Global Flood

[Chem]

This is my first post so forgive me if it sounds unusual. I have viewed a lot of the postings in this forum and have some questions with regards to the idea of a global flood.

Firstly, as I understand YEC's claim that the flood water came from the ground, to cover the whole world. A quick calculation based on the radius of the Earth being ~6.378 e6 m (6378 Km) and the height of Mount Ararat being ~5200 m, this would suggest a volume of 3.4 e18 m3 of water to cover the Earth to the height of Mount Ararat. Of course this does not take into account the presence of higher mountains or low lying areas that would require less water. this would wiegh in the region of 3.4 e21 kg or about 0.06% of the estimated weight of Earth.

Apart from the problem of storing and getting rid of such an amount of water, the questions I have are:
1. Was the water fresh or salty? I presume salty if derived from the Earth and this leads onto a second question:
2. How did fresh water fish survive if the water was salty (if not then how would salt water fish survive in a reduced salt environment?)
3. Furthermore if such huge amounts of water were present then what about greenhouse effect that water vapour and huge release of carbon dioxide would generate? (I understand that some of the carbon genertade would be sequestered by the water and some would be used to generate sedimentary rocks).

[QED]

Therefore, it is seen as sufficient to say that the humidity and temperature were just right to prevent the need for sweating in the Garden of Eden (which, by the way is in Lucas, Kansas). And of course, the vapor canopy is what provided these ideal conditions, prevented storms from happening, and maintained adequate moisture in the air to enable plants to photosynthesize without loss of water. It's a pity that the Flood wiped out all traces of these prior conditions, so we can't investigate the physical laws that held them in place, but that's what happened.

I see. But I don't think we should have to accept that all pre-flood accounts are totally inaccessible to all forms of logic or reason. It seems therefore all the more important to raise every justifiable ramification in order to keep people thinking about the subject. To offer explanations based on pseudo scientific concepts such as this 'vapor canopy' deserves a response aimed, if at all possible, at roughly the same level (while keeping strictly to fact) in order not to lose the proponent in what they might see as complicated scientific mumbo-jumbo.

For example, if it seen as sufficient for the humidity and temperature to have been perfectly regulated in order to keep the core temperatures of animals within safe bounds, what happened if someone was exerting themselves or suffering from a fever? If the answer is that human physiology was different to what it is today then would this not stretch the whole story too far, after all, the story is about humans... not reptiles.

I hope someone who takes the literal interpretation of genesis responds to this topic soon.

[otseng]

I hope someone who takes the literal interpretation of genesis responds to this topic soon.

I hope my post here answered your question. I only assume that you missed my post since I collated all my responses into one post. Or is it because I'm not regarded as one who takes a literal interpretation?

[juliod]

We know from the geologic record that the climate in the past was different than now. Animals and plants grew much larger in prehistoric times.

Umm, if there are "prehistoric times" then that is sufficient to falsify creationism.

That the world climate might have been radically different in the distant past is not an issue for this forum. The question is, what evidence of geology from 4000-5000 years ago is explained by a supposed "vapor canopy"? (Remember that some bristlecone pines are older than that.)

In fact there is no such evidence needing such an explanation. The canopy is merely an ad hoc feature added to explain away the multiple impossibilities involved in the already-falsified flood claims.

DanZ

[otseng]

Umm, if there are "prehistoric times" then that is sufficient to falsify creationism.

When I say "prehistoric", that does not automatically mean millions of years ago. I only use that to indicate when the dinosaurs existed (which in the context of the flood, means before the flood).

That the world climate might have been radically different in the distant past is not an issue for this forum.

Not an issue? You were the one to bring up the vapor canopy in this thread. And I presented how it explains how the climate was different in the past. Seems relevent to me.

The question is, what evidence of geology from 4000-5000 years ago is explained by a supposed "vapor canopy"? (Remember that some bristlecone pines are older than that.)

I thought I just presented it. Let me ask this, how would you explain how the climate was different in the past if there was not a vapor canopy?

The oldest living bristlecone pine is more than 4,700 years old. Why 4700 years old? If one existed that was, say, 20,000 years old, that would prove that the flood did not occur 6000 years ago. But, as we have it, not even bristlecone pines disprove the flood.

[Nyril]

The oldest living bristlecone pine is more than 4,700 years old. Why 4700 years old? If one existed that was, say, 20,000 years old, that would prove that the flood did not occur 6000 years ago. But, as we have it, not even bristlecone pines disprove the flood.

They've found older plants.

April, 1980; Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata). Scientists discovered a giant, and very ancient clone of the creosote bush in the Mojave Desert in California they estimated to be between 11,000 and 12,000 years old.

http://www.extremescience.com/OldestLivingThing.htm

[otseng]

April, 1980; Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata). Scientists discovered a giant, and very ancient clone of the creosote bush in the Mojave Desert in California they estimated to be between 11,000 and 12,000 years old.

http://www.extremescience.com/OldestLivingThing.htm

However, unlike bristlecone pine, the age of cerosote bushes are not based on ring count, but on spreading estimates. That is, an original creosote bush can live up to 200 years. But then it reproduces itself and extends its borders. The spread could be 3-4 feet every 500 years. So, it must assume that the spread rate is constant over the thousands of years in order to make an accurate estimate.

References:
http://www.death-valley.us/modules.php? ... le&sid=652
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/de ... .Gb.r.html

[Nyril]

So, it must assume that the spread rate is constant over the thousands of years in order to make an accurate estimate.

Incorrect. The spread rate doesn't need to be constant, it just needs to be averaged. I don't need to watch a single tree for the entirity of it's 5000 year life span to give you data on how it grows if I can find 50,000 of the things in a vast number of climates and age groups.

[Jose]

For example, we sometimes hear about a so-called "vapor canopy". It can't count as a theory because it doesn't explain anything. There are no facts observable in the world today, nor in the geological record, that would require explanation by a "vapor canopy".

Actually, this is false. We know from the geologic record that the climate in the past was different than now. Animals and plants grew much larger in prehistoric times. The vapor canopy helps to explain this. The water canopy produced a greenhouse climate on the planet. It probably also increased the atmospheric pressure. And it provided additional protection from damaging radiation from outer space. These factors contributed to things growing larger in the past. And it is why land animals/plants do not grow as large now.

There are also many things that grew much smaller in the past than they do now. Mammals come to mind. For things that were "really big" we usually think of seed ferns or horsetail-type things that grew as big trees, before they were out-competed by gymnosperms. We think of dinosaurs, of which many were large, but many, many more were small. We also think of dragonflies. We tend not to think of brachiopods, bryozoa, worms, bacteria, oysters, echinoderms, etc, all of which were about the same as now. So, there's a diversity of sizes at all times, from large to small--and therefore, we can't use sizes of things as a measure for much of anything, really.

The vapor canopy is a bit tricky. I'm not sure we have a good idea of what it was, even. If it was just humidity, then there's no big deal--we'd be talking of the tropics, or the tropical-like overall climate of the Jurassic. If it was a true canopy, or umbrella-like structure, did it hold vapor in, or was it composed of vapor? And was it water vapor, or some other vapor? Was it just an umbrella, with free flow of air beneath it, or was it like the Biosphere II, and prevented contact between what was inside and what was outside?

In any event, I think we'd have to look for geological evidence for it (since there wouldn't be any other kind of evidence left) in pre-flood rock. Since the rock that has been said to be pre-flood is generally metamorphosed (including the sedimentary rock), wouldn't we have to conclude that the vapor canopy or the flood imposed significant heat and pressure, in order to accomplish this metamorphosis?

I agree with otseng that creosote clones are not a terribly reliable measure of age. The age calculation is a calculation, based on averages of various kinds. It works very well in the context of the other information associated with long time scales, but it is not a convincing smoking gun that forces us to accept an old age for the earth. Ol' Methusela is much better, although, as otseng rightly points out, isn't quite old enough. It has already been noted that dead Bristlecones in the White Mountains have been correlated by tree ring data, and extend the time frame of living, post-flood Bristlecones well beyond Ussher's date for the flood. At the very least, I think these data force us to conclude that Ussher's calculations were off.

The question is, what evidence of geology from 4000-5000 years ago is explained by a supposed "vapor canopy"? (Remember that some bristlecone pines are older than that.)

I thought I just presented it. Let me ask this, how would you explain how the climate was different in the past if there was not a vapor canopy?

I think I'm confused, too. Maybe we've uncovered another difference-of-definition that makes this debate so tricky. I don't recall seeing evidence, either. Therefore, I think that juliod and I consider "evidence" to be data, either geological or biological, that points inexorably toward one conclusion. This "evidence" must not only support that conclusion, but be consistent with the other conclusions that are derived from additional data--and not ruled out by yet other data.

By contrast, to us, "evidence" is not merely an explanation that fits the data, and that can produce the observed result. Nor is it the observation that some geological or biological data match the model. This is why I counter the "things grew larger then" argument with "but many things were smaller then, too."

The geologists have provided a lot of data on ancient climates. I'm uncertain of the methods. I think they involve isotope ratios in limestone (cold oceans produce limestone differently than warm oceans), and other such things that have been tested empirically. Fossil data from plant varieties also contribute to climate inferences, since some types of plants are cold tolerant, and others are not. From these kinds of things, it is concluded that the climate was much milder a hundred million years ago or so, for a couple of possible reasons. For one thing, CO2 levels were higher, so there was a much greater greenhouse effect. We're heading back that way now. For another thing, there was no continent over either pole, making it more difficult to build up large quantities of polar ice. Polar ice reflects sunlight, rather than allowing the darker earth/ocean to absorb the energy from it. So, there are mechanisms that exist besides the (hypothetical) vapor canopy, that can explain paleoclimates. They're rather boring, since they don't invoke anything other than normal things we know about, but they do explain the data. Phrased differently, the paleoclimate data can be explained by normal phenomena, and do not compel us to conclude that a vapor canopy existed.

[Nyril]

The vapor canopy is a bit tricky.

In addition to being tricky, it's also in the list of arguments Answers in Genesis has asked creationists to please stop using.

A major problem with the canopy theory

Vardiman[11] recognized a major difficulty with the canopy theory. The best canopy model still gives an intolerably high temperature at the surface of the earth.

Rush and Vardiman have attempted a solution,[12] but found that they had to drastically reduce the amount of water vapor in the canopy from a rain equivalent of 40 feet (12 meters) to only 20 inches (.5 meters). Further modelling suggested that a maximum of 2 meters (6.5 feet) of water could be held in such a canopy, even if all relevant factors were adjusted to the best possible values to maximize the amount of water stored.[13] Such a reduced canopy would not significantly contribute to the 40 days and nights of rain at the beginning of the flood.

Many creation scientists are now either abandoning the water vapor canopy model[14] or no longer see any need for such a concept, particularly if other reasonable mechanisms could have supplied the rain.[15] In the catastrophic plate tectonics model for the flood,[16] volcanic activity associated with the breaking up of the pre-flood ocean floor would have created a linear geyser (like a wall) of superheated steam from the ocean, causing intense global rain.

Nevertheless, whatever the source or mechanism, the scriptural statement about the windows of heaven opening is an apt description of global torrential rain.

A vapor canopy holding more than 7 feet (two meters) of rain would cause the earth's surface to be intolerably hot, so a vapor canopy could not have been a significant source of the flood waters.

Also included in the list is the entire not raining before the flood part.

‘There was no rain before the Flood.’ This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so again there should be no dogmatism. Genesis 2:5–6 at face value teaches only that there was no rain at the time Adam was created. But it doesn’t rule out rain at any later time before the Flood, as great pre-uniformitarian commentators such as John Calvin pointed out. A related fallacy is that the rainbow covenant of Genesis 9:12–17 proves that there were no rainbows before the Flood. As Calvin pointed out, God frequently invested existing things with new meanings, e.g. the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper.

[juliod]

When I say "prehistoric", that does not automatically mean millions of years ago. I only use that to indicate when the dinosaurs existed (which in the context of the flood, means before the flood).

If Genesis is not a myth, then there can be no prehistory. It gives a complete history, from day 1 through to the Roman Empire. No gaps.

Creationists cannot locate any significant geologic event in some unknown age or prehistorical period.

Not an issue? You were the one to bring up the vapor canopy in this thread. And I presented how it explains how the climate was different in the past. Seems relevent to me.

If climate was very different in the distant past, then creationism is wrong because creationism holds that there is no distant past. Your claims are exclusively about the recent past. And there is no question about the falsity of the flood in the recent past.

But, as we have it, not even bristlecone pines disprove the flood.

But of course they do. Why did you suddenly introduce the concept of "living bristlecones"? Those trees, living and dead, show that there has been no large-scale disruption of the region where they live for at least 6800 years. That's not only older than any date for the flood, but older than the creation.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-252.htm

If the flood created the fossils, then the older bristlecones would have been fossilized too. They aren't even buried by sediment.


DanZ