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?

[perfessor]

Otseng wrote:

According to the EM, when was the first human on the planet? Perhaps 2 MYA? Now, what happened in between 2 MYA and 3500 BC? Why would written languages only occur after humans have existed for 1,996,500 years? And then, after 3500 BC, civilizations around the world abruptly (within the last 0.175% of it's entire timeline) developed written languages.

We are indeed mixing arguments: you are pointing out that in an Old Earth scenario, our development of written language was very abrupt; but my point was that in a Young Earth scenario, it was much more sporadic.

My theories on this are non-religious in nature, and probably don't belong on this forum, so I won't go into details. Suffice it to say that ( I believe) written language represented a fruition of a micro-evolutionary change in human brain chemistry which had started thousands of years earlier.

Otseng wrote:

The flood deposited practically all the layers. Definitely since the Cambrian layer. The time period in which each layer would've been deposited would've been measured in days, not millions of years. So, pointing to a specific layer is meaningless in the flood model.

Perfessor wrote:

Maybe meaningless in the flood model, but not to most others. It seems a bit disingenuous to say that any contrary evidence is "meaningless" by having a model that just "waves away" much of the data.

Otsneg wrote:

Are we not debating about the flood model? We can't mix in the EM and say that my arguments are inconsistent because it doesn't match both the FM and the EM.

Yes we are debating the flood model - but I think most geologists would regard stratification as a rich source of information - to regard it as "meaningless" goes to my comment about cherry-picking your data. If we are to have an honest debate about the flood model, we should be allowed to discuss the implications of strata - including specific ones - don't just say that there are no implications to discuss.

[otseng]

Even AnswersInGenesis proposes a biblical date of 2500BC, not 3500BC, which quite contradicts your point here.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... trophe.asp

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.

Where on earth do we see such huge flat land areas? Now, where do we see such places having a consistent layer of dirt placed on top of that? Now, this not only occurs once, but throughout all of time.

Actually exactly the same requirement applies to the FM too. I really don't see how a huge flood can get sediments on top of hills and mountains, instead of washing them away when the water receded...

As the land masses receded and eventually stopped, the land mass buckled, causing the formation of mountains and hills.

Here's a dramatic example:


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.

Actually it doesn't need to get buried quickly, the only requirement is that it doesn't rot for a long time. This happens in swamps all the time, as proven by the very existence of peat and those nice swamp mummies.

Swamp mummies?

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.

Why do we find quite big and massive rocks *above* the coal layers (and lots of these)? A rock as big as my fist certainly would settle down to the ground somewhat faster than a piece of rotting wood.

The burial of plants was taking place at the same time more sediments were falling from the sky.

[otseng]

Yes we are debating the flood model - but I think most geologists would regard stratification as a rich source of information - to regard it as "meaningless" goes to my comment about cherry-picking your data. If we are to have an honest debate about the flood model, we should be allowed to discuss the implications of strata - including specific ones - don't just say that there are no implications to discuss.

I don't want to imply that we cannot talk about the stratas. As long as we can separate what the FM and the EM says, then the debate would be clearer to discuss.

[perfessor]

Otseng wrote:

Here's a dramatic example:


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.

That was a very dramatic picture - I intended to copy it in, but evidently it didn't. Anyway - my thought when looking at it is: What type of rock is in those layers? Geologists identify two types of rock - igneous, and sedimentary. Both types can form layers. Igneous rock (quartz, for example)is formed by volcanic processes, magma flow, etc. Sedimentary rock is - well - formed by sediment (sandstone, limestone). So if the mountains pictured are composed of sedimentary rock, then that would indeed support your hypothesis. If igneous, probably not. But it's impossible to tell from a picture.

[jwu]

Even AnswersInGenesis proposes a biblical date of 2500BC, not 3500BC, which quite contradicts your point here.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... trophe.asp

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 occurred quite recently.

Since you tried to set up a correlation between the flood and the oldest written languages, which can very well be dated, the precise date matters a lot. By your argumentation the flood would have to have happened somewhen shortly prior to 3500BC, and definitely not later. Since even the creationists of AiG disagree about this date and set it way to late, your argument about written languages simply doesn't work.

Where on earth do we see such huge flat land areas? Now, where do we see such places having a consistent layer of dirt placed on top of that? Now, this not only occurs once, but throughout all of time.

Actually exactly the same requirement applies to the FM too. I really don't see how a huge flood can get sediments on top of hills and mountains, instead of washing them away when the water receded...

As the land masses receded and eventually stopped, the land mass buckled, causing the formation of mountains and hills.

Here's a dramatic example:


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.

Why can it only happen in the FM? Is a flood some kind of requirement for mountain buckling, due to plate tectonics?
In fact the slow buckling process of the conventional model seems somewhat more likely to me than the rapid buckling that is required for the FM.

Also, if you look at the mountain to the left side of that pic, the strata are almost vertical. How could all the rock that is missing above have eroded away in only like 5000 years?

Actually it doesn't need to get buried quickly, the only requirement is that it doesn't rot for a long time. This happens in swamps all the time, as proven by the very existence of peat and those nice swamp mummies.

Swamp mummies?

The "tollund man" is a nice example:
http://www.free-definition.com/Tollund-Man.html

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.

How can the sediments in the water lower its density (which is a requirement for this claim)? In fact, since the sediments settle down (i.e. have a higher density than water), a mixture of water and these sediments has a higher density than pure water, so it should be even easier for bio mass to float on it!

Why do we find quite big and massive rocks *above* the coal layers (and lots of these)? A rock as big as my fist certainly would settle down to the ground somewhat faster than a piece of rotting wood.

The burial of plants was taking place at the same time more sediments were falling from the sky.

Where did these come from? What made them fall from the sky?

jwu

[otseng]

That was a very dramatic picture - I intended to copy it in, but evidently it didn't. Anyway - my thought when looking at it is: What type of rock is in those layers? Geologists identify two types of rock - igneous, and sedimentary.

From the source, it says they are sedimentary layers. I tried to find confirmation on this, but was unable to find anything else that states the composition of the mountains near the Sullivan River in southern British Columbia, Canada (where the picture was taken).

I did however find one other picture from the area:

[otseng]

Since you tried to set up a correlation between the flood and the oldest written languages, which can very well be dated, the precise date matters a lot. By your argumentation the flood would have to have happened somewhen shortly prior to 3500BC, and definitely not later.

I'm not trying to point an exact date of the flood. Through the arguments I given, I'm simply giving a timeframe in which it could have occurred.

Since even the creationists of AiG disagree about this date and set it way to late, your argument about written languages simply doesn't work.

What does the creationists at AiG have anything to do with this debate?

Why can it only happen in the FM? Is a flood some kind of requirement for mountain buckling, due to plate tectonics?

For one thing, the mountain range appears to have been formed by horizontal forces, not vertical forces. Another thing is that layers are quite distinct. The layers must have been somewhat "flexible" otherwise the layers would've simply crumbled. Also, the layers must have formed first, then in one point in time, the mountain range must have formed after the layers were formed.

Also, if you look at the mountain to the left side of that pic, the strata are almost vertical. How could all the rock that is missing above have eroded away in only like 5000 years?

What do you mean by "all the rock that is missing"?

Some more things about coal deposits.

Why are coal deposits so big? And this is not an isolated occurence. We have numerous massive coal deposits around the world.

Here is a picture of Coal Creek from the air:



Coal deposits are so big that some of the largest machinery in the world are found at coal pits.



What bogs, swamps do we see today that are that big and forming coal? How can they form coal for a continuous period of millions of years? How can they form such purity of coal? Wouldn't it be expected to see much more other sediments mixed in with the coal?

Why do we find quite big and massive rocks *above* the coal layers (and lots of these)? A rock as big as my fist certainly would settle down to the ground somewhat faster than a piece of rotting wood.

In a word, liquefaction. When water is combined with sediments and the entire mixture is mixed, it can produce upward forces. We can see this phenomenon in earthquakes.

The burial of plants was taking place at the same time more sediments were falling from the sky.

Where did these come from? What made them fall from the sky?

The sediments were eroded from the sides of the crack as the water from the subterranean chambers gushed out. The pressure on the water was so strong that it caused the water to stream high into the atmosphere. This water contained the sediments that were eroded and deposited all the sediments around the world.

[ST88]

What bogs, swamps do we see today that are that big and forming coal? How can they form coal for a continuous period of millions of years? How can they form such purity of coal? Wouldn't it be expected to see much more other sediments mixed in with the coal?

A correction. In the EM, swamps do not start forming coal until they are buried by sediments over many years and the accumulated peat metamorphoses into lignite due to the pressure and heat of the seduments and the bacteria involved. This is a very low-grade coal that contains water and many other impurities (lignite can be readily refined into liquid petroluem). Further geologic pressure squeezes out more water and impurities from the lignite to give us the coal we know, which itself is not all that pure. In some chunks of coal mined from the ground you can see plant matter embedded within it.

Further pressure and heat burns off the impurities to create graphite, a much purer and less volatile form.

[jwu]

Since you tried to set up a correlation between the flood and the oldest written languages, which can very well be dated, the precise date matters a lot. By your argumentation the flood would have to have happened somewhen shortly prior to 3500BC, and definitely not later.

I'm not trying to point an exact date of the flood. Through the arguments I given, I'm simply giving a timeframe in which it could have occurred.

Your argument was that the oldest written records occur a short time after the flood, i.e. that written language was developed when the world was being repopulated after the flood.
Since the oldest written records are nicely dated, this also requires a minimum age for the flood - which has to be older than the oldest written records.
Unfortunately our oldest written records are one thousand years older than the official biblical date of the flood, and they seem not to have been interrupted during the proposed time of the flood.

Since even the creationists of AiG disagree about this date and set it way to late, your argument about written languages simply doesn't work.

What does the creationists at AiG have anything to do with this debate?

As explained above, you require a very specific minimum age for the flood in order to have your argument working. I think AiG is a quite reliable source for the official biblical date of the flood - especially since they are creationists too.

Why can it only happen in the FM? Is a flood some kind of requirement for mountain buckling, due to plate tectonics?

For one thing, the mountain range appears to have been formed by horizontal forces, not vertical forces.

Obviously, yes. I don't see your point. Horizontal forces do very well exist in conventional plate tectonics.

Another thing is that layers are quite distinct. The layers must have been somewhat "flexible" otherwise the layers would've simply crumbled.

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

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

Also, if you look at the mountain to the left side of that pic, the strata are almost vertical. How could all the rock that is missing above have eroded away in only like 5000 years?

What do you mean by "all the rock that is missing"?

It's not gone of course, but it is obvious that a lot of rock has eroded away from it, as the strata which have been folded into this almost vertical position just end on top of the mountain - so quite a lot of rock has eroded away. That takes a lot of time.

What bogs, swamps do we see today that are that big and forming coal? How can they form coal for a continuous period of millions of years? How can they form such purity of coal? Wouldn't it be expected to see much more other sediments mixed in with the coal?

Actually i would rather expect more sediments if they were the result of settling down bio mass mixed with sediments from a flood...
Check a geology textbook of your choice in order to see how these massive coal deposits have been formed.

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

Why do we find quite big and massive rocks *above* the coal layers (and lots of these)? A rock as big as my fist certainly would settle down to the ground somewhat faster than a piece of rotting wood.

In a word, liquefaction. When water is combined with sediments and the entire mixture is mixed, it can produce upward forces. We can see this phenomenon in earthquakes.

Then how could the rocks move through the *intact* lower layers? Why isn't it all completely sorted, but there are repetive layers of similar consistency?
Most importantly, how does this soil liquificiation effect, which lasts only for about as long as the eartquake, make lots of massive rocks move hundreds of metres within the ground?
This effect is absolutely insufficient as an explaination for what we see. The website to which you linked explains the effect on the stability of buildings above such temporarily affected ground. It doesn't say anything about some sorting effect on the strata, especially not without utterly destroying them...

The burial of plants was taking place at the same time more sediments were falling from the sky.

Where did these come from? What made them fall from the sky?

The sediments were eroded from the sides of the crack as the water from the subterranean chambers gushed out. The pressure on the water was so strong that it caused the water to stream high into the atmosphere. This water contained the sediments that were eroded and deposited all the sediments around the world.

Into the atmosphere? The atmospheric pressure would have crushed Noah...
Also, quite a lot of the rocks have been rather massive for a very long time. They falling from the sky in such quantities would have been a cataclysmic event which easily dwarfs the flood itself. Again, you are basically saying that these rocks got thrown very high into the sky, then the flood occured and all that biomass (the carbon of the coal deposits has been estimated to be at least 50 times that which currently can be found in the biosphere, and there is even many times more in the oil deposits) settled down, which takes quite some time. Then, later enough rocks to form layers of dozens of metres in thickness rained down on earth, then some more bio mass settled down and got buried by another wave of these rocks and so on?
No offence, but that's ludicrous.

Also, where did the water go? How deep was the flood?

jwu

[QuantumMekanic]

I invite you all to take a look at a fairly new book called Uriel's Machine which covers this topic in great detail. Vapor canopies, subterranean geysers and glacial melting do not cut it.

As an evolutionist, I take these things not as absurd yet I do not put all my faith in any one 'local legend'. This includes the Bible.

They make a pretty good case for a comet strike once circa 7640BC the other circa 3150BC. As a comet would leave behind much fewer traces than a comparable meteor/asteroid if especially if it fell into the ocean, this is a likely scenario. It might also answer the question: "where did this phantasmic vapor canopy come from?". It would supply all the rain you would need as well as the tidal waves and general sense of the thing. The authors of Urials Machine check out oral traditions and legends from all over the world (without giving preference to one i.e. the Bible) which doesn't necessarily confirm a 'global flood' (a local flood can always seem pretty devastating and 'global' to a local population esp. an unscientific one) unless you look at a slightly different oral tradition. They report that many of these 'oral traditions' include tales of 'burning mountains' falling from the sky! Possible? I think I can say yes without reverting to mathematical odds. I know these days many people consider 'earth trajectory asteroids' as just around the corner - too many movies, and bad ones at that.

As far as the mathematics of population growth is concerned, your mathematics is overly simplistic. Populations tend to grow exponentiality in a small time frame (a couple of generations), and bifurcate at longer range. Many factors go into a populations ability to grow: technology, social organization, environment, resources, health, the list is almost endless.

Now we are getting at the paradigms of creationism. It occurs to me that Creationism is too reactionary to change and overly conservative; in a word, jealous. Creationism requires magic to understand the past (or the future). Creationism rejects scholarly rigor as conceited and arrogant, whilst at the same time positing its own hypotheses as 'rigorous' in the academic sense. A creationist feels that an evolutionist either listens to the devil on a regular basis or is so proud that "they think they can see how God works" and are partaking of the fruits (pronounced 'froo-its') of evil (ee-viel). Granted we both get our 'knowledge' from literature (although a creationist would argue that the Bible isn't literature it is the
word of God - whatever), but the evolutionist uses a wide range of literature. A creationist places boundaries and limits on his own knowledge and then goes around and complains to everyone about it.

There are no vapor canopies, dinosaurs living in caves in 3000BC, little fairies who tap tap on the rain clouds to make them rain, or little devils under ground to flood the earth with geysers. Legends are important as they can be used to gather some 'lead' information and various cultural details, but that is about all they are good for. Perpetrating ancient fables with an individual's 'neat little new twist' does not prove anything except the perpetrators own arrogance and shortsightedness, and it does not lead to a solution. The problem with legends is 'context'. It is unwise to filter an ancient peoples stories and deeds with an underinformed twentieth century filter. To understand a legend, you have to put yourself in their position or at least imagine such. To understand even a sliver of evolutionary theory requires great imagination and rigorous study. Does the 'imagination' part negate its validity? Hardly, it is absolutely required.

I will concede that neither evolution or creation are 'falsifyable'. Paradoxically, creationism can't prove itself unless you die and and are still around to record it! Evolutionism can't prove itself because of the many generations it requires to manifest itself (it gets around this by studying similar life with much shorter lifespans). There is a difference however: evolution is 'conceiveably falsifyable' whereas creationism is limited by its inherent pradoxicality. In my mind there are two possibilites concerning the flood. 1) It was localized, and the natives mistook it for 'gobal'. 2) It was global, and was caused by a major event like a comet or extemely rapid warming coming off of an ice-age. 7640BC does coincide with the end of the last ice age. BTW, ancient peoples did not have the benefit of our current (or obstacle if you prefer) Julian calendar (hint: what would this be like? how would you record dates? ). The last statement is yet another example of the arrogance of trying to see things through our current paradigms.