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?

[Piper Plexed]

[otseng]

Unfortunately our oldest written records are one thousand years older than the official biblical date of the flood, and they seem not to have been interrupted during the proposed time of the flood.

Though there are generally accepted dates of the flood from the Bible, there does not exist an "official" Biblical date for the flood. The date calculations are based on genealogies in the Bible. In fact, using this method, it can only be determined what is the minimum number of years ago something occurred.

Even massive stone can be bended, if there is enough pressure and time involved. See the works of Friedman et al. [1980] for reference. Note however that this involves a *lot* of time, it can't happen within a couple of thousand years.

Could you provide a link to your reference?

It's simply more than a stone bending. It is layers being preserved while under extreme bending.

Also, what would have made them flexible? There are deformed quartzite pebbles near death valley - they probably haven't been soft, ever.

It was flexible because it was a mixture of sediments with some water.

Also, if they have ben formed by a flood 4500 years ago, then why have dinosaur footprints been found *in* a coal layer? The dinos should have been dead/drowned at the time when the coal was formed...unless they could walk on the bottom of an ocean, that is.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html

I don't think it was found in coal, but surrounding coal. And perhaps the question should also be asked, why do we see any footprints at all?

Then, later enough rocks to form layers of dozens of metres in thickness rained down on earth, then some more bio mass settled down and got buried by another wave of these rocks and so on?

I don't know exactly how the layers got formed, but I'm not suggesting that one layer got formed first, then it rained some more sediments and another layer was formed, and so on. Yes, I agree, that would be ridiculous. There are several theories on stratifications. None of them hypothesize each layer was formed by successive layers raining down from the sky at different points in time.

Also, where did the water go?

Into the oceans and the polar ice caps.

How deep was the flood?

Enough to cover the entire earth at one point in time.

[QuantumMekanic]

It seems that the premise of this thread is that CM has a monopoly on the notion of a global flood. There is a reason why this kind of monopoly is dangerous: It provides no detailed mechanism (save an amorphous 'God') for such a thing. Mob mentality substituted for rigor in historical sciences. Orwell ring any bells?

I just provided a mechanism from an academic POV, and you guys are still talking about vapor canopies (Q:how did that get there?) and geothermal plate tectonics. There is sufficient evidence for catastrophic floods in ancient times. Noah's flood may have been more localized however. The context is that any significant flood is 'global' in those times. Sure this is an assumption but it beats the assumption that there was an act of God sending his angels the tap the clouds with their magic wands and it was televised on CNN.

Moreover, there are local legends that support a comet strike mechanism for a global flood. To say that it represents some spiritual 'truth' within a Christian paradigm is bigoted. It shows bias in the particular 'local legend' found in the Bible, and blinds those who grip to this paradigm to using anything approaching academic rigor. [/i]

[jwu]

Unfortunately our oldest written records are one thousand years older than the official biblical date of the flood, and they seem not to have been interrupted during the proposed time of the flood.

Though there are generally accepted dates of the flood from the Bible, there does not exist an "official" Biblical date for the flood. The date calculations are based on genealogies in the Bible. In fact, using this method, it can only be determined what is the minimum number of years ago something occurred.

Then why is it basically always presented as a very precise date even by creationist organizations?

There are several rivalling dates, but none of them is close to the required 3500+BC.

Even massive stone can be bended, if there is enough pressure and time involved. See the works of Friedman et al. [1980] for reference. Note however that this involves a *lot* of time, it can't happen within a couple of thousand years.

Could you provide a link to your reference?

As i said, Friedman et alumni, 1980.
Not everything that has been published in scientific journals is available in the internet.

It's simply more than a stone bending. It is layers being preserved while under extreme bending.

Exactly this is what Frieman's works were about. Not simply about stone bending, but in fact about explaining the folded strata.

Also, what would have made them flexible? There are deformed quartzite pebbles near death valley - they probably haven't been soft, ever.

It was flexible because it was a mixture of sediments with some water.

Then how it is possible that igneous strata got folded, as well as those quartzite pebbles? They were not formed by watered down sediments which once have been soft.

Also, if they have ben formed by a flood 4500 years ago, then why have dinosaur footprints been found *in* a coal layer? The dinos should have been dead/drowned at the time when the coal was formed...unless they could walk on the bottom of an ocean, that is.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html

I don't think it was found in coal, but surrounding coal.

They were *in* the coal, the article is very clear about this. The black parts are coal pillars which were left to support the roof, there is coal in the parts with the footprints too.

And perhaps the question should also be asked, why do we see any footprints at all?

Why not? This is absolutely consistent with the conventional geological model.

Then, later enough rocks to form layers of dozens of metres in thickness rained down on earth, then some more bio mass settled down and got buried by another wave of these rocks and so on?

I don't know exactly how the layers got formed, but I'm not suggesting that one layer got formed first, then it rained some more sediments and another layer was formed, and so on. Yes, I agree, that would be ridiculous. There are several theories on stratifications. None of them hypothesize each layer was formed by successive layers raining down from the sky at different points in time.

The article exclusively deals with rather small grains of sand in the experiments. However, what we observe in nature are quite massive rocks above sedimentary layers, to which this is not really applicable.
It doesn't explain the existence of *intact* layers of igneous rock with a single word, which would create an impassable barrier for the proposed grain sorting movement.
Generally such flat layers of igneous rock can only be created at the surface where the lava doesn't cool down that fast, not underwater.

Some nice pictures:
http://energy.er.usgs.gov/NCRA/Gulf_Coast_C.htm

Particularly interesting is the one about volcanic ash between coal layers - such a thing doesn't form underwater.

Also, while sedimentary grain sorting by size and density can be explained to a certain degree, how come that the sedimentary layers are not only more or less homogenous in grain size and density, but also regarding chemical issues? This is completely unaffected by the proposed sorting process.

Also, where did the water go?

Into the oceans and the polar ice caps.
[...]
Enough to cover the entire earth at one point in time.

They don't hold nearly enough, unless you propose that mountains were a lot less high in the very recent past.
Take into account that most of the arctis is floating (but even without this detail there isn't nearly enough).
If all ice would melt, then the level of the oceans would rise less than 100m.

jwu

[jwu]

It seems that the premise of this thread is that CM has a monopoly on the notion of a global flood. There is a reason why this kind of monopoly is dangerous: It provides no detailed mechanism (save an amorphous 'God') for such a thing. Mob mentality substituted for rigor in historical sciences. Orwell ring any bells?

I just provided a mechanism from an academic POV, and you guys are still talking about vapor canopies (Q:how did that get there?) and geothermal plate tectonics. There is sufficient evidence for catastrophic floods in ancient times. Noah's flood may have been more localized however. The context is that any significant flood is 'global' in those times. Sure this is an assumption but it beats the assumption that there was an act of God sending his angels the tap the clouds with their magic wands and it was televised on CNN.

Moreover, there are local legends that support a comet strike mechanism for a global flood. To say that it represents some spiritual 'truth' within a Christian paradigm is bigoted. It shows bias in the particular 'local legend' found in the Bible, and blinds those who grip to this paradigm to using anything approaching academic rigor. [/i]

I don't see anything wrong with huge local floods, in fact they are apparently supported by geological evidence, and it is a perfect explaination of the flood legends

However...the Walt Brown model of a single worldwide flood which laid down all strata since the Cambrian layer is something that...well...ugh!

jwu

[QuantumMekanic]

jwu,

I know it sounds repulsive to an academic that a global flood happened, but let me share a couple of ideas.

1) There was probably more contact between differing groups of ancient peoples than was originally thought. Correlation of legends can be a powerful thing.

2) Had there been such a global flood, the cause could likewise be codified in legend. This is the premise Knight an Lomas took in their book "Uriel's Machine". Rather than look at the flood itself, they sought out to look for the cause of the flood codified in legend. What they came up with is a 'comet strike'. I read it with skepticism, but the more I ponder it the more it resonates; not only with science but also legend. In 1994, we witnessed the power of the Shoemaker slamming into Jupiter. If you think about it, it is at least as likely that this could happen on Earth, because of the angular resolution of a likely comet's trajectory compared with the Earth's orbit. Moreover, if a comet is made up mostly of ice and other vaporizable material, it would leave few traces behind, especially if it, or parts of it, hit the oceans (more than 70% chance it hits water). Here too is a source of the 'vapor canopy' that CM people love so much because they heard it on CoasttoCoastAM: water thrown into the atmosphere (even into orbit) at high energy with seed material to boot; a many years supply of rain. There is something for everybody I guess.

3) I do agree the Walt Brown model is seriously flawed and biased. Nothing endures like a great and singular catastrophe however. We see serious floods every year especially in the Mississippi valley, yet these tend to be forgotten as time passes. This is a legend that correlates worldwide and has endured for at least 5000 years. My only gripe about the current popular assessment of it is the blatant unparalleled bias in the Christian view of this event. They might actually learn something if they can take less popular or differing views into account.

[jwu]

I completely agree that such an impact could have caused a huge local flood - i don't see any problem with that.
It can't have been a very large comet then though.

However i disagree with the impact vaporizing enough water for several years of massive rainfall. It the vapor would have been distributed in the atmosphere rather quickly, and an impact that boils enough water to create a global increase of rainfall would have caused other massive damage - a shockwave around the globe, firestorms, and all that.
I don't see a problem with a comet or small asteroid causing a super-tsunami though.

However, what i am argueing against here is mostly the strata since the cambrium being laid down by some global flood. Smaller, local floods might very well have happened, but my point here is unaffected by this.

jwu

[QuantumMekanic]

Whether a local flood happened or global (due to multiple comet fragments), I think we can agree that the overall problem with the Biblical view is one of ego or social centrism. This concept simultaneously gives rise to problems for those who can't put themselves in context of ancient peoples and a complete inability to use scientific reasoning to make a valid point. For these people it all goes back to scripture (legends) as the word of God, as if God wrote down the words himself. It would be interesting to see if God made any spelling or grammar errors in the rough draft of the Bible, but that is another topic which I may post at some point in the future.

QM

[otseng]

Then why is it basically always presented as a very precise date even by creationist organizations?

I can't speak for other creationist organizations, so I don't know. But, here in this thread, I'm not arguing for a specific date of the flood, only a date range.

They were *in* the coal, the article is very clear about this. The black parts are coal pillars which were left to support the roof, there is coal in the parts with the footprints too.

Then I guess I can't read in between the lines. What exactly is meant by the "roof"? To me, it seems like the coal pillars are where the coal is located.

Some other interesting things about the article. It says that "the leaf assemblages are commonly dominated by broad-leaf angiosperm genera with a scattering of palms, conifers, and ferns." This is not exactly the types of vegetation one finds in peat bogs.

And perhaps the question should also be asked, why do we see any footprints at all?

Why not? This is absolutely consistent with the conventional geological model.

The articles states, "The footprints are depressions in the swamp peats that have been filled with flood-deposited sediment..... Peat is a water-saturated material that after compression tends to rebound to its undisturbed state."

If footprints rebound to its undisturbed state, then why are footprints there for us to see?

The abundance of well-defined tracks suggests that they were made just prior to the deposition of the sediment and that dinosaurs were very abundant in the swamp forests

Yes, it does suggest that sediments rapidly covered the the footprints.
The FM provides the sediments and a quick burial of the entire area to capture the footprints.

Another thing, what exactly caused the coal pillars?

They don't hold nearly enough, unless you propose that mountains were a lot less high in the very recent past.

Yes, it was flatter prior to the flood. The major mountain ranges were formed during the flood. The water receding into the oceans and the formation of the mountains occurred simultaneously.

[jwu]

I can't speak for other creationist organizations, so I don't know. But, here in this thread, I'm not arguing for a specific date of the flood, only a date range.

Again, if you want to explain the sudden appearance of written language 3500BC with the reconstruction of a human society after noah's flood, then you in fact do not set a precise date, but you implicitly state requirements for the actual date - it cannot have happened after 3500BC then.
This however doesn't fit to the date ranges for that matter that are generally presented as flood dates.

The usual dates vary between 3100BC and 2200BC.

They were *in* the coal, the article is very clear about this. The black parts are coal pillars which were left to support the roof, there is coal in the parts with the footprints too.

Then I guess I can't read in between the lines. What exactly is meant by the "roof"? To me, it seems like the coal pillars are where the coal is located.

It's an underground mine. The roof is...well...the roof. The rock over your head if you're in that mine.

Some other interesting things about the article. It says that "the leaf assemblages are commonly dominated by broad-leaf angiosperm genera with a scattering of palms, conifers, and ferns." This is not exactly the types of vegetation one finds in peat bogs.

Not in today's peat bogs - the type of vegetation obviously has changed in the past, due to regional climate change and movement into a different climate zone due to plate tectonics.

And perhaps the question should also be asked, why do we see any footprints at all?

Why not? This is absolutely consistent with the conventional geological model.

The articles states, "The footprints are depressions in the swamp peats that have been filled with flood-deposited sediment..... Peat is a water-saturated material that after compression tends to rebound to its undisturbed state."

If footprints rebound to its undisturbed state, then why are footprints there for us to see?

The article itself explains it, it happened in the same way as any other dino footprints which we seee today. Small regional floods which lay down enough sediments to preserve footprints happen all the time.
The point however is that the peat in which they were found later turned into coal, which supports the conventional model.

The abundance of well-defined tracks suggests that they were made just prior to the deposition of the sediment and that dinosaurs were very abundant in the swamp forests

Yes, it does suggest that sediments rapidly covered the the footprints.
The FM provides the sediments and a quick burial of the entire area to capture the footprints.

Any regional flooding can provide the same.
However, their footprints should not be in coal if the coal deposits were laid down by settling down biomass during the great flood. Obviously the substance which today is coal in which they left those footprints already was there at a time when the dinos still were alive.

Besides, the carboniferous strata are quite above the cambrian layers, so if you say that the flood caused the strata since the cambrium, then there should not be any footprints of apparently alive dinos not only in that coal, but none at all. Dead animals don't leave footprints...

Another thing, what exactly caused the coal pillars?

They were left by the miners because otherwise the unsupported roof would collapse...

Yes, it was flatter prior to the flood. The major mountain ranges were formed during the flood. The water receding into the oceans and the formation of the mountains occurred simultaneously.

Then why do we find sedimentary rock on top of mountains? The receding water should have washed it all away, into the valleys.
We see what happens if you combine mud with some more water and a lack of vegetation every year...

Please address the existence of igneous rock in post cambrian layers.