A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.

Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.

Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.

Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

[Mugview]

Yet another post giving yet another line of evidence against a global flood.

Perhaps Mugview should peruse the thread to see just how profoundly the evidentiary decked is stacked against the idea of a global flood.

While waiting until you have the opportunity to address all points, allow me to ask:

Do you think that "global flood" is the only calamity forming the surface of the earth?

Some of your comments are going to that direction, which may not be correct.

The discussion is to analyze the clues left behind by global flood, as they may have been buried by more recent calamities.
Grand Canyon may originally be carved by the Great Deluge, but since then it underwent some natural changes as well.
Now we are trying to assess the Great Deluge, not the other calamities, but learning from recent calamities, can give a better understanding of what had happened in greater scale of disaster.

[micatala]

Yet another post giving yet another line of evidence against a global flood.

Perhaps Mugview should peruse the thread to see just how profoundly the evidentiary decked is stacked against the idea of a global flood.

While waiting until you have the opportunity to address all points, allow me to ask:

Do you think that "global flood" is the only calamity forming the surface of the earth?

I think there have been many calamities, but not a global flood.

The discussion is to analyze the clues left behind by global flood, as they may have been buried by more recent calamities.

I notice you have pre-judged the result. The discussion is to analyze whether a global flood happened or not. I think any detailed, objective analysis would clearly conclude it did not.

Grand Canyon may originally be carved by the Great Deluge, but since then it underwent some natural changes as well.

If the global flood were a reality, you should be able to consider all the details of the canyon and explain which layers were, or at least likely were, formed during the flood, if any. I have already pointed out some very great difficulties in doing that.

Now we are trying to assess the Great Deluge, not the other calamities, but learning from recent calamities, can give a better understanding of what had happened in greater scale of disaster.

Again, you are assuming the Great Deluge was a reality, despite the vast evidence to the contrary. I am all for considering other actual calamities. They will actually help show the global flood did not happen. For example, the large floods in the scablands area of the Northwest U.S. show what an actual massive flood would produce. The Grand Canyon does not look like that. The Grand Canyon was carved slowly over a vast amount of time.

The layers were also formed over a vast amount of time, as testified to by the fossils, and the actual rock types found there.


A good scientist will quickly and efficiently look for evidence that might debunk their own theory. This saves a lot of time imagining how some pieces of evidence might fit, only to have the theory destroyed in the end because of a refusal to consider negative evidence. It is the same as with the police. THe police will try to identify potential suspects, but will also try to rule out suspects as quickly as possible to avoid wasting their own time.


In your case, if you have no idea or are not willing to argue about specific layers, you are like a policeman imagining they know who the criminal is, but not willing to consider the details of the evidence, especially any potential evidence showing the imagined criminal is innocent.

[micatala]

Which species do you think went extinct during the flood?

Some members of bacteria, archaea or eukaryota may have gone extinct during the flood.

Very good. Is that all? No other species went extinct during the flood?

There are no evidence to support detail identifications of what went extinct during the flood, so we have to speculate as much as we can.

THis seems to me to be dodging the question. If this is your position, then it seems to me quite just to label your whole global flood idea as speculation.

I suppose if we add the idea of the ark to the story, we could say that no animal species went extinct, but adding the ark will only increase the difficulties with the theory, as there are an astonishing number of problems with such a purported ark.

By the way, I should have realized that bacteria, archaea and eukaryote encompass all of life, so your original statement is rather vacuous anyway.



Do you think dinosaurs, trilobites, etc. went extinct before the flood, or were at least the non-marine dinosaurs aboard the ark? Or, would you rather not even bring up the ark? The only reason I am bringing it up is to clarify if that is part of your explanation for some species not going extinct.

Do any of these layers pre-date the flood? Were any of those left intact during the flood? Are there any layers that formed after the flood was entirely finished?

Flood is capable to change the surface of biosphere, so it is difficult to ascertain which layers pre-date the flood and left intact. As the flood receded then the hydrodynamic will play a big role in sorting the layers and deposits of the dead bodies. It will then cause the formation of different sediments and layers.

A single flood would not produce the varied types of layers found in the Grand Canyon, for example.

However, we can get back to this later. One item to consider is that many types of sedimentary rock take a long time to form. For example, shale is made of very tiny particles. These take a long time just to settle out of the water. Then, there is time involved in hardening. They tend not to form unless the water is very still. Having thousands of shale, interposed with layers of other kinds of rocks, is really an insurmountable problem for a single flood. But again, you have not been willing to argue for any specifics regarding the alleged global flood.

Can you explain fossilized footprints in the sand as occurring either during or after the flood, especially when these footprints occur in layers both above and below layers with fossilized aquatic life?

Fossils are generally formed with the stacking of some layers. During the dynamic shifting under the influence of excess fluid, several stacks could be shifted to form new stacks.

You are going to have to explain this. If the layers have not solidified, dynamic shifting, whatever you mean by that, would likely simply destroy the layering.

Dead human bodies do float after several days in the water.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 551AAesX1k

Dead bodies of certain animals can also float, while others sink.
Thus, at the end, sorted "hydrologically", human cadavers will stay on top of other carcasses and plant remains. Human remains could have been found not below pterosaurs and archaeopteryx.

Your argument here is completely illogical. Why would all human cadavers float over the top of all the dinosaurs, trilobites, etc.? Are you saying all the pterosaurs died in the flood, AND somehow sank under all the dead humans, and that NO humans sank and they ALL floated?

Are you sure that those fossils were found exactly underneath the fossils of humans?
No, fossils are discovered in different layers in different places. Human fossils were not found on top the fossils of dinosaurs. At the dinosaur quarries, only dinosaurs were found, hardly any fossils of other creatures were seen.

I'll agree that different geographical locations come into play.

However, layers can exist over wide areas, and even when there are breaks, one can identify a pattern of layers in region A as being the same as those in region B, even if A and B are far apart and the layers do not continuously run from one to the other.

Thus, we can, by careful work with the details, identify that some layers were laid down later than others even if they do not occur in the same location.

In addition, dinosaurs have been found all over the world, including in areas where humans currently live, and where they have lived in the distant past. If dinosaurs and humans did live at the same time, if they were, for example, both alive at the commencement of the flood, it strains credulity to suggest that they somehow were living in completely isolate biospheres. In addition, a flood of the kind you are suggesting would tend to allow for the migration of dead bodies outside of the regions they actually lived in, increasing the mixing of species.


And, the problem for your theory only multiplies if we consider all possible pairs of species, especially non-human species. After all, humanoid fossils are rather rare. Trilobites are not. If trilobites were alive at the start of the flood, it is inconceivable that their fossils would not be found with the other types of marine life of the time, including marine dinosaurs. They are certainly more mobile than some types of sea life.

Consider that human bodies often do sink, even in fairly shallow rivers, and are never found.

And we haven't even gotten to sea life that could easily survive a flood. Why would all the trilobites die AND end up below ALL the dinosaurs who are below ALL the flowering plants, and many types flowering plants are below ALL the humans.

And, as another detail, consider stromatolites.

http://www.fossilmall.com/Science/About ... tolite.htm

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

How did all the lowest layers end up with nothing but stromatolites and similar life? Why no coral in these lower layers? Why no other plants, not dinosaurs, not trilobites, no humans, no mammals, no insects, no worms?

How did coral fossils, buried in place as they live, end up over land animals which were then over stromatolites?

Details!!!!

Again, it is is just a presumption that some creatures were buried in place as they live. A flood can displace many things very quickly to a far away places (from the upper down steeply to lower area of a river, for example).

Those layers were not all stacked at the same time, but some were stacked on a higher ground, then the stack moved to lower area on top of existing stacks.
This is how multiple set of layers are found on what was a deep valley.

I'll agree that many fossils of plants are not buried in their exact living location. But, as shown in a previous post, some are.

Secondly, if you are arguing for wide-ranging displacement of species by the flood, this makes the mixing of species across biospheres more likely, thus making it much more likely that we would find dinosaurs (or other species) with humans (or other types of species which we never find them with).

I am not following your second paragraph. Stacks would not be moved in tact by a flood. They would get eroded and mixed to form new types of layers. I will agree that this happens.

[Clownboat]

The discussion is to analyze the clues left behind by global flood, as they may have been buried by more recent calamities.

I would argue that you are doing it wrong. IMO, we should analyze the clues left behind and see where the evidence leads us. Not start with a conclusion and then try to fit in evidence.

Such a process will likely leave a person looking for evidence for a special creation for humans if they start with the premise "humans were created special" for example.

Let the evidence lead us where it may.

[Mugview]

I notice you have pre-judged the result. The discussion is to analyze whether a global flood happened or not. I think any detailed, objective analysis would clearly conclude it did not.

It is in OP, not my choice of words. The discussion starts on a Global Flood Model as the best explanation for the observations. Naturally I use it as a hypothesis, that it happened. I am not convinced that it can be concluded yet, whether it occurred or not.

Many years back, I was convinced that a global flood could have not happened. However, the information from Mt. St. Helen, reanalysis of Lake Missoula floods, etc. gave some hints that there may be a great deluge. Data from earlier pages do give somethings fresher than the notion of "could never happen".
I feel that some thick layers of sediments do not represent million years of time, but a witness of flooding. The material in the layer is too homogenous to assume that for a period of tens of millions of years the earth was in a steady state condition to allow the accumulation of similar materials, and right after changed to another tens of millions of years period wherby other materials accumulated again in a relatively peaceful condition, without much perturbation.
This is in contrast to the history of earth with seasonal changes, natural events, such as volcano eruptions, earthquakes, ice ages, etc.
There can be a compromise that some layers were formed due to one flood, then another flood left a number of layers on top of the old ones etc. However, the similar layers throughout the world, which form the geologic column, may indicate a big flood, instead of a long era.

[micatala]

I notice you have pre-judged the result. The discussion is to analyze whether a global flood happened or not. I think any detailed, objective analysis would clearly conclude it did not.

It is in OP, not my choice of words. The discussion starts on a Global Flood Model as the best explanation for the observations. Naturally I use it as a hypothesis, that it happened. I am not convinced that it can be concluded yet, whether it occurred or not.

I'll accept the OP is not worded using my lingo. Still, even the OP does not assume a global flood happened.

Many years back, I was convinced that a global flood could have not happened. However, the information from Mt. St. Helen, reanalysis of Lake Missoula floods, etc. gave some hints that there may be a great deluge. Data from earlier pages do give somethings fresher than the notion of "could never happen".
I feel that some thick layers of sediments do not represent million years of time, but a witness of flooding. The material in the layer is too homogenous to assume that for a period of tens of millions of years the earth was in a steady state condition to allow the accumulation of similar materials, and right after changed to another tens of millions of years period wherby other materials accumulated again in a relatively peaceful condition, without much perturbation.
This is in contrast to the history of earth with seasonal changes, natural events, such as volcano eruptions, earthquakes, ice ages, etc.
There can be a compromise that some layers were formed due to one flood, then another flood left a number of layers on top of the old ones etc. However, the similar layers throughout the world, which form the geologic column, may indicate a big flood, instead of a long era.

Again, this is all speculation and is at odds with geological reality. You are assuming the earth could not have even had large areas that were roughly in a steady state for long periods. The evidence actually shows otherwise.

Seasonal changes occur, yes, but layers can be formed annually that are similar if each year is similar.

Layers are formed during flooding, yes, but distinct layers would not be created by a single flood. The particles that form a layer of shale, for example, would take a long time to settle to the bottom of a body of water of any significant depth, and that body would have to be nearly still for that to happen. You have described your alleged flood as rather tumultuous.

As with creatures, larger heavier particles would settle to the bottom first. Even if your flood waters became still, if there were particles of various sizes, which would seem to be the case given the violence of the flood you describe, you would get (local mudslides notwithstanding) a single layer with larger particles towards the bottom and the smallest particles at the top. Perhaps this might look like multiple layers somewhat blended together, graded by particle size.

Please show that there is such a layer to be found over the entire globe.

When you get to the details, you can often see unconformities created by a set of layers of a completely different kind of rock. Again, look at the details of the Grand Canyon, which you have yet to address. Sandstone and shale are different kinds of rocks. Basic geology and hydrology would show a sandstone layer on top of a shale layer would not be formed by a single flood, and in the GC, you have hundreds or thousands of layers of one, then of the other.



I'll accept that a person can hypothesize a lot of different global flood models, and thereby attempt to explain different sets of layers as being created by the flood. otseng, the author of the OP, argued that nearly all the layers were created by the flood. I know he would disagree, but there is enough in this thread to show that really cannot be.


Unless you are willing to give specifics, rather than vague and unsubstantiated generalities, I will probably leave off addressing this topic for the time being. I will note I did finish responding to your one post, but you have yet to address the specifics of a number of issues that present very serious challenges to a flood model.


I will leave you with yet another. If you go back through the thread, you will see that ice caps in Greenland and the Antarctic have many tens of thousands, several hundred thousand in the latter case, annual layers. These show no trace of a global flood, which would infuse the exposed ice with salt. Not to mention that a flood covering over these areas would float the ice. Just this evidence refutes the notion of a global flood within the last well over a hundred thousand years.

This would mean no global flood within human history for sure.

[Mugview]

Layers are formed during flooding, yes, but distinct layers would not be created by a single flood. The particles that form a layer of shale, for example, would take a long time to settle to the bottom of a body of water of any significant depth, and that body would have to be nearly still for that to happen. You have described your alleged flood as rather tumultuous.

As with creatures, larger heavier particles would settle to the bottom first. Even if your flood waters became still, if there were particles of various sizes, which would seem to be the case given the violence of the flood you describe, you would get (local mudslides notwithstanding) a single layer with larger particles towards the bottom and the smallest particles at the top. Perhaps this might look like multiple layers somewhat blended together, graded by particle size.

Please show that there is such a layer to be found over the entire globe.

Those layers over the entire globe are what I used to take as indications of "eras".
Perhaps some of them are from certain eras, but it is also possible, learning from Lake Missoula, that some of the layers observed in various parts of the world with distinct particular orders may have been formed by a universal flood.
Some may contain a number of creatures, some may not (as there were no creatures nearby or different creatures), but the layer is recognizable due to similar materials in it.

When you get to the details, you can often see unconformities created by a set of layers of a completely different kind of rock. Again, look at the details of the Grand Canyon, which you have yet to address. Sandstone and shale are different kinds of rocks. Basic geology and hydrology would show a sandstone layer on top of a shale layer would not be formed by a single flood, and in the GC, you have hundreds or thousands of layers of one, then of the other.

I have checked the thread about the Grand Canyon, which is pretty detail, so it doesn't have to be discussed again here.
There can be a number of flood models to explain phenomena at GC, and the global flood model can still be one of them.

I'll accept that a person can hypothesize a lot of different global flood models, and thereby attempt to explain different sets of layers as being created by the flood. otseng, the author of the OP, argued that nearly all the layers were created by the flood. I know he would disagree, but there is enough in this thread to show that really cannot be.

I am fairly new here, so I don't know much of the authors, but I think the author of OP for this thread is "LittlePig", not "otseng".

Unless you are willing to give specifics, rather than vague and unsubstantiated generalities, I will probably leave off addressing this topic for the time being. I will note I did finish responding to your one post, but you have yet to address the specifics of a number of issues that present very serious challenges to a flood model.

Sorry that I tire you with my post. I still need to catch up with previous pages. To me there are facts that can be satisfactorily explained by more than one flood model, including global flood model. Not to say that after the global flood, there might be other local floods, just like what happened in Mount St. Helens.

I will leave you with yet another. If you go back through the thread, you will see that ice caps in Greenland and the Antarctic have many tens of thousands, several hundred thousand in the latter case, annual layers. These show no trace of a global flood, which would infuse the exposed ice with salt. Not to mention that a flood covering over these areas would float the ice. Just this evidence refutes the notion of a global flood within the last well over a hundred thousand years.

This would mean no global flood within human history for sure.

This website claims that the layers in ice may not be "annual" as a 1942 plane was found to be covered by 263 feet of ice only in 48 years as reported in ‘The Lost Squadron’ Life magazine 15(14):60–68, December 1992 and ‘Search for a Fork-Tailed Devil’ Compressed Air Magazine, pp. 30–36, March 1996.

http://sepetjian.wordpress.com/2012/07/ ... -squadron/

Is it possible that the ice caps in Greenland and the Antarctic was formed AFTER the global flood?
I have heard the ice is melting fast in those locations, and soon we can see what layers are underneath it.

[micatala]

Layers are formed during flooding, yes, but distinct layers would not be created by a single flood. The particles that form a layer of shale, for example, would take a long time to settle to the bottom of a body of water of any significant depth, and that body would have to be nearly still for that to happen. You have described your alleged flood as rather tumultuous.

As with creatures, larger heavier particles would settle to the bottom first. Even if your flood waters became still, if there were particles of various sizes, which would seem to be the case given the violence of the flood you describe, you would get (local mudslides notwithstanding) a single layer with larger particles towards the bottom and the smallest particles at the top. Perhaps this might look like multiple layers somewhat blended together, graded by particle size.

Please show that there is such a layer to be found over the entire globe.

Those layers over the entire globe are what I used to take as indications of "eras".
Perhaps some of them are from certain eras, but it is also possible, learning from Lake Missoula, that some of the layers observed in various parts of the world with distinct particular orders may have been formed by a universal flood.
Some may contain a number of creatures, some may not (as there were no creatures nearby or different creatures), but the layer is recognizable due to similar materials in it.

What layers over the entire globe? Again, you have not described anything in detail and are still simply making assumptions without any evidence.

We already agree there is evidence for local floods, including Lake Missoula. Where is the evidence that any of these local floods amounts to a global flood?

When you get to the details, you can often see unconformities created by a set of layers of a completely different kind of rock. Again, look at the details of the Grand Canyon, which you have yet to address. Sandstone and shale are different kinds of rocks. Basic geology and hydrology would show a sandstone layer on top of a shale layer would not be formed by a single flood, and in the GC, you have hundreds or thousands of layers of one, then of the other.

I have checked the thread about the Grand Canyon, which is pretty detail, so it doesn't have to be discussed again here.
There can be a number of flood models to explain phenomena at GC, and the global flood model can still be one of them.

What??? Where in that thread did anyone explain how all the details found there could have been the result of a single flood, let alone a global flood?

The GC is still on the table.

I'll accept that a person can hypothesize a lot of different global flood models, and thereby attempt to explain different sets of layers as being created by the flood. otseng, the author of the OP, argued that nearly all the layers were created by the flood. I know he would disagree, but there is enough in this thread to show that really cannot be.

I am fairly new here, so I don't know much of the authors, but I think the author of OP for this thread is "LittlePig", not "otseng".

I stand corrected. Most of my previous interactions on this thread were with otseng, and he was the primary person speaking for the flood model.

Unless you are willing to give specifics, rather than vague and unsubstantiated generalities, I will probably leave off addressing this topic for the time being. I will note I did finish responding to your one post, but you have yet to address the specifics of a number of issues that present very serious challenges to a flood model.

Sorry that I tire you with my post. I still need to catch up with previous pages. To me there are facts that can be satisfactorily explained by more than one flood model, including global flood model. Not to say that after the global flood, there might be other local floods, just like what happened in Mount St. Helens.

I am waiting for you to reconcile how your global flood model, which you have not described in any detail, can be reconciled with the various refutations I have already provided.


I will note MT. St. Helens was not a flood. I fail to see its relevance to a flood consisting of water.

If you say there was a global flood, give us the details. When did it occur?

Which strata do you claim are the result of this global flood? How can you tell they are not the results of local floods?

I will leave you with yet another. If you go back through the thread, you will see that ice caps in Greenland and the Antarctic have many tens of thousands, several hundred thousand in the latter case, annual layers. These show no trace of a global flood, which would infuse the exposed ice with salt. Not to mention that a flood covering over these areas would float the ice. Just this evidence refutes the notion of a global flood within the last well over a hundred thousand years.

This would mean no global flood within human history for sure.

This website claims that the layers in ice may not be "annual" as a 1942 plane was found to be covered by 263 feet of ice only in 48 years as reported in ‘The Lost Squadron’ Life magazine 15(14):60–68, December 1992 and ‘Search for a Fork-Tailed Devil’ Compressed Air Magazine, pp. 30–36, March 1996.

http://sepetjian.wordpress.com/2012/07/ ... -squadron/

Is it possible that the ice caps in Greenland and the Antarctic was formed AFTER the global flood?

No, because there has not been a global flood. However, if there were one, yes, all the ice layers would have had to have formed after the flood. This puts any possibility of such a flood several hundreds of thousands of years in the past at least.

I have heard the ice is melting fast in those locations, and soon we can see what layers are underneath it.

Layers do not always melt from the top, but actually more often from the sides, or even the bottom. Compression forces the ice towards the sea where it may melt, or simply calve off into the sea and then melt. It is typically a lot warmer at the coast in Greenland, and Antarctica, than in the interior. Melting could occur at the bottom due to pressure, or because cracks in the ice let water down the bottom.


I note your source has a number of major logical problems.

It assumes that the rate of ice deposition over the plane continues for the entire depth of the ice sheet at that location. He offers no evidence for this, and in fact, we know from observations that ice layers get compressed over time, and so lower layers are almost always significantly thinner than upper layers. The author waves this away without considering the details.

Secondly, this plane was buried only 10 miles from the coast (see NY Times article on this). The ice sheet would have been thicker towards the middle of the island. This author does not take that into account.



The author cites one quote and then assumes this quote factually supports hundreds of layers at this spot. Was the person making this quote trained in discerning layers I wonder? He goes on to say that the layers could have been the result of less than annual warming and cooling.

I also note this author believes in a very young earth, and thinks ice core evidence proves this. Again, he can only reach this conclusion be being illogical or not taking into account most of the evidence. I might ask if you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old.



If you look at my sources earlier in the thread, you will see that scientists double check visual layers with chemical analysis. That atmosphere goes through chemical changes on an annual basis, and these can be detected in the ice. I will try to find the specific pages.

[micatala]

There is discussion of ice cores at various points in the thread, but you can get most of it if you start around page 60. Here are a few links mentioned along the way.

One of my posts from page 60.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 837#262837



A link from that same page, showing some images of ice layers.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... _IceCores/


A link describing general methods for dating cores.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
Note that one method of checking is to cross reference with volcanic eruptions of known age. Eruptions have unique chemical signatures in the ash, and so you can tell from traces of ash where and when it came from. This has been used in cross-checking ice cores in Greenland.



Also from Post #601, a link discussing the many Lake Missoula floods.
http://www.nps.gov/iceagefloods/








Here is a link mentioned in a later post.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 02599.html

From the abstract.

The Antarctic Vostok ice core provided compelling evidence of the nature of climate, and of climate feedbacks, over the past 420,000 years. Marine records suggest that the amplitude of climate variability was smaller before that time, but such records are often poorly resolved. Moreover, it is not possible to infer the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from marine records. Here we report the recovery of a deep ice core from Dome C, Antarctica, that provides a climate record for the past 740,000 years.

I go on in that post to show that even a conservative ball park estimate based only on thickness gets us to at least 130,000 years ago.




See Post #647 for a nice ice layer image along with related discussion.

http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~www-glac/datering ... tint_e.htm




Here is an article from Canadian researchers looking at ice cores there. Notice the many ways in which they double-check the dating. I referenced this in Post #652.


http://www.museevirtuel-virtualmuseum.c ... 02&lang=en


Finally, here is a link I reference in Post 712. It has some great images of ice cores from Greenland.
http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~www-glac/ngrip/pa ... fs/206.pdf








As you can see, we have very ample evidence of old ice sheets, and the evidence they provide contradicts a global flood, at least in that era. Thus, no global flood for sure during human history, and in fact, for many thousands of years before that.

Again, you need to step up to the plate and tell us, according to your understanding, when this global flood is supposed to have occurred and why you think that.





Now, I know you might feel I am overwhelming you with data. But that is the reality of science.

A global flood model has to take into account ALL the data, just as standard geological models do. If some of this data contradicts a global flood model, it does not matter how much evidence is consistent with the model. Go back to my earlier criminal justice analogy.

If the actual criminal was left-handed, blonde, 5 foot 11, 185 pounds, and lives in San Francisco and a suspect is all of these except he is right-handed, then the other factors are irrelevant. He is not the criminal.

[micatala]

I am quoting a previous post here that sums up a lot of the data showing the Greenland ice sheet is at least 120,000 years old. It refers to one of the articles in my previous post, the one that has a number of good images of ice cores.

Here is an article on visual stratigraphy from Greenland.

http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~www-glac/ngrip/pa ... fs/206.pdf

It has a 2005 publication date. The article includes quite a number of good graphics, including a sample of 9 fairly long ice core samples from varying depths.

This will take some time to wade through, but does seem very relevant to the discussion. It specifically mentions how deep the visual layers can be discerned.


To paraphrase the hawkers of reading material of various kinds, "if you only read one article on ice cores this week, this is the one!"

OK. Let's see what this article has to say:

A continuous high-resolution record of digital images has been obtained from the
North Greenland Ice Core Project (NorthGRIP) ice core (75.1N, 42.3W) in the depth interval from 1330 m to the bedrock at 3085 m. The ice core stratigraphy is clearly visible throughout the glacial period with the most frequent and brightest visible layers appearing during the coldest events. Down to a depth of 2600 m the horizontal layering is very regular; below this depth, small irregularities in the layering start to appear, and below 2800 m the visual stratigraphy becomes more uncertain, perhaps because of penetration into climatically warmer ice.

Comparison of the visual stratigraphy with high-resolution continuous records of chemical impurities and dust reveals a high degree of correlation, which indicates that the visible layers are caused by these impurities. A new approach is used to automatically determine annual layer thicknesses from the visual stratigraphy record by carrying out a frequency analysis of the most prominent visible layers in the profile. The result gives strong support for the NorthGRIP timescale model.

Using the techniques described later, visual layers are clearly discernible.

THey are highly correlated with other data.

THey strongly support the existing timescale for this area. For the record, the ice sheet here is said to go back 123,000 years.

The ice core is 3085 m long and covers the Holocene, the
entire last glacial period, and part of the previous interglacial
period, the Eemian, back to approximately 123 kyr BP.

The images are obtained digitally using a mechanism which backlights the core indirectly. This is described on page 2.

Nine sample images from various depths are shown on page 3. Certainly the layers show a lot of variation regarding thickness, sharpness, contrast, etc. but are for the most part very clearly discernible.

The article notes that the visual analysis was compared with several types of chemical analyses, including "calcium Ca++, sodium Na+, ammonium NH4
+, sulphate SO4 , nitrate NO3 , the electrolytical conductivity of
the melt water, and the amount of insoluble dust."




The stratigraphy appearance can change significantly with previously determined past climactic changes.

Throughout the glacial period, the ice core stratigraphy
is clearly visible. During the coldest climatic events the
intensity and the frequency of visible layers or cloudy bands
are highest (Figures 2b–2d). During milder interstadials the
layering is also clearly visible after contrast enhancement of
the images, even when the stratigraphy of the core is barely
visible to the naked eye. An example of an abrupt climatic
transition during the glacial period is given in Figure 2e,
which shows the transition into the mild glacial interstadial
19 as a sharp drop in intensity of the VS over some 10 cm of
ice. The glacial profile is very detailed and reveals very
sharp transitions in the occurrence of visible layers, which
show a large variability in intensity and thickness even over
short depth intervals (Figure 3c).

Later on that page the authors describe how the lower layers show bending and are less discernible. Clearly the authors are being cautious not to overstate the case.

Presence of volcanic ash in some layers is clearly discernible and noted. See Figure 3b on page 5.

1506.1 m depth, the visible ‘‘Vedde’’ ash layer in
Younger Dryas (also shown in Figure 2b).

This layers is mentioned in wikipedias page on Tephochronology, which is the science of using volcanic tephra in dating. The key is:

The premise of the technique is that each volcanic event produces ash with a unique chemical "fingerprint" that allows the deposit to be identified across the area affected by fallout. Thus, once the volcanic event has been independently dated, the tephra horizon will act as time marker.

See also http://www.tephrabase.org/tephrochron.html.


The Vedde Ash layer has been identified in a number of areas in Iceland and Norway and even Great Britain. It is dated to over 10,000 years before the present.

The Vedde Ash Bed (mid-Younger Dryas) and the Saksunarvatn Ash (early Holocene) are important regional stratigraphic event markers in the North Atlantic, the Norwegian Sea, and the adjacent land area. It is thus essential to date them as precisely as possible. The occurrence of the Saksunarvatn Ash is reported for the first time from western Norway, and both tephras are dated precisely by AMS analyses of terrestrial plant material and lake sediment at Kråkenes. The Vedde Ash has been previously dated at sites in western Norway to about 10,600 yr B.P. It is obvious in the Younger Dryas sediments at Kråkenes, and its identity is confirmed geochemically. The mean of four AMS dates of samples ofSalix herbacealeaves adjacent to the tephra is 10,310 ± 50 yr B.P. The Saksunarvatn Ash is not visible in the early Holocene lake sediment at Kråkenes. After removal of organic material and diatoms, the identity of the tephra particles was confirmed geochemically, and their stratigraphic concentration was estimated. From curve matching of a series of seven AMS dates of terrestrial plant macrofossils and whole sediment, the radiocarbon age of the ash is 8930–9060 yr B.P., corresponding to an age of 9930–10,010 cal yr B.P. (7980–8060 cal yr B.C.).

THis was confirmed by a number of other abstracts for scientific articles.



Thus, we have additional support for several previous claims.

1) Visual layers, albeit enhanced by various techniques, are visible thousands of meters below the surface.
2) We see not only annual layers, but also larger scale variations in climate based on the brightness or darkness of the bands. I had alluded to this possibility earlier in discussing pictures of snow pits.
3) Visual layers are correlated with many other types of data, including chemical data. FOr example, note the incredible correspondence shown in Figure 4 on page 6 of the Svensson article between the visual stratigraphy and the O18 profile. Sharp rises in the visual intensity correspond exactly with sharp drops in the stable isotope graph.
4) Volcanic events can be discerned within layers and can be used as markers.

Now, to address otseng's suggestion that scientists cannot tell which layers are annual and which are not, note in this (and other articles) scientists are careful to note how confident they can be the layers are annual and when the layers do not have sufficient integrity to be used for dating. There is no indication that scientists are blithely assuming anything they see is an annual layer. Rather, they carefully test whether the visual stratigraphy corresponds with other dating measures.

Note that we have an event, the Vedde Ash layer, dated by carbon dating, fossil analysis and other means not involving ice cores to a little over 10,000 years before the present.

Note that this later, identified by its chemical signature, is found in the Northern Greenland ice core.



Considering the careful and cautious nature of the discussion in this article, if the visual stratigraphy indicated say 20,000 layers prior to the Vedde event instead of about 10,000, don't you think the scientists writing this article would have noted that. But instead, they note that their visual stratigraphy provides strong support for the dating conclusions that had already been reached.




How is it at all credible to suggest that scientists are confusing multiple layers created by individual snowfall events with annual layers??




As one final citation, here is an abstract which discusses comparisons of multiple ice cores with several other types of dating evidences.

Abstract
A new Greenland Ice Core Chronology (GICC05) based on multi-parameter counting of annual layers has been obtained for the last 42 ka. Here we compare the glacial part of the new time scale, which is based entirely on records from the NorthGRIP ice core, to existing time scales and reference horizons covering the same period. These include the GRIP and NorthGRIP modelled time scales, the Meese-Sowers GISP2 counted time scale, the Shackleton–Fairbanks GRIP time scale (SFCP04) based on 14C calibration of a marine core, the Hulu Cave record, three volcanic reference horizons, and the Laschamp geomagnetic excursion event occurring around Greenland Interstadial 10. GICC05 is generally in good long-term agreement with the existing Greenland ice core chronologies and with the Hulu Cave record, but on shorter time scales there are significant discrepancies. Around the Last Glacial Maximum there is a more than 1 ka age difference between GICC05 and SFCP04 and a more than 0.5 ka discrepancy in the same direction between GICC05 and the age of a recently identified tephra layer in the NorthGRIP ice core. Both SFCP04 and the tephra age are based on 14C-dated marine cores and fixed marine reservoir ages. For the Laschamp event, GICC05 agrees with a recent independent dating within the uncertainties.

Note the multi-parameter counting.

Note they freely admit that one chronology might by off by as much as 1000 years from another. However, this is within an overall chronology going back 42000 years. Again, if there was a huge problem discerning between snowfall events which might take place once or twice a year to over a dozen in some areas with annual layers, how would scientists be off by less than 5% between dating techniques that are being used not only in ice but on land and in sea? How would all the different methods and locations still give results that are so close over periods of many tens of thousands of years?




All of this seems to put the Greenland ice sheet at clearly over 40,000 years and with a good deal of confidence over 120,000 years.