Scablands and a catastrophic flood

[otseng]

https://hugefloods.com/Scablands.html

"It was the biggest flood in the world for which there is geological evidence," writes Norman Maclean in A River Runs Through It, referring to the catastrophic deluge that tore through the Pacific Northwest every time Glacial Lake Missoula's ice dam gave way. "t was so vast a geological event that the mind of man could only conceive of it but could not prove it until photographs could be taken from Earth satellites." Proof now in hand, geologists today point to numerous features in the landscape that reveal the extreme scale and violence involved in these truly colossal floods.

Mystery of the Megaflood

J. Harlen Bretz, who theorized that the Washington Scablands was formed by a catastrophic flood, was of course first met with intense opposition.

Bretz conducted meticulous research and published many papers during the 1920s describing the Channeled Scablands. His theories of how they were formed required short but immense water flows, for which Bretz had no explanation (the source of the water was never the focus of his research). Bretz's theories met with vehement opposition from geologists of the day, who tried to explain the features with uniformitarianism theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scablands

However, it is now commonly accepted among scientists that the Scablands was formed by a catastrophic flood (which I think this by itself is very interesting). And not only that, it was formed relatively recently too - around 15000 years ago (which also is very interesting).

Questions which I'd like to discuss:

Where did the water come from?
If a catastrophic flood created the Scablands in a short period of time, couldn't other geological features elsewhere be also created in a short amount of time?

[Confused]

I understand what your saying, but I still have to question how geological formation could have changed when from what I have read about the flood, it lacked the power to change anything. The waters rose rapidly, but consistently over 40 days. There isn't anything torrential or violent about that. So sediments may have been distributed to other areas, but where is the force required to break down geological foundations? Duing a flood, the potential energy of the water is converted into energy with the force of the sudden release of all the water. In the Great Flood, the earth was flooded from above and beneath. That would indicate a rapid but calm distribution of the waters. No force. No alteration in formations. Just distribution of sediment.

[Cathar1950]

I understand what your saying, but I still have to question how geological formation could have changed when from what I have read about the flood, it lacked the power to change anything. The waters rose rapidly, but consistently over 40 days. There isn't anything torrential or violent about that. So sediments may have been distributed to other areas, but where is the force required to break down geological foundations? Duing a flood, the potential energy of the water is converted into energy with the force of the sudden release of all the water. In the Great Flood, the earth was flooded from above and beneath. That would indicate a rapid but calm distribution of the waters. No force. No alteration in formations. Just distribution of sediment.

It depends on which flood version you read. In one it rains and in the other the windows of the heavens open up and release the waters that are separated by the firmament and the doors to the fountains of deep open up. Get a mop.

Both stories come from the Mesoptamian stories 2000 to 3000 BCE J (Yahwist 900-700 BCE)Narative is based on the flood story of Atrahasis while P(600 BCE Priestly) is based on the Enuma Elish during the exile. They were later joined after the exile.

[otseng]

I understand what your saying, but I still have to question how geological formation could have changed when from what I have read about the flood, it lacked the power to change anything.

The global flood goes way beyond the simple presentations taught by Sunday School teachers. And it's much too complex to explain in this thread. However, I have explained it as best as I could in the Global Flood thread.

[juliod]

The problem is, the global flood has already been falsified, fully and completely. You can't just ressurect a hypothesis each time you start a new investigation.

In this specific case, there is no need to invoke a global flood, even from your perspective. You posited a regional drainage of a inland sea. The conventional explanation is the flood/drainage of a region due to melting or retreating glaciers.

The question is, can you say how these two events would be differentiated? Can you show that the inland sea existed? Can you show that the supposed inland sea implies a global flood?

All you say in your last post is that the flood created all the topology all at once, followed by drainage of this area shortly after. You're not free to just reject all previous geological work on the formation of sediment, uplift of mountains, and the non-existance of a global flood.

In other words, to me it seems all you are saying is that a presumed global flood changes all the "rules" relating to geological events, and you wish to believe in it.

DanZ

[otseng]

I believe I have made a step by step case based on empirical evidence and made logical deductions based on that evidence.

Whereas such generalities that you have made further little for your position.

I would suggest that the best way to approach it would be to point to specific errors in my reasoning process. Show counter evidence. Demonstrate how the ice dam hypothesis (or even your own hypothesis) explains better than my Wallula Gap dam hypothesis.

[juliod]

Whereas such generalities that you have made further little for your position.

Except that my generalities are how we must proceed. When a theory has been falsified we must abondon it.

I don't have the knowledge to refute you argument in detail, and little motivation to research it. I suggest you try publishing your idea in a creationist journal. That might attract an analysis from a professional geologist.

In all seriousness, what you have written here is much better than the average creationist writing.

DanZ

[otseng]

When a theory has been falsified we must abondon it.

When my Wallula Gap Dam hypothesis has been falsified, I'm willing to abandon it.

I suggest you try publishing your idea in a creationist journal. That might attract an analysis from a professional geologist.

I'm content just publishing it here on this forum. But, remember, if it gets widespread, you know where it originated from.

In all seriousness, what you have written here is much better than the average creationist writing.

I appreciate that.

[otseng]

If a catastrophic flood created the Scablands in a short period of time, couldn't other geological features elsewhere be also created in a short amount of time?

I've decided to start a new thread to discuss ripple marks - Drumlins, Ribbed Moraines, and Giant Ripples.

[otseng]

While researching for erratics, I found a nice map showing the location of all the erratics in Willamette Valley.

Maps Showing Inundation Depths, Ice-Rafted Erratics, and Sedimentary Facies of Late Pleistocene Missoula Floods in the Willamette Valley, Oregon

I think the map also shows that the erosional patterns is not consistent with a flood from an ice dam, but is more consistent with my Wallula Gap dam hypothesis.