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?

[otseng]

If water is supposed to have welled up from the earth's interior, where did it go?

Into the oceans and the ice in the polar regions. The oceans did not exist prior to the flood as they do now. There was much less water on the surface of the earth prior to the flood. Also, the surface was flatter. Certainly the major mountain ranges did not exist. The ocean depths were also created by the flood. With the creation of the major mountain ranges and the areas between the continental shelves, the water that covered the earth receded into the oceans that we have now.

Might there not also be many fossils in the topmost layer? Without getting too graphic, I think a lot of bodies would float for some time - a lot would depend sedimentation rates of other materials.

Since the water was mixed with sediments, I don't think bodies would be able to simply float to the top.

How do you determine the earliest post-flood layer? You can't just pick the bottom one and say, "This is where the flood started depositing." What evidence would indicate such a layer?

The absolute bottom most layer would be the basalt since the underground water would be above this. But, not all sediments from the flood would have deposited on top of the basalt. It would have been deposited on top of existing rock. The point where the FM would say that the layers started is the lowest point with parallel layers.

I'm not aware of ANY geological theory that would posit non-parallel layers.

When you say "posit", do you refer to it as an assumption or a prediction?

Parallel layers would naturally be a prediction of the FM. There is a mechanism (though of course not fully understood) that explains how parallel layers would be formed.

What other theories explain how parallel layers could be formed? I think debating those theories would be interesting. So, feel free to start up a new thread to discuss those theories.

Furthermore, all such layers would be sedimentary rock. It would be extremely rare to find igneous rock at or near the surface, except in areas of volcanic activity.

In all likelihood, there would have been volcanic activity during the eruption of the crust during the flood. Igneous sedimentation would also have been present in the flood sediments (as well as the sedimentary sediments).

One would also expect to find fossils of all the fresh-water species which would have been obliterated, never to return.

I think a discussion of fresh water/salt water fish in the FM would warrant a separate thread.

Shouldn't there also be canyons related to virtually every watershed? Why is there no Mississippi River Canyon?

The FM explains the formation of canyons by water rapidly receding from the areas that the major mountain ranges formed. The Mississippi river is a bit too far from the Appalachian mountain range. However, from the top of my head, Cloudland Canyon is one canyon near the base of the Appalachians.

[Jose]

otseng--

Good points. My predictions haven't all been appropriate for your model. See if what I suggest here is more accurate. And, of course, I can never resist throwing in a comment or two...

2. Except for those areas that were rapidly eroded, and especially in low-lying areas, all of the earth's surface should be covered with sediments from the flood.

I would generally agree with this. One exception I can think of is the area near the mid-Oceanic ridge. Since water would be ejected out of the earth at that point, sediments wouldn't be able to settle as much there.

I'd imagined that the settling would have occurred well after the water was ejected. Say, over the course of 40 days and nights. After that, it should all be sedimentation, eventually followed by erosion as the water went somewhere. How long did it take before the water was back to "normal"? I dont' have a clue.

Still, the ocean ridges may be special. We might need to think about the Pacific ocean, where there isn't a ridge, rather than the Atlantic, where there is. The Pacific ought to be pretty deep with sediment, since it's had the flood and some 6000 years of current-rate sedimentation to add to it.

3. Fossils should show a consistent pattern in the geological column: heaviest on the bottom, lightest on the top (or some such thing). That is: similar kinds of fossils should not be found in widely separated strata.

I don't believe that all the layers in a geologic column were necessarily laid down at one time. It could have been laid down through several stages over a period of weeks/months. And each stage could have gone through sorting independently of other stages.

The question, then, is "how many stages"? Once we settle this issue, it applies to the fossil prediction and to the sediment prediction. If we say 4 or 5 stages, then we should have, at most, 4 or 5 possible repeats of heavy-to-light sediment as we work upward through the column, and 4 or 5 possible repeats of fossil types. This raises another question of what would have kept the heavy things "stirred up" so they wouldn't sediment at the beginning, but we'll leave that. It's still part of the pre-flood world when the rules may have been different.

Hmmm....I wonder if we could count the "repeats" to figure out how many stages there were. What would be a reasonable number, do you think? For a single flood, I wouldn't think very many.

4. No footprints of land animals should be found in strata eroded by the receding flood waters.

I'm not sure if I would agree with this one. All the layers formed prior to the waters receding.

I think you are agreeing. The layers formed prior to the waters receding. Therefore, the layers were all underwater until the waters receded. Therefore, land animals would have been unable to walk on them and create footprints. This seems to me to make sense, if the flood killed the land animals. They'd make lousy footprints after that.

Therefore, it seems to me that footprints should be only in the mud from the very beginning of the rain (at the bottom of the sediment layers) when animals could still run around. Or, they could be on the very top, if anything survived that wasn't on the ark (which is not supposed to be the case). But, to find a footprint-bearing rock part-way down a cliff face, with some of the footprints still under the rocks above (i.e. still not eroded out), would seem to be very unlikely according to this hypothesis.

Do we now agree on predictions, or am I still not quite seeing the hypothesis clearly enough?

--J

[Jose]

If water is supposed to have welled up from the earth's interior, where did it go?

Into the oceans and the ice in the polar regions. The oceans did not exist prior to the flood as they do now. There was much less water on the surface of the earth prior to the flood. Also, the surface was flatter. Certainly the major mountain ranges did not exist. The ocean depths were also created by the flood. With the creation of the major mountain ranges and the areas between the continental shelves, the water that covered the earth receded into the oceans that we have now.

This calls for a calculation! Any mathematicians around? If we were to take the volume of water in the current oceans, and spread it out over a flatter earth, would it cover it deeply enough? We might also need to know the approximate heights of pre-flood hills or mountains...anyone know this?

Parallel layers would naturally be a prediction of the FM. There is a mechanism (though of course not fully understood) that explains how parallel layers would be formed.

What other theories explain how parallel layers could be formed? I think debating those theories would be interesting. So, feel free to start up a new thread to discuss those theories.

I don't think we necessarily need a new thread. Both models rely upon gravity to cause sedimentation, with the result that the layers are parallel. Similarly, both models rely upon "upheavals" to cause tilting and folding. The distinct variable is time. FM says "it happened fast." Standard geology says "it took a long time, because it was caused by the processes we can measure now, which are way too slow to do it fast."

Shouldn't there also be canyons related to virtually every watershed? Why is there no Mississippi River Canyon?

The FM explains the formation of canyons by water rapidly receding from the areas that the major mountain ranges formed. The Mississippi river is a bit too far from the Appalachian mountain range. However, from the top of my head, Cloudland Canyon is one canyon near the base of the Appalachians.

Well, y'know, there is a Mississippi River Canyon, but it's too wide for us to recognize it as such. The bluffs on either side mark the walls of the canyon. Current geology explains this as the drainage of Lake Agassiz after the last ice age. It's contemporaneous with the formation of the "benches" in Salt Lake City, from Lake Bonneville.

What puzzles me, now that you mention canyons, is the ones like Yosemite, that are rounded in the top half, then V-shaped in the bottom half. Telluride is another interesting place, with lots of high U-shaped canyons feeding into the top (not bottom) of the main canyon. Hanging valleys, they're called. Here's another thing the FM has to explain--how receding water can carve two different kinds of canyons.

[jwu]

This calls for a calculation! Any mathematicians around? If we were to take the volume of water in the current oceans, and spread it out over a flatter earth, would it cover it deeply enough? We might also need to know the approximate heights of pre-flood hills or mountains...anyone know this?

The average depth of the oceans is about 3720m, they cover nearly 71% of the surface. If they are supposed to cover everything, then the average depth would be 3720*0.71=2641m.

jwu

[perfessor]

If water is supposed to have welled up from the earth's interior, where did it go?

Into the oceans and the ice in the polar regions.

Do you mean after the flood? You can't count the North Pole as separate from the 'oceans', since it is part of the ocean already. There is lots of water on land at the South Pole; core data shows it to be very ancient indeed - 160,000 years old according to one example found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html. Note that four different methods were used to arrive at the age.

The oceans did not exist prior to the flood as they do now. There was much less water on the surface of the earth prior to the flood. Also, the surface was flatter. Certainly the major mountain ranges did not exist. The ocean depths were also created by the flood. With the creation of the major mountain ranges and the areas between the continental shelves, the water that covered the earth receded into the oceans that we have now.

So if I understand you correctly: Before the flood, we have shallow oceans and no mountains. We have vast, huge, enormous caverns of water underneath (they would have to be huge). Now, when the caverns collapse, the diameter of the eath does not change; that is, we are not bringing water up so much as moving land down - all the land. So in order to recover from the flood - and create land masses over 30% of the earth's surface, it won't do to simply poke a few mountain ranges up - we have to lift entire continents while we consequently deepen the oceans (when I say "we", of course you can substitute "God". But I say "we" because this scenario is after all a human hypothesis). By what mechanism are the continents lifted? And you can't deepen the oceans by saying that's where the caverns were - the caverns collapsed at the very start of the flood.

Might there not also be many fossils in the topmost layer? Without getting too graphic, I think a lot of bodies would float for some time - a lot would depend sedimentation rates of other materials.

Since the water was mixed with sediments, I don't think bodies would be able to simply float to the top.

Sediments in the water would increase its specific gravity, making it easier for bodies to float.

How do you determine the earliest post-flood layer? You can't just pick the bottom one and say, "This is where the flood started depositing." What evidence would indicate such a layer?

The absolute bottom most layer would be the basalt since the underground water would be above this. But, not all sediments from the flood would have deposited on top of the basalt. It would have been deposited on top of existing rock. The point where the FM would say that the layers started is the lowest point with parallel layers.

In which case, as jose pointed out, there would be no footprints in any layer above basalt.

I'm not aware of ANY geological theory that would posit non-parallel layers.

When you say "posit", do you refer to it as an assumption or a prediction?

Parallel layers would naturally be a prediction of the FM. There is a mechanism (though of course not fully understood) that explains how parallel layers would be formed.

What other theories explain how parallel layers could be formed? I think debating those theories would be interesting. So, feel free to start up a new thread to discuss those theories.

"Posit" is the wrong word, sorry. Let's say "predict". I'm not interested in starting a thread; I'd rather respond to your point in this one. The "not fully understood" mechanism for parallel layers is gravity, so it seems pretty meaningless as a prediction. Unless gravity changes direction, layers could form over millions of years and still be parallel. The existence of parallel layers argues neither for nor against the FM.

Furthermore, all such layers would be sedimentary rock. It would be extremely rare to find igneous rock at or near the surface, except in areas of volcanic activity.

In all likelihood, there would have been volcanic activity during the eruption of the crust during the flood. Igneous sedimentation would also have been present in the flood sediments (as well as the sedimentary sediments).

(Bold added by me) I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there is no such thing as "igneous sedimentary rock."

One would also expect to find fossils of all the fresh-water species which would have been obliterated, never to return.

I think a discussion of fresh water/salt water fish in the FM would warrant a separate thread.

/*grumble*/ OK, I'll think about how to craft such a post. Maybe I'll call it "How would the Earth recover from a global environmental catastrophe?"

[Jose]

The average depth of the oceans is about 3720m, they cover nearly 71% of the surface. If they are supposed to cover everything, then the average depth would be 3720*0.71=2641m.

Thank you, jwu. That gives us numbers to work with.

I now am thinking that we need to understand the mountain-building mechanism of the FM. Otseng, was it suggested by Brown that the opening of the oceanic fissures, to release the stored water, pushed the continents around and thus formed the mountains? Or did the mountains form well after the rain had stopped, and the flood had reached its maximum height? If the mountains formed afterward, then I don't see what mechanism would have caused them to appear. This makes a difference, since it indicates how deep the water needed to be to cover everything.

So in order to recover from the flood - and create land masses over 30% of the earth's surface, it won't do to simply poke a few mountain ranges up - we have to lift entire continents while we consequently deepen the oceans (when I say "we", of course you can substitute "God". But I say "we" because this scenario is after all a human hypothesis). By what mechanism are the continents lifted? And you can't deepen the oceans by saying that's where the caverns were - the caverns collapsed at the very start of the flood.

This may be similar to my thoughts noted above. We all seem to be thinking that the mountains had to appear, and the ocean bottoms sink, to accomodate the water. We need a mechanism. I'll second perfessor's comment that we can't use the caverns, because they don't seem to be there any more. If they collapsed to release their stored water, then the flood had to cover their sinkholes (if that's the right word in this context).

[perfessor]

This calls for a calculation! Any mathematicians around? If we were to take the volume of water in the current oceans, and spread it out over a flatter earth, would it cover it deeply enough? We might also need to know the approximate heights of pre-flood hills or mountains...anyone know this?

The average depth of the oceans is about 3720m, they cover nearly 71% of the surface. If they are supposed to cover everything, then the average depth would be 3720*0.71=2641m.

This is a start, but we're not there yet. We need to balance the total volume of water with the total volume of land above water, don't we? If we take sea level as a reference point, and start shoveling land into the ocean trenches, we have to know how big the piles are that we are shoveling.

Frankly, I can't believe we are discussing this so seriously. "Far-fetched" is the kindest term that comes to mind for Mr. Brown's hypothesis. Evidence! You must show me evidence! Canyons and layers don't impress me, since the Conventional Model also explains all this. Show me something that can't be explained by the CM (and I'll show you a bunch that can't be explained by the FM).

[Jose]

Frankly, I can't believe we are discussing this so seriously. "Far-fetched" is the kindest term that comes to mind for Mr. Brown's hypothesis. Evidence! You must show me evidence! Canyons and layers don't impress me, since the Conventional Model also explains all this. Show me something that can't be explained by the CM (and I'll show you a bunch that can't be explained by the FM).

Kindest? You're extremely generous.

But, here's the way I see it. The creationists want to be taken seriously, with their explanation recognized as scientifically valid. So, acting on otseng's recommendation, we are looking at one of his models scientifically. We've made some predictions, and are waiting to see whether the data fit the predictions, or whether they appear to refute the model. I think this is very interesting.

Usually, we simply trade barbs--"oh yeah? well then how do you explain this?" It seems to be a great format for raising the blood pressure, but little else seems to come of it. I'm intrigued to see if this approach works differently. It's more like "OK, here are the predictions your model makes. Show me that they are met." It's no longer me throwing barbs, but rather accepting the scientific approach, and seeing if the FM supporters come up with their own barbs. In fact, I'm not sure I'm "allowed" to address the predictions (at least not yet), because that might be seen as barb-throwing, and disrupt the process.

In the meantime, as we await the data report, you're probably right that we need to take into account the volume of land above water in order to determine the depth to which the available water would cover it, if it could, and we need to know how much we're shoveling. But it's a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation so far, which might get us to the right order of magnitude. 26410 m seems like too much, and 264.1 seems like not enough, so jwu's 2641 m may be accurate enough (given the error inherent in the technique) to get a sense of the possibilities.

Stay with us, though. Your contributions have been helpful. I'd kinda like to see more FM proponents weigh in, though. There are probably a number of lurkers who could...

[jwu]

This calls for a calculation! Any mathematicians around? If we were to take the volume of water in the current oceans, and spread it out over a flatter earth, would it cover it deeply enough? We might also need to know the approximate heights of pre-flood hills or mountains...anyone know this?

The average depth of the oceans is about 3720m, they cover nearly 71% of the surface. If they are supposed to cover everything, then the average depth would be 3720*0.71=2641m.

This is a start, but we're not there yet. We need to balance the total volume of water with the total volume of land above water, don't we? If we take sea level as a reference point, and start shoveling land into the ocean trenches, we have to know how big the piles are that we are shoveling.

The volume is implied in my calculation, by using the average depth.

You can calculatethe volume as (average depth)*(covered area), then you divide it by the total size of the surface of the earth in order to find out how deep it would cover the entire earth:
(average depth)*(covered area)/(surface of earth)

The (covered area)/(surface of earth) part however is nothing else than the relative degree of coverage, 71% or 0.71.

jwu

[perfessor]

The volume is implied in my calculation, by using the average depth.

You can calculatethe volume as (average depth)*(covered area), then you divide it by the total size of the surface of the earth in order to find out how deep it would cover the entire earth:
(average depth)*(covered area)/(surface of earth)

The (covered area)/(surface of earth) part however is nothing else than the relative degree of coverage, 71% or 0.71.

jwu

You are right jwu, sorry to have "muddied the waters." And thanks jose for the perspective. I was regretting my last post soon after sending it...