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?

[otseng]

Perhaps if you explain the mechanics behind each and every prediction more, because the way they are presented, I do not see the connections between a massive great flood and your predictions.

Could you break down the 'prediction' into smaller steps, and explain point a to point b to point c to point d for me?? Can you connect the dots?? It's very important to connect the dots in science.

There are a lot of dots to connect. And I really do not want to rehash the Global Flood thread and start with dot a again. But, I'll give some highlights from the Global Flood thread.

Let me start by describing the Earth before the Flood. The earth's atmosphere was very different than it is now. The temperature was more uniform throughout the earth and was mostly tropical. The entire world was covered by some sort of water canopy which allowed for a global tropical climate. It also did not rain. The earth had an abundance of large animals (dinosaurs) and large plants. The oceans did not exist as we know them now. However, there were seas that existed. The major mountain ranges did not exist and the mountains were smaller than what we have today. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the earth's surface. Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas were a connected land mass.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =3114#3114

We all know the idea that the land mass of Europe/Africa and the Americas were once one land mass. The commonly accepted idea is that plate tectonics broke up Pangaea over millions of years. There are many problems with this theory. But the most notable one is the existence of the mid-Atlantic ridge. It is the longest mountain range in the entire world. It spans from Iceland to Antarctica (46,000 miles).

Just looking at it, it is exactly halfway between Europe/Africa and Americas. And it looks like this is where the two split. Looking at this, it seems like the E/A and Americas were once joined at the mid-Atlantic ridge, then it got split apart.

This split occured during the flood. During the initial stage of the flood (rupture phase), the crust split along where the mid-Atlantic ridge is. During the split, the subterranean water gushed out of the crack and eroded the the soil/rock on both sides of the crack. Meanwhile, as water was coming out, the two sides slid away from each other.

The two land masses were not once connected where the beaches are now, but they were connected where the continental shelves are. This explains the origin of the continental shelves.

During the rupture phase as the subterranean water gushed out, the force of the water coming out eroded a lot of the soil/rocks and carried it high into the atmosphere and deposited it rapidly around the world. This destroyed the water canopy that had existed in the atmosphere. The pressure of the water gushing out would have formed the mid-Atlantic ridge.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =3253#3253

The major land mountain ranges were formed as the water under the crust diminished. While there was water, the crust was free to move since water has a low friction coefficient. But once the water was gone, the crust hit the basalt underneath. With the large friction coefficient, the crust started to buckle. The crust had a huge lateral momentum as it was sliding away from the mid-Oceanic ridge. The momentum caused the crust to form the Rockies, Appalachians, Andes, Himalayas, etc.

Notice that the major mountain ranges of the Americas (Rockies, Andes) run parallel to the western coastline. Why is that? It is consistent with what should happen if the entire land mass was moving westward, then abruptly stopped. Sort of like what happens when a car crashes into a wall. If a car runs into a brick wall, the front of the car would buckle up.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =3286#3286

As the water eroded the sides of the crust, it carried sediments and deposited it rapidly around the world. The entire world was covered with water and sediments at this point. Meanwhile, the crust was gradually settling as the water underneath decreased. As the land mountain ranges were forming and as the sediments in the water settled, the water receded into the oceans we have now and also froze in the North and South poles.

The massive amounts of sediments from the crust erosion formed practically all the rock stratas that we see today. So, instead of billions of years for it to form in the EM, it occurred within a year in the FM.

The rapid burial of the plants and animals caused the formation of most all the oil, coal, and fossils we find today.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =3287#3287

So, the sequence is:
1. Rupture phase where cracks formed at oceanic ridges
2. Flood/stratification phase where water and sediments covered the entire earth and all parallel stratas formed
3. Buckling phase where strata folding occurred
4. Erosion phase where canyons formed and stratas were eroded

From the FM, it follows that we should see practically all folds, faults, erosion should affect the entire strata sequence.

[Goat]

Perhaps if you explain the mechanics behind each and every prediction more, because the way they are presented, I do not see the connections between a massive great flood and your predictions.

Could you break down the 'prediction' into smaller steps, and explain point a to point b to point c to point d for me?? Can you connect the dots?? It's very important to connect the dots in science.

There are a lot of dots to connect. And I really do not want to rehash the Global Flood thread and start with dot a again. But, I'll give some highlights from the Global Flood thread.

Let me start by describing the Earth before the Flood. The earth's atmosphere was very different than it is now. The temperature was more uniform throughout the earth and was mostly tropical. The entire world was covered by some sort of water canopy which allowed for a global tropical climate. It also did not rain. The earth had an abundance of large animals (dinosaurs) and large plants. The oceans did not exist as we know them now. However, there were seas that existed. The major mountain ranges did not exist and the mountains were smaller than what we have today. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the earth's surface. Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas were a connected land mass.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =3114#3114

We all know the idea that the land mass of Europe/Africa and the Americas were once one land mass. The commonly accepted idea is that plate tectonics broke up Pangaea over millions of years. There are many problems with this theory. But the most notable one is the existence of the mid-Atlantic ridge. It is the longest mountain range in the entire world. It spans from Iceland to Antarctica (46,000 miles).

Just looking at it, it is exactly halfway between Europe/Africa and Americas. And it looks like this is where the two split. Looking at this, it seems like the E/A and Americas were once joined at the mid-Atlantic ridge, then it got split apart.

This split occured during the flood. During the initial stage of the flood (rupture phase), the crust split along where the mid-Atlantic ridge is. During the split, the subterranean water gushed out of the crack and eroded the the soil/rock on both sides of the crack. Meanwhile, as water was coming out, the two sides slid away from each other.

The two land masses were not once connected where the beaches are now, but they were connected where the continental shelves are. This explains the origin of the continental shelves.

During the rupture phase as the subterranean water gushed out, the force of the water coming out eroded a lot of the soil/rocks and carried it high into the atmosphere and deposited it rapidly around the world. This destroyed the water canopy that had existed in the atmosphere. The pressure of the water gushing out would have formed the mid-Atlantic ridge.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =3253#3253

The major land mountain ranges were formed as the water under the crust diminished. While there was water, the crust was free to move since water has a low friction coefficient. But once the water was gone, the crust hit the basalt underneath. With the large friction coefficient, the crust started to buckle. The crust had a huge lateral momentum as it was sliding away from the mid-Oceanic ridge. The momentum caused the crust to form the Rockies, Appalachians, Andes, Himalayas, etc.

Notice that the major mountain ranges of the Americas (Rockies, Andes) run parallel to the western coastline. Why is that? It is consistent with what should happen if the entire land mass was moving westward, then abruptly stopped. Sort of like what happens when a car crashes into a wall. If a car runs into a brick wall, the front of the car would buckle up.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =3286#3286

As the water eroded the sides of the crust, it carried sediments and deposited it rapidly around the world. The entire world was covered with water and sediments at this point. Meanwhile, the crust was gradually settling as the water underneath decreased. As the land mountain ranges were forming and as the sediments in the water settled, the water receded into the oceans we have now and also froze in the North and South poles.

The massive amounts of sediments from the crust erosion formed practically all the rock stratas that we see today. So, instead of billions of years for it to form in the EM, it occurred within a year in the FM.

The rapid burial of the plants and animals caused the formation of most all the oil, coal, and fossils we find today.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =3287#3287

So, the sequence is:
1. Rupture phase where cracks formed at oceanic ridges
2. Flood/stratification phase where water and sediments covered the entire earth and all parallel stratas formed
3. Buckling phase where strata folding occurred
4. Erosion phase where canyons formed and stratas were eroded

From the FM, it follows that we should see practically all folds, faults, erosion should affect the entire strata sequence.

Ok.

What evidence do you have of the 'tempature being more uniform?"

What physics do you invoke to allow for the 'water canopy' to exist at all?
What evidence do you have of this?

What evidence do you have of the 'oceans being connected by 10 mile wide' tunnels'? What evidence do you have of the 'rupture' happening? Why did such a huge thing happen, and not tear the crust in two?

There are some very large problems with the canopy claim. Aside from a strong lack of evidence for, there is this

from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH310.html

1. A vapor canopy with more than twelve inches of precipitable water would raise the temperature of the earth above boiling (Morton 1979). A vapor canopy of only four inches of water would raise the temperature of the earth to 144 degrees F. It is worth noting that several prominent creationists agree with this conclusion, yet their close colleagues continue to teach that there was a vapor canopy (Morton 2000).

2. A vapor canopy capable of producing the global flood would have increased earth's atmospheric pressure from 15 PSI to 970 PSI.

3. Some creationists try to solve the vapor canopy problems by moving the canopy out of the earth's atmosphere and into orbit. A canopy of orbiting ice would have been unstable (it could only exist in a ring much like Saturn's). It would have cooled the climate (probably just slightly) until it somehow collapsed to cause the flood. Then the release of its gravitational potential energy would have converted all the ice into superheated steam, not into a flood.

Links:
Farrar, Paul, and Bill Hyde, n.d. The vapor canopy hypothesis holds no water. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html

Matson, Dave, 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? Water and vapor and Noah's flood. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/ ... dd.html#A2 or http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... flood.html

Morton, Glenn R., 2000. The demise and fall of the water vapor canopy: A fallen creationist idea. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/canopy.htm
References:

1. Matson, Dave, 1994. (see above).
2. Morton, Glenn R., 1979. Can the canopy hold water? Creation Research Society Quarterly 16(3): 164-169.
3. Morton, 2000. (see above).

[Gonzo]

And don't forget...


1) Almost all, if not all plants would be dead, and we see a tremendous amount of differentiation between them today (which is due to evolution either way).

2) Many of the microorganisms and viruses we have today would be dead or denatured, unless of course your willing to admit evolution.

3) Only so many animals could fit on the boat, so once again... evolution through divergence of species to account for the variety of life we see today.

4) Air pressure generated from the water would have been likely to crush those involved (though I admit it may exclude the glacial model, though the melting would cause a drop in air pressure which is an equally troubling problem)

5) The change in salt concentration would kill most ocean life.

[Scotracer]

Indeed. Fundamental physics destroys the concept of a water canopy.

Everything you said goat is correct.

a) If there was a "water canopy" on top of the atmosphere it would increase barometric pressure by such a level it would kill most terrestrial life we know today.

b) When this water fell to earth for "the flood" the rapid drop in atmospheric pressure would cause almost all life to explode (i.e. rapid decompression).

c) If you move this into space (where it would become an "ice canopy") the energy gained due to gravitation and kinetic effects would cause it to heat to incandescence within hours, falling to earth and vapourising all life. If this was in an orbit around earth it would have to have at least an orbital velocity of 29,800m/s. When this breaks up and falls to earth, with this much kinetic energy it would increase in temperature by the order of thousands of degrees centigrade (i.e. the vapourising I talked about).

d) If there was indeed an ice canopy above the earth's atmosphere, you have the next problem: melting. The sun gives us an equal amount of energy per unit area if you are on the surface at the equator or in orbit at the equator. The sun's radiation can melt roughly 0.5m ice (thick) per day. For it to even last the time between the creation of the earth and the flood (I'm using the biblical account found here) which is roughly 1700 years, it would have to be 310250m thick. And when we look at the amount of sunlight that can actually get through ice (which has roughly the same light impregnation as liquid water), we see that at such a thickness would stop all sunlight reaching the earth. This is because of a region, after a certain depth of water called the "Midnight Zone" where no sunlight can penetrate. So, that's no sunlight. And this is JUST for the biblical age. If we assume the known age of the earth (~4.5 billion years) we get an ice shield of 821250000000m thick. This is far bigger than the earth itself!

d) If you suppose the water canopy on top of the atmosphere was in fact ice, this would fracture due to barometric pressure changes across the surface of the earth. When it failed, the exact same thing as b) would occur.

The prospect of disproving a water canopy, of any sort, is easy. And I did.

[Grumpy]

otseng

Let me start by describing the Earth before the Flood. The earth's atmosphere was very different than it is now. The temperature was more uniform throughout the earth and was mostly tropical. The entire world was covered by some sort of water canopy which allowed for a global tropical climate. It also did not rain. The earth had an abundance of large animals (dinosaurs) and large plants. The oceans did not exist as we know them now. However, there were seas that existed. The major mountain ranges did not exist and the mountains were smaller than what we have today. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the earth's surface. Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas were a connected land mass.

This is pure fantasy. Evidence of past climates is found in coal seams, geological layers , etc, which date to MILLIONS of years ago. Evidence of rain falling and erosion is also dated to HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of years in the past(I live in the Smokey mountains, which are over 250 million years old and were at one time higher than the Rockies are now). The Mid Ocean ridge is evidence of the splitting of the continents through volcanic action, dinosaurs were extinguished 65 million years ago, not 10 thousand and on and on and on. The only way to take your contentions seriously is to be totally ignorant of the history of the Earth.

Grumpy

[otseng]

I strongly suspect that you guys have not even read through the Global Flood thread. Many of these questions have already been addressed, in particular the water canopy questions. And that's why at the onset I said to read through it. And I have stated that I do not wish to repeat that entire thread again.

Getting back to the main point, just the single prediction I've given so far shows that the FM fits better with the data we see in the rock stratas. There is no rational explanation that has been given so far to explain how SG can account for it. And to touch again on the retrofitting counterargument, the prediction holds for any stratas that we have not uncovered yet. If we find exposed stratas 50 years from now, the predictions would still hold.

[micatala]

I strongly suspect that you guys have not even read through the Global Flood thread. Many of these questions have already been addressed, in particular the water canopy questions. And that's why at the onset I said to read through it. And I have stated that I do not wish to repeat that entire thread again.

Getting back to the main point, just the single prediction I've given so far shows that the FM fits better with the data we see in the rock stratas. There is no rational explanation that has been given so far to explain how SG can account for it. And to touch again on the retrofitting counterargument, the prediction holds for any stratas that we have not uncovered yet. If we find exposed stratas 50 years from now, the predictions would still hold.

ALright, I'll bite. I'll pledge not to make another post until I have read the other flood thread.

I will also pledge to address the one prediction you are alluding to here.

It might take me a couple of days to get back to you on these items.

However, I would also comment, just for now, that some of the preceeding response is based on the notion that there is already evidence that has been offered that disproves the FM at least to within a very small margin of error. Debating particular predictions of a theory that is essentially falsified is going to appear to be a pointless exercise to many.

[otseng]

ALright, I'll bite. I'll pledge not to make another post until I have read the other flood thread.

I will also pledge to address the one prediction you are alluding to here.

It might take me a couple of days to get back to you on these items.

However, I would also comment, just for now, that some of the preceeding response is based on the notion that there is already evidence that has been offered that disproves the FM at least to within a very small margin of error. Debating particular predictions of a theory that is essentially falsified is going to appear to be a pointless exercise to many.

I really do appreciate that micatala. If we can get an honest debate going, I'll try my best to unfalsify it.

[Scotracer]

Here are a few posts from your Global Flood Thread, from yourself:

As to the actual composition of the water canopy, I don't know. And nobody can really say for sure. But, my guess is what you described above. Perhaps it's a water vapor layer that produced that the greenhouse effect on the earth.

So you are completely pulling that out of no-where. Great science.

So, one question is, why is a water canopy necessary in the FM? It would help explain why animals and plants grew to be so large in the past. It would also explain the extinction of the dinosaurs.

This could be...interesting. Go on...

(just for the record, we have giant redwoods today, which are as big as anything back then)

Obviously the environment and climate was different during the time of the dinosaurs. But, why did things grow to be so large? What can explain it?

There are a myriad of factors but let's see what you've got...

The greenhouse effect would produce a more tropical environment on the earth. This in turn would cause plants to grow faster. There wasn't the seasons back then as we know now. It certainly didn't have seasons of dryness. This is evidenced in trees found in the Carboniferous period. Trees in this period are characterized by having no growth rings. This implies that there was no changing periods of wetness, dryness. And based on the size of the plants, it can only mean it was wet all the time. Now, how can a climate be wet all the time? A greenhouse scenario is the best guess.

The seasons exist because of the tilt of the earths axis. So you're saying a global flood managed to tilt the earth? Do you have any idea the amount of force required to do such a thing? Another thing, back during the Pangaea time period we had much of the land mass congregated around the equator (i.e. the equatorial areas don't see as big a variation in seasonal temperature and rainfall).

A water vapor layer would also act as a shield to harmful radiation from the sun. And thus lowering the effect of harmful mutations from ultraviolet light.

Not really. Water is kinda useless when it comes to radiation shielding. It makes a roughly 1% difference in radiation shielding. The amount of shielding a material can give is directly proportional to its nucleii density. That's why Lead is used...and not water, to shield nuclear reactors.

The water canopy layer also could have increased the atmospheric pressure. And thus allowed for things to grow bigger.

Please provide evidence that an increased atmospheric pressure can produce larger animals. Any experimentation done to test this?

Next:

Subterranean water areas



Not only is this physically unstable...do you have ANY evidence to support it? Or are you just trying to wedge something into known geology?

You go on to try and use the fact that the ridges have mountains along them as evidence of being "pushed up" by the force of the water. Unfortunately we know that cracks in the crust produce mountains anyway (Hawaii is formed by this very process) and it can be witnessed today.

Also, we know that, due to gravity, that the closer you are to the centre of the earth the denser the material and vice versa. So...how do you account for water (which is of lower density than the crust) being in such an area? This model:



Goes from solid iron at the core to the crust (decreasing in density/specific gravity) and then we have water then the atmosphere. This is not violated anywhere in the surface of the earth. How do you account for it with your "subterranean chambers"?

As the land mountain ranges were forming and as the sediments in the water settled, the water receded into the oceans we have now and also froze in the North and South poles.

There is no evidence for any of this. Not for "pre-flood mountains" or "pre-flood seas" or "pre-flood water canopy". Or any of it. This really isn't anything more than conjecture. And a lot of doesn't even hold up to basic physics (the water canopy for one is the most obvious one that violates MANY laws).

Another thing you haven't account for, is where the excess nass of water has gone? Even with all the ice at the poles it's not enough to completely cover the earth, by a long shot.

The massive amounts of sediments from the crust erosion formed practically all the rock stratas that we see today. So, instead of billions of years for it to form in the EM, it occurred within a year in the FM.

We know the rate at which chalk forms and it cannot form at the rate of which you speak. That's just wrong. It's demonstrably wrong.

The rapid burial of the plants and animals caused the formation of most all the oil, coal, and fossils we find today.

This does not explain how the geological column has every animal where they should be according to real geology (oh yes, I called it that!). They are all in the aged-rock they should be and at the correct depth and in the correct order. This couldn't happen by accident.

The entire stratas indicate a flood, not just a single one.

For the reasons above: no it doesn't!

I cannot give any exact dates of the flood. It doesn't really matter if it was 2500 BC, 3500 BC, 5000 BC, or 8000 BC. It could be any of these. The point is that it occured quite recently.

What makes you say it did?!

If it occurred recently we couldn't have seen the rapid dispersal and evolution of species we have and we would have evidence of extinction of everything but those which are alive today. And we'd be able to trace back every genome of every animal we've mapped and find a common ancestor at the exact same time. What a surprise: we don't.

Looking at this, we would guess that the parallel layers were formed first. Then the entire mountain range had somehow buckled. In the FM, we can see how this can happen.

Twaddle. How on earth could a vertical amount of rainfall account for horizontal buckling? This is perfectly in line with plate tectonics.

Biomass, especially plants and wood, and that's what coal mostly consists of, has a certain habit of floating on water for some time, so it should not have ben buried that way in first instance.

If it was only water, I can see that. But the flood waters were a mixture of water and sediments.

Erm, that would actually HELP something float. If the water had increased density due to detritus (which it wouldn't anyway) it would actually cause more things to float. You do appear to fail to grasp even fundamental physical concepts.

And the last thing I want to talk about here:

The idea of the "water canopy collapsing" and the "subterranean water chambers" expelling their contents. This would have caused such a rapid change in air pressure that every living thing on the planet would literally EXPLODE. There is no way to get around this.

Also, what depth of water are we talking about here? You haven't given any real figures (I would muse that you don't actually have any, or don't want to give any because if you did people could actually prove you wrong with maths). You say the mountains were lower in the past (which is an obvious ploy to make a world-wide flood more believable) but you haven't give ANY data. I need this to work out if the amount of rain fall is even possible without saturating the atmosphere.

On the topic of the Grand Canyon forming quickly:

This is consistent with the FM, where canyons would form with water receeding during the creation of the major mountain ranges.

You do realise that a valley/canyon being formed quickly results in a very straight path from origin to exit/delta? The grand canyon is anything but.

This is all I'll comment on for now. But you must realise that your hypothesis just doesn't hold up to any, even light, scientific scrutiny. It is nothing more than creationism.

[Grumpy]

otseng

Getting back to the main point, just the single prediction I've given so far shows that the FM fits better with the data we see in the rock stratas.

No, it does not. It is entirely too simplistic and ignores the deluge of geological evidence developed by scientists in the last few hundred years. As I pointed out, your simplistic predictions only cover a very few situations, it is not nearly a general rule. Your assertions are absurd.

There is no rational explanation that has been given so far to explain how SG can account for it.

You've yet to even address the points I have made, this statement is not accurate.

And to touch again on the retrofitting counterargument, the prediction holds for any stratas that we have not uncovered yet. If we find exposed stratas 50 years from now, the predictions would still hold.

Not only premature, but the prediction doesn't even hold with what we know now. This is not a scientific debate, it is an attempt to replace scientific knowledge with ludicrous ad hoc inventions which are themselves not physically possible.

Believe anything you like, but don't pretend that those beliefs dictate that the geological history of the Earth must conform with them. THE BIBLE IS NOT A GEOLOGY BOOK, NOR IS IT ACCURATE ABOUT THE ANCIENT HISTORY OF LIFE OR OF ANYTHING ELSE. The scientific evidence shows absolutely no sign of a world wide flood at ANY time, much less in the last few thousand years.

Grumpy