Is the Flood Model Valid?

[Zzyzx]

.
Is the Flood Model Valid?

A few years ago mechanical engineer and “Young Earth Creationist” Walter Brown proposed what he called, “The Flood Model” to explain how the Genesis account of a worldwide flood could have occurred.

Most of Mr. Brown’s proposals were in direct opposition to geology, paleontology, hydrology, biology, zoology, etc; however, it receives some support from religionists, theologians, creationists and biblical literalists.

Questions for debate:

1) Does the Flood Model provide sufficient evidence to support its contentions regarding the following?

• Movement and position of continents
• Formation of mountains and mid-ocean ridges
• Deposit of all of the Earth’s sedimentary rocks
• Erosion of the Earth’s landscape features (such as Grand Canyon)
• Caverns as a source of water for a biblical flood
• Formation of comets from debris expelled from the Earth by gushing water

2) Is the Flood Model a better explanation for Earth features and processes than Standard Geology? If so, why? If not, why not?
.

[Zzyzx]

.
Walter Brown proposed vast caverns ten miles below the Earth’s surface that were filled with water – roughly half the volume of present oceans. Supposedly the water in these caverns “gushed out”, made the mid-ocean ridges, pushed continents apart very rapidly, deposited the world’s sedimentary rocks, eroded those sedimentary rocks to produce the Earth’s surface features, built the Earth’s mountains – all during a flood which supposedly lasted one year. The gushing water also, according to the theory, expelled material from the Earth that became comets.

The most remarkable feature of Mr. Brown’s Flood Model is the total lack of evidence to support its contentions. However, it does accomplish the objective of fitting with the story from Genesis of a worldwide flood -- provided that evidence is not requested to support the assumptions and conjectures.

One would expect a radical new theory to be supported by evidence that caverns exist or existed, that half the oceans’ water was once in those caverns, that continents were shoved apart by water pressure, etc, etc. However, those issues are merely suggested without evidence to indicate that they actually existed or occurred.

It is not surprising that geologists are unfamiliar with Mr. Brown’s theories. People who actually study nature and the Earth insist that claims be verified and that conclusions be checked by independent investigators before being taken seriously. The famed “Scientific Method” requires that theories be supported and verified.

There is good reason for NOT accepting theories because they “sound good”, or because they fit au prior conclusions, or because they have not been proven false. If that were the case, ANY harebrained theory must be regarded as just as valid as any established and verified theory. One can propose that invisible elephants move the clouds, for instance. That theory isn’t likely to be taken seriously UNLESS convincing evidence is presented to verify that invisible elephants exist and that they move clouds.

The same is true of vast caverns ten miles beneath the Earth’s surface. One can propose that there were such caverns and that they were filled with water – or peanut butter. Proving the claim may be a bit difficult. Unless the “peanut butter caverns” or “water filled caverns” can be supported by corroborating evidence, they are regarded as suspect or false.

Walter Brown, father of the Flood Model, is a mechanical engineer – not a geologist, hydrologist, physicist, geodesist, oceanographer, etc. His training is not related to the area in which he proposes the theory. His primary credentials are in the area of being a Young Earth Creationist (which is generally regarded as theology rather than science). Although it is not unknown for a person to have great insight into fields that they have not developed expertise, it is very uncommon.

What would be the response if a complete computer novice announces to a group of professional programmers that they are all wrong and he has the right answers – then begins to talk about programming in a way that leaves no doubt that he knows nothing about computers or programming?

Of course, the novice may be quite certain that he “has seen the light” and that he knows exactly how to go about programming as he read in an old programming book. He has never attempted to apply his theories – and has not discovered that they do not work at all.

Is there a chance that a “messiah” could walk in and know all about programming without having studied the matter? Perhaps. There are reports that of an idiot savant that played classical music near perfectly the first time he played a piano.

A fundamental flaw in the Flood Model is that it is a theory set forth to “prove” that the flood could have been literal if one makes enough assumptions. It is promoted to people who do not understand Earth science, geology, hydrology, etc.

Truth is likely to be discovered when conclusions come AFTER research is done, NOT before.

[Chimp]

While I admire your noble effort in pointing out the obvious...if someone is so
clueless to even the most basic concepts of geology and unwilling to
accept flaws in their own position... do you really think you can change their mind?

[Zzyzx]

While I admire your noble effort in pointing out the obvious...if someone is so clueless to even the most basic concepts of geology and unwilling to accept flaws in their own position... do you really think you can change their mind?

No, Chimp, I do not think I can convince or convert those who have locked-in their position. I make no attempt to do so. To the contrary, I use them to "bounce" ideas to readers who ARE open to considering ideas that may differ from what they may have been taught since infancy.

People who might be interested in a good argument, could be bored to tears by an essay on the same topic. Thus, it is important for us to remember to not "rattle on" too long at a time. A good, fast paced, stimulating debate can attract a lot of readers. Before the crash the Head to Head debate regarding the Flood had something like 2000 views. That represents a respectable number of unique minds considering what is said.

Many readers of these threads never post, but observe what we write. What may be obvious to some of us may be new information or new ways of thinking to others. Someone wisely referred to some readers as "soft believers" – those who already question the dogma of the sect that predominated in their childhood. There are also "soft non-believers" who can probably stand some reinforcing words and ideas.

Occasionally I check the bottom of the forum main page where statistics are presented regarding visits to the forum. Just now it showed 37 visits for today. Most of the screen names I recognized this time, but often there are more visits including many that are unfamiliar. I like to think that I am speaking to some of those people.

Perhaps, in a way, I write what I would have benefited from reading fifty years ago -- but didn't. Then I was a soft non-believer. I had rejected Catholicism ten years earlier, but had not explored enough to realize that other religions were very similar. The most significant counsel I can recall from those years was a wise man saying, “The church rules by guilt and fear”.

As I learned more about religion, I became a strong non-believer – but not anti-religious. That came later when “Condemning Christians” attempted to claim superiority or moral high ground by virtue of their religious beliefs. That was a mistake because they created a capable and determined enemy for their cause.

[Revelations won]

Your supposed flood model is probably not valid, because you are using the wrong formula or only a fragmentary formula at best.

Many do not subscribe to your limited formula.

As long as you have your ears plugged and your mind closed and insist on wearing your blinders, what can you expect?

[Zzyzx]

.

Your supposed flood model is probably not valid, because you are using the wrong formula or only a fragmentary formula at best

Many do not subscribe to your limited formula. .

Zzyzx does not present a “flood model” because he regards the flood as a myth that cannot be substantiated. I might be interested in debating another religionist who thought they could defend the flood as being literal (with the objective of helping them demonstrate that their arguments are based on emotion and faith rather than experience and knowledge of the real world).

As long as you have your ears plugged and your mind closed and insist on wearing your blinders, what can you expect?

Perhaps rational and honorable discussion and debate should focus beyond criticisms of others without substantiation and should include attempts to present arguments instead of inappropriate and meaningless statements.

Efforts to communicate wisdom in another thread seem to have degenerated into unsupported assertions, attestations, and bible quotations (offered to known non-believers, as “evidence”). Patience may be required.