One on One Debate

[Zzyzx]

Place any comments about our debate here.





.

[Zzyzx]

Osteng,

This is a bit apart from our debate topic, so I place it in the “comments” thread.

True science is willing, even eager, to change its ideas to incorporate new truths that are discovered through the study of nature of the real world we inhabit (though individual scientists or groups may temporarily attempt to maintain old positions in spite of new information).

Ideally that is true. But scientists are human also and some (perhaps most?) do not easily admit that their own ideas could be wrong. But, what we should go on is the empirical evidence and simply go where it leads. If the evidence points to concepts found in the Bible, I would hope that scientists would be open enough to entertain it.

I have personal experience in watching “the old being replaced with the new”, and actually watched the process occur in geology, geophysics, geography and related fields during the 1960s. The theory of “Continental Drift” (as it was then known) had been proposed fifty years earlier by Frank Taylor and Alfred Wegener – but was disregarded because no explanation could be supplied to account for the energy required to move continental masses.

While I was an undergraduate and graduate student, well over forty years ago, new geophysical studies suggested that convectional currents within the Earth were the energy source and that the continents were in motion. The motion centered upon the Mid Oceanic Ridges (discovered during and after WWII). With the advent of satellites it became possible to measure the rates and directions of movements. With computers it became possible to analyze the enormous amounts of data. The modernized concept with its mechanisms became known as Plate Tectonics.

My professors had been the “old school” types who dismissed Continental Drift and were not anxious to subscribe to Plate Tectonics. They preferred alternative theories. When I finished my Master’s degree, in an unusual situation (due to severe shortage of professors at the time), I was offered a faculty position in the department from which I had just graduated. My former professors became my colleagues.

I was “new school” and, in spite of what my professors had taught, I preferred Plate Tectonics to the earlier, more traditional, well accepted theories they were using. I brashly and defiantly taught Plate Tectonics in my classes. Though my colleagues disagreed, they did not attempt to censure my teaching. However, we had some heated debates about the relative merits of alternative theories. I was the “new kid” but I did not back down.

I watched very well respected professors change their thinking over a relatively short time – perhaps a couple or few years – to accept the new ideas. Some hated to admit that the brash youngster had been one of the first in our department to promote the new, better idea, but they all came around eventually – even the most traditional. I left that department to pursue further study elsewhere, and watched the entire field accept the new ideas once the mechanism of motion could be explained and the movements measured.

I cite all this to show that science does change, scientific theories change and scientists change when compelling new information is presented. I watched it happen -- in person. That is just one of the changes I have witnessed in the field – one of the larger ones.


Regarding, “If the evidence points to concepts found in the Bible, I would hope that scientists would be open enough to entertain it”:

The scientific method is totally independent of and impartial toward any ideology, religion included. Conclusions MUST be based on evidence and testing of information and ideas – no matter where that leads. If there was evidence of a worldwide flood, for instance, scientific study should find evidence WITHOUT caring where the evidence leads. Whether it agrees or disagrees with god theories makes absolutely no difference.

If it is “warped science” or “junk science”, there may be an agenda to seek evidence to “prove” a given concept (rather than seeking truth). This is NOT to say that it is invalid for an individual scientist to attempt to provide evidence to support a specific theory – BUT there should (and must) be others who argue against the theory and demand that claims be substantiated and that results be verified by independent investigation. If the claims cannot be verified and results not duplicated, the claims are discarded.

No scientific body has any claim on ultimate truth. All are subject to criticism, correction, modification, replacement, etc. The system of “checks and balances” works well as a guide to learning about the real world we inhabit.

Therein lies one of the great differences that I mention between science and religion. Religion claims to HAVE the answers and seeks only to PROVE its ideas and to resist the process of learning. With a claim to have ultimate answers, there is no “check and balance system” to discard ideas that do not work in the real world. Supposedly all answers are provided in the “supernatural world”, without any evidence that such a thing exists (other than biblical quotations, claims and unverified assertions).

[seventil]

Zzyzx,

I was hoping to hear more scientific insight (as it's your area of expertise) on the model that otseng presented.

I think your questions of where the original assumptions come from are valid, though.

Looking forward to see the responses from otseng. Interesting discussion so far, fellas, keep up the good work!

[Fisherking]

Otseng gives evidence post after post and it seems to be ignored while the opponent appears to only give opinions. I have yet to see anything "scienctific" from the side opposing the flood model -- or even address any of the evidence submitted for the flood model.

[upallnite]

I really like reading one on one debates. I hope to see more of them.

I think Otseng attempted a little bit of a landslide tactic. I could be wrong(he might have alot more left). It just looks like he put alot of things on the table without explaining how they happened.

I can't wait to find out where the water went after the flood.

Otseng,
As an example of the firmament have you ever thought of using other planets. Some of them never rain but have dense cloud structures. Just a thought.

[Goat]

Otseng gives evidence post after post and it seems to be ignored while the opponent appears to only give opinions. I have yet to see anything "scienctific" from the side opposing the flood model -- or even address any of the evidence submitted for the flood model.

You see, Otseng did NOT give evidence of his claims. He showed pretty pictures that describe what he believed might have occurred, but that is different that presenting evidence. A claim is not evidence. What is the physical remains that would show this model being presented has any validity? How were things dated? How do all the various pieces of erosion fit it?

Saying 'This is the way it was' , and drawing pictures is not evidence. What is being asked for is 'What is the physical evidence that confirms this model'. So far, none
of that has been forthcoming.

[Fisherking]

Otseng gives evidence post after post and it seems to be ignored while the opponent appears to only give opinions. I have yet to see anything "scienctific" from the side opposing the flood model -- or even address any of the evidence submitted for the flood model.

You see, Otseng did NOT give evidence of his claims. He showed pretty pictures that describe what he believed might have occurred, but that is different that presenting evidence. A claim is not evidence. What is the physical remains that would show this model being presented has any validity? How were things dated? How do all the various pieces of erosion fit it?

Saying 'This is the way it was' , and drawing pictures is not evidence. What is being asked for is 'What is the physical evidence that confirms this model'. So far, none
of that has been forthcoming.

Did you happen to read the thread after the opening "pictures"?

As to when, the atmosphere was different prior to the flood compared to now.

Quote:
• The temperature was more uniform and more tropical? When?

It was more tropical prior to the flood.

Warm climate life found in the Arctic region:

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF17/1773.html
Quote:
"About 49 million years ago, azolla grew all over the Arctic Basin," said Kate Moran, an oceanographer and engineer who visited Fairbanks recently. "It describes the Arctic Ocean at a time when it was warm and fresher than today."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 084253.htm
Quote:
"We were able to clarify that dinosaurs large predatory dinosaurs and a great variety of plants lived in the High Artic,"


Alaska was once warmer:

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF17/1737.html
Quote:
By examining fossil pollen, leaves, and wood, scientists have found that northern Alaska was a much warmer place at the time of the dinosaurs, possibly with average annual temperatures well above freezing, Fiorillo wrote.


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... 414B7FFE9F
Quote:
Seventy-five million to 70 million years ago, a group of hardy dinosaurs thrived in the harsh climate of what is now northern Alaska


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ai_3911436
Quote:
The 65-million-year-old bones of at least three dinosaur species and two prehistoric reptiles have been recovered from a site in the Alaskan tundra by a team of researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.

N latitude, fossils and other geologic evidence suggest that the site was a coastal swamp with a subtropical to temperate climate.


Greenland was once tropical:

http://ku-prism.org/polarscientist/lost ... Boston.htm
Quote:
Nn the midst of a land of everlasting ice they have been digging up fossil palms, tree ferns and other remains of tropical vegetation--a time when Greenland had a climate like that of Egypt today



Antarctic was once warmer:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02 ... index.html
Quote:
The 70 million-year-old fossils of the carnivore would have rested for millenniums at the bottom of an Antarctic sea, while remains of the 100-foot-long (30 meter) herbivore were found on the top of a mountain.

They would have lived in a different Antarctica -- one that was warm and wet,



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... a----.html
Quote:
Although the fossils were found at about 85 degrees South in the Transantarctic Mountains, about 500 kilometres from the South Pole, when the animals lived there the land was nearer 65 degrees South, about 1000 kilometres south of Cape Horn. Other dinosaur fossils have been found closer to the ancient poles. The presence of several different types of animal - including the first high-latitude pterosaur - suggests that climate in Antarctica during the mid-Jurassic was warmer than today.


http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/w709din.htm
Quote:
A geological expedition has unearthed what project leader Dr. Jim Martin of the Museum of Geology in South Dakota called ''huge deposits'' of dinosaur-age bones in the remote Vega Island, Seymour Island and Antarctica Peninsular areas.

It also shows that Antarctica was once much warmer than it is now.



Here are some supporting evidence that the flood occurred around 5000 years ago:

Oldest living things
Oldest living thing is the Bristle Cone Pine at 4,767 years old
http://sonic.net/bristlecone/

"The giant sequoia is the most massive tree in the world, with 30-foot diameter trunks not uncommon. They reach ages of over 3,000 years. The coast redwood is the tallest tree in the world, averaging about 300 feet high. The oldest known redwood lived to be 2,200 years old."
http://www.sos.ca.gov/museum/redwood.htm

Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls originated around 12,000 years ago
http://www.iaw.com/~falls/origins.html

Oil and gas under pressure
Since oil and gas are under enormous pressure, it is more likely that it has not been there a very long time.
http://www.geomore.com/Oil%20and%20Gas% ... essure.htm
"When the sandstone or limestone containing the oil or gas is penetrated by the drill bit, , the oil and gas can blast out of the well with great force."

Ancient civilizations
Ancient civilizations all arise around the 7000-2200 BC timeframe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization
Quote:

Mehrgarh 7000–3200 BC
Sumer 3500–2334 BC
Indus Valley and the Indian subcontinent 3200–1700 BC
Ancient Egypt 3200–343 BC
Elamite (Iran) (2700–539 BC)
China 2200 BC–present
Norte Chico 3000-1600 BC

Ancient Calendars
Ancient civilizations have their year 0 set to around 6000-3000 BC.

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-ancient.html
Egyptian calendar starts at 4236 BC

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-mayan.html
Mayan calendar starts around 3374 - 3114 BC

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0855470.html
Babylonian calendar starts at 3113 BC

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777385.html
"The year 2007 translates to the Jewish year 5767–5768"

http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/cal ... inese.html
"Chinese New Year in 2000 marks the beginning of the Chinese year 4637 or 4697."

Mitochondrial DNA
mtDNA point to origin of man 10,000 years ago
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html
Quote:
The three researchers went even further -- they estimated the age of the ancestor. To get the estimate, they made the assumption that the random mutations occurred at a steady rate. And since they now had an idea of how much the mtDNA had changed from the ancestor's, all they needed was the mutation rate to determine the age of the ancestor. For instance, if they took the mutation rate to be one in every 1,000 years and knew that there was a difference of 10 mutations between the mtDNA of people living today and the mtDNA of an ancestor who lived long ago, then they could infer that the ancestor lived 10,000 years ago.


Population Growth Equation
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =3171#3171
Quote:

The population in 2000 AD has been stated as 6.4 billion. In 1 AD, the population estimates vary from 150 million to 300 million. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use 200 million as the population at 1 AD.

The exponential growth rate equation is:

N(t) = N(0) * e ^ (r*t)

Where:
N(t) is the population after t time
N(0) is the initial populuation
r is the population growth rate
t is elapsed time

Solving for r, with:
N(t) = 6.4 x 10E9
N(0) = 2 x 10E8
t = 2000 years

r comes out to be 0.00173 (or 0.173%). So, this is the growth rate from 1 AD to 2000 AD.

How reasonable is this number? By comparing to population growth numbers of all the countries it certainly falls within acceptable range. Currently it varies from 7.77% (0.0777) on the top end to -3.55% (-0.0355) on the bottom. The calculated number roughly matches the growth rate of Finland at 0.15% (0.0015).

Also, this number factors in things that wiped out populations. (The Black Death killed between 25% to 50% of Europe.) So, r=.00173 would be considered the upper limit.

Solving for t, with:
N(t) = 2 x 10E8
N(0) = 8 (assuming 4 couples survived the flood)
r = 0.00173

t comes out to be 9846. So, using population growth rate from 1 AD to 2000 AD, the population could've started with 8 people in 9846 BC. Bear in mind that this is the upper limit.

Using this chart of world population number, I calculated the rates and applied them to determine the flood date.

N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=2.52E+09, end date=2000, start date=1950, t=50, r=0.018672553 --> Flood date=912 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=1.66E+09, end date=2000, start date=1900, t=100, r=0.013518929 --> Flood date=1260 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=1.27E+09, end date=2000, start date=1850, t=150, r=0.010808172 --> Flood date=1576 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=7.95E+08, end date=2000, start date=1750, t=250, r=0.008342845 --> Flood date=2041 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=5.00E+08, end date=2000, start date=1650, t=350, r=0.007284129 --> Flood date=2338 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=4.50E+08, end date=2000, start date=1200, t=800, r=0.003318507 --> Flood date=5133 BC

(I assumed N(0) = 8 and N(t) = 2 x 10E8 for the Flood date calculation)

So, using world population data and the population growth equation, it shows that the entire world was populated by 8 people between 9846 BC and 912 BC.

[Goat]

Otseng gives evidence post after post and it seems to be ignored while the opponent appears to only give opinions. I have yet to see anything "scienctific" from the side opposing the flood model -- or even address any of the evidence submitted for the flood model.

You see, Otseng did NOT give evidence of his claims. He showed pretty pictures that describe what he believed might have occurred, but that is different that presenting evidence. A claim is not evidence. What is the physical remains that would show this model being presented has any validity? How were things dated? How do all the various pieces of erosion fit it?

Saying 'This is the way it was' , and drawing pictures is not evidence. What is being asked for is 'What is the physical evidence that confirms this model'. So far, none
of that has been forthcoming.

Did you happen to read the thread after the opening "pictures"?

As to when, the atmosphere was different prior to the flood compared to now.

Quote:
• The temperature was more uniform and more tropical? When?

It was more tropical prior to the flood.

Warm climate life found in the Arctic region:

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF17/1773.html
Quote:
"About 49 million years ago, azolla grew all over the Arctic Basin," said Kate Moran, an oceanographer and engineer who visited Fairbanks recently. "It describes the Arctic Ocean at a time when it was warm and fresher than today."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 084253.htm
Quote:
"We were able to clarify that dinosaurs large predatory dinosaurs and a great variety of plants lived in the High Artic,"


Alaska was once warmer:

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF17/1737.html
Quote:
By examining fossil pollen, leaves, and wood, scientists have found that northern Alaska was a much warmer place at the time of the dinosaurs, possibly with average annual temperatures well above freezing, Fiorillo wrote.


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... 414B7FFE9F
Quote:
Seventy-five million to 70 million years ago, a group of hardy dinosaurs thrived in the harsh climate of what is now northern Alaska


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ai_3911436
Quote:
The 65-million-year-old bones of at least three dinosaur species and two prehistoric reptiles have been recovered from a site in the Alaskan tundra by a team of researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.

N latitude, fossils and other geologic evidence suggest that the site was a coastal swamp with a subtropical to temperate climate.


Greenland was once tropical:

http://ku-prism.org/polarscientist/lost ... Boston.htm
Quote:
Nn the midst of a land of everlasting ice they have been digging up fossil palms, tree ferns and other remains of tropical vegetation--a time when Greenland had a climate like that of Egypt today



Antarctic was once warmer:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02 ... index.html
Quote:
The 70 million-year-old fossils of the carnivore would have rested for millenniums at the bottom of an Antarctic sea, while remains of the 100-foot-long (30 meter) herbivore were found on the top of a mountain.

They would have lived in a different Antarctica -- one that was warm and wet,



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... a----.html
Quote:
Although the fossils were found at about 85 degrees South in the Transantarctic Mountains, about 500 kilometres from the South Pole, when the animals lived there the land was nearer 65 degrees South, about 1000 kilometres south of Cape Horn. Other dinosaur fossils have been found closer to the ancient poles. The presence of several different types of animal - including the first high-latitude pterosaur - suggests that climate in Antarctica during the mid-Jurassic was warmer than today.


http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/w709din.htm
Quote:
A geological expedition has unearthed what project leader Dr. Jim Martin of the Museum of Geology in South Dakota called ''huge deposits'' of dinosaur-age bones in the remote Vega Island, Seymour Island and Antarctica Peninsular areas.

It also shows that Antarctica was once much warmer than it is now.



Here are some supporting evidence that the flood occurred around 5000 years ago:

Oldest living things
Oldest living thing is the Bristle Cone Pine at 4,767 years old
http://sonic.net/bristlecone/

"The giant sequoia is the most massive tree in the world, with 30-foot diameter trunks not uncommon. They reach ages of over 3,000 years. The coast redwood is the tallest tree in the world, averaging about 300 feet high. The oldest known redwood lived to be 2,200 years old."
http://www.sos.ca.gov/museum/redwood.htm

Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls originated around 12,000 years ago
http://www.iaw.com/~falls/origins.html

Oil and gas under pressure
Since oil and gas are under enormous pressure, it is more likely that it has not been there a very long time.
http://www.geomore.com/Oil%20and%20Gas% ... essure.htm
"When the sandstone or limestone containing the oil or gas is penetrated by the drill bit, , the oil and gas can blast out of the well with great force."

Ancient civilizations
Ancient civilizations all arise around the 7000-2200 BC timeframe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization
Quote:

Mehrgarh 7000–3200 BC
Sumer 3500–2334 BC
Indus Valley and the Indian subcontinent 3200–1700 BC
Ancient Egypt 3200–343 BC
Elamite (Iran) (2700–539 BC)
China 2200 BC–present
Norte Chico 3000-1600 BC

Ancient Calendars
Ancient civilizations have their year 0 set to around 6000-3000 BC.

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-ancient.html
Egyptian calendar starts at 4236 BC

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-mayan.html
Mayan calendar starts around 3374 - 3114 BC

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0855470.html
Babylonian calendar starts at 3113 BC

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777385.html
"The year 2007 translates to the Jewish year 5767–5768"

http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/cal ... inese.html
"Chinese New Year in 2000 marks the beginning of the Chinese year 4637 or 4697."

Mitochondrial DNA
mtDNA point to origin of man 10,000 years ago
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html
Quote:
The three researchers went even further -- they estimated the age of the ancestor. To get the estimate, they made the assumption that the random mutations occurred at a steady rate. And since they now had an idea of how much the mtDNA had changed from the ancestor's, all they needed was the mutation rate to determine the age of the ancestor. For instance, if they took the mutation rate to be one in every 1,000 years and knew that there was a difference of 10 mutations between the mtDNA of people living today and the mtDNA of an ancestor who lived long ago, then they could infer that the ancestor lived 10,000 years ago.


Population Growth Equation
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =3171#3171
Quote:

The population in 2000 AD has been stated as 6.4 billion. In 1 AD, the population estimates vary from 150 million to 300 million. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use 200 million as the population at 1 AD.

The exponential growth rate equation is:

N(t) = N(0) * e ^ (r*t)

Where:
N(t) is the population after t time
N(0) is the initial populuation
r is the population growth rate
t is elapsed time

Solving for r, with:
N(t) = 6.4 x 10E9
N(0) = 2 x 10E8
t = 2000 years

r comes out to be 0.00173 (or 0.173%). So, this is the growth rate from 1 AD to 2000 AD.

How reasonable is this number? By comparing to population growth numbers of all the countries it certainly falls within acceptable range. Currently it varies from 7.77% (0.0777) on the top end to -3.55% (-0.0355) on the bottom. The calculated number roughly matches the growth rate of Finland at 0.15% (0.0015).

Also, this number factors in things that wiped out populations. (The Black Death killed between 25% to 50% of Europe.) So, r=.00173 would be considered the upper limit.

Solving for t, with:
N(t) = 2 x 10E8
N(0) = 8 (assuming 4 couples survived the flood)
r = 0.00173

t comes out to be 9846. So, using population growth rate from 1 AD to 2000 AD, the population could've started with 8 people in 9846 BC. Bear in mind that this is the upper limit.

Using this chart of world population number, I calculated the rates and applied them to determine the flood date.

N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=2.52E+09, end date=2000, start date=1950, t=50, r=0.018672553 --> Flood date=912 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=1.66E+09, end date=2000, start date=1900, t=100, r=0.013518929 --> Flood date=1260 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=1.27E+09, end date=2000, start date=1850, t=150, r=0.010808172 --> Flood date=1576 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=7.95E+08, end date=2000, start date=1750, t=250, r=0.008342845 --> Flood date=2041 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=5.00E+08, end date=2000, start date=1650, t=350, r=0.007284129 --> Flood date=2338 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=4.50E+08, end date=2000, start date=1200, t=800, r=0.003318507 --> Flood date=5133 BC

(I assumed N(0) = 8 and N(t) = 2 x 10E8 for the Flood date calculation)

So, using world population data and the population growth equation, it shows that the entire world was populated by 8 people between 9846 BC and 912 BC.

And how is any of that evidence of a world wide flood within the last 12,000 years?
Also, yes, the population charts shows you can get that many people, if there is no
other incidences, in that amount of time. What is the evidence , such as the archelogical evidence, this happened?

For example, article number one said a certain area was warmer 49 million years ago.

How is that evidence of a global wide flood less than 12,000 years ago?
Please explain.

Also, the PBS link about mitochondria DNA does not say what it is claimed to have said, and shows a lack of knowledge about the concept. Osteng points to things pointing to 10K years ago, yet the article specifically mentions the dates 200,000 years ago. For purposes of trying to show the world is 12K years old, this actually falsifies his proposition,and has nothing to do with a flood or lack there of at all.


Likewise the articles that point to climate changes. That does not point to the world being 12,000 years old, but merely points to climate changes.

[OnceConvinced]

A really intesting debate here. Glad I read it.

I don’t know if Osteng can use the argument of snow covering the world. Snow piles up and simply coats things. Water doesn’t do that, it spreads out. I also don’t see how water could have covered the earth (in the sky - I take it you mean the firmament?). The earth would have been in complete darkness. No light at all – just go to the deepest parts of the ocean. Either that or it would have acted like a magnifying glass and cooked everything on the planet. Also if the heavens just opened up one day and all that water fell, it would crush the ark completely.

I have heard of theory of the split though and always thought that was a good theory.

One thing I've been wondering for a while now is why would God need the Ark for animals? Why have Noah go to all that trouble? God could simply have just created new animals.

[Zzyzx]

I have yet to see anything "scienctific" from the side opposing the flood model -- or even address any of the evidence submitted for the flood model.

FisherKing,

It is commendable that you support a fellow religionist. If you have read the more recent posts, is it still your opinion that "scientific" evidence being presented favors the Flood Model argument?

On the basis of what has been presented thus far, does the Flood Model impress you as being a more rational “explanation” of Earth conditions and processes than the “Real Earth Model” -- that which can be demonstrated to exist (such as Mt. Everest) and occur (such as stream erosion)?