No global flood.

[theFijian]

Not hardly.Not hardly. Not hardly --- (aka. Omphalos).

Umm... yes hardly (since we're doing playground retorts)

 

[juvenissun]

All of that. Start with the 3d model, and then show how deserts and forests could have formed in the middle of flood sediments. Show me how the flood waters could have made special structures not seen today.​

Imagine an ocean in which there are schools of currents. Each current has its own physical characters (size, temperature, type of sediments, speed, direction, chemistry etc.) and all of them are moving in the ocean at the same time.

This is what I called a 3D model.

What we have today: oceanic current has minimum role in transporting sediments.​

 

[Assyrian]

You know creationists would do much better is they could show these great currents in the geological strata. Show where the currents of sediment bearing water come from, where they eroded the sediment from strata already there, where they carried the sediment, and the trail of sediment they left as they spanned the globe. They should be able to do this with geological formation after geological formation, layer after layer, tracking the surge of global flood waters around the globe. The geological strata of the earth should be as readable to a creationist as a crime scene is to a CSI. And yet it is geologists who read the strata like a book, and the story it tells is very different form the one creationists claim should be there. Why is that? Why do the strata not reveal their history to the ones who know what really happened?

 

[JBJoe]

So where can I read about single flood events that laid down several layers of different sediments?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You know creationists would do much better is they could show these great currents in the geological strata. Show where the currents of sediment bearing water come from, where they eroded the sediment from strata already there, where they carried the sediment, and the trail of sediment they left as they spanned the globe. They should be able to do this with geological formation after geological formation, layer after layer, tracking the surge of global flood waters around the globe. The geological strata of the earth should be as readable to a creationist as a crime scene is to a CSI. And yet it is geologists who read the strata like a book, and the story it tells is very different form the one creationists claim should be there. Why is that? Why do the strata not reveal their history to the ones who know what really happened?

Perhaps neither the creationists or other floodnuts have read the bible account of the flood carefully enough. Geologists argue against the unsupportable positions of both these groups. They are handed the perfect strawman by them.

Based on the bible account the flood was rather slow to advance and equally slow to abate. This must be considered in any suppositions concerning erosion and subsequent deposition. Even statement like yours, i.e. "the surge of global flood waters around the globe" is an assumption not supported by calculations derived from the original account. The flood was not fast enough to have a powerful "surge" as we visualize it today.

Because the overground speed was much slower than is usually assumed the hydrology has to be rethought. Matter that we believed was carried along in the flood may not have even been picked up by the slow moving waters.

Of course wherever the advancing water has to go around, over, or through an obstacle or restriction it's speed, and thus erosive power, increases. But this would be far from uniform on a surface that is mostly flat or only gradually inclined. Based on this fact alone uniform worldwide evidence is hardly possible.

There are just too many important factors that can be determined by carefully studying the bible account that are never considered. I believe that is a good starting point for both floodnuts and geologists.

owg

 

[juvenissun]

So where can I read about single flood events that laid down several layers of different sediments?

Nowhere. Because it does not happen anymore since the Noah's Flood.

You can read many examples of the red-color text. But we do not have any proof on that the blue-color statement is the cause. Instead, the feature of layered sediments is interpreted by one suggested in the current geology. Basically, this way of interpretation is the brainchild of the uniformitarianism. Which says: because things happened this way today, it must have happened the same way before.

 

[Assyrian]

Perhaps neither the creationists or other floodnuts have read the bible account of the flood carefully enough. Geologists argue against the unsupportable positions of both these groups. They are handed the perfect strawman by them.

Based on the bible account the flood was rather slow to advance and equally slow to abate. This must be considered in any suppositions concerning erosion and subsequent deposition. Even statement like yours, i.e. "the surge of global flood waters around the globe" is an assumption not supported by calculations derived from the original account. The flood was not fast enough to have a powerful "surge" as we visualize it today.

Because the overground speed was much slower than is usually assumed the hydrology has to be rethought. Matter that we believed was carried along in the flood may not have even been picked up by the slow moving waters.

Of course wherever the advancing water has to go around, over, or through an obstacle or restriction it's speed, and thus erosive power, increases. But this would be far from uniform on a surface that is mostly flat or only gradually inclined. Based on this fact alone uniform worldwide evidence is hardly possible.

There are just too many important factors that can be determined by carefully studying the bible account that are never considered. I believe that is a good starting point for both floodnuts and geologists.

owg

I agree with you there, my point was with creationist 'flood geology' which tries to explain all the fossils, and the deep layers of sedimentary rock with a very violent flood capable of carrying that amount of sediment, it wouldn't, there is simply way too much sediment, but assuming they are correct they should be able to give a coherent account of all the currents of sediment bearing water as they flowed around the world. Which they can't. IIRC in geology the last refuge of deluvialism after they discovered the strata simply did not support the flood, was the idea of a tranquil flood that left no trace. I am not sure how a worldwide flood lasting a year could be tranquil. With no continents to hinder them, tides would rush around the world like a tsunami. And they do leave sediment behind. You would not get the kilometers thick layers of sedimentart rock we find, but you would get throughout the world an almost continuous layer of sediment or detritus. It might be eroded again in a few places, or more likely buried. but you would be able to trace it. That is what the early geologists looked for, and could not find.

Personally I think we should go back to the biblical account, because it simply does not describe a global flood.

 

[shernren]

I was watching a John Stott DVD ("The Bible and Christian Life") and he was talking about interpretation. Now John Stott is pretty conservative and yet he started making the point that "all" and "every" are not always exhaustive. Having just come out of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 I thought he was going to refer to universalism, but instead he went down the path of Luke 2 not referring to the whole world:

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.
[Luk 2:1 ESV]

or Acts 2 not referring to America and Australia:

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven.
[Act 2:5 ESV]

Out of the blue, he said: "Maybe that means that when Genesis 7:19 says that "And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered." [Gen 7:19 ESV], that doesn't necessarily mean the *entire* earth was covered.

"Maybe we should let the scientists determine the exact extent of this flood."

Wow.

 

[juvenissun]

I agree with you there, my point was with creationist 'flood geology' which tries to explain all the fossils, and the deep layers of sedimentary rock with a very violent flood capable of carrying that amount of sediment, it wouldn't, there is simply way too much sediment, but assuming they are correct they should be able to give a coherent account of all the currents of sediment bearing water as they flowed around the world. Which they can't. IIRC in geology the last refuge of deluvialism after they discovered the strata simply did not support the flood, was the idea of a tranquil flood that left no trace. I am not sure how a worldwide flood lasting a year could be tranquil. With no continents to hinder them, tides would rush around the world like a tsunami. And they do leave sediment behind. You would not get the kilometers thick layers of sedimentart rock we find, but you would get throughout the world an almost continuous layer of sediment or detritus. It might be eroded again in a few places, or more likely buried. but you would be able to trace it. That is what the early geologists looked for, and could not find.

Personally I think we should go back to the biblical account, because it simply does not describe a global flood.

There are two ways to look at the arguments:

Defensive: When someone raised a doubt on the Global Flood by giving a geological argument, the way to respond is: the given geological fact can not rule out the possibility of a unique Global Flood. This type of argument is not difficult to make. And I feel I have been successful all the time.

Offensive: Try to construct some mechanisms in the Global Flood "model". In this case, one needs to consider ALL known geological facts (as you said, for example). In fact, this is a daunting task and I don't believe any Christian scientist have a complete idea on how to pull all pieces together. As a consequence, when one such plausible mechanism is presented, it would immediately be swarmed by opposition of many other aspects that are hard to respond.

When compare to major problems involved in the Global Flood model, sedimentary record is, in fact, a minor one. If other major problems could be dealt with, then the sedimentary problem might be solved without much additional work. The most critical problem to me in the whole issue is: the origin of the ocean. It is really the key problem to understand the earth and any other planetary system. It is very coincident that there are some key descriptions found right in the event of Noah's Flood. This makes the description of Noah's Flood very precious to me.

 

[Assyrian]

There are two ways to look at the arguments:

Defensive: When someone raised a doubt on the Global Flood by giving a geological argument, the way to respond is: the given geological fact can not rule out the possibility of a unique Global Flood. This type of argument is not difficult to make. And I feel I have been successful all the time.

You know, in a way you are right. It is a completely unassailable position. Unfortunately it is the unassailability of wilful ignorance, and I don't think that is a position you want to be in. Put it this way, if you were actually wrong, is there any way the truth could actually get through that defence?

Offensive: Try to construct some mechanisms in the Global Flood "model". In this case, one needs to consider ALL known geological facts (as you said, for example). In fact, this is a daunting task and I don't believe any Christian scientist have a complete idea on how to pull all pieces together. As a consequence, when one such plausible mechanism is presented, it would immediately be swarmed by opposition of many other aspects that are hard to respond.

You know, flood geology has had a couple of centuries of knowing about the geological column to start piecing it all together. In a way good scientific theories are like a puzzle. You don't have to have all the pieces sorted, but when you have the right idea, the different parts fall into place. They just don't seem to fall into place that way for flood geology. Do you even need a complete catalogue of every sediment layer? Just start with one set of geological strata and track the flood current that it came from. Forget conventional geology that claims it was deposited in a shallow sea. Flood geologists know better and they know the global flood currents were not limited by shallow bounds like that. Should be easy to predict where you will pick up the great current of flood sediment again, beyond the limits of the alleged shallow sea.

Why do you think the rocks don't cooperate with creationists the way they do for geologists, turning up fossils like Tiktaalik just where palaeontology said it should be?

When compare to major problems involved in the Global Flood model, sedimentary record is, in fact, a minor one. If other major problems could be dealt with, then the sedimentary problem might be solved without much additional work.

You are not arguing the sedimentary record isn't a problem because there are even bigger problems?

The most critical problem to me in the whole issue is: the origin of the ocean. It is really the key problem to understand the earth and any other planetary system. It is very coincident that there are some key descriptions found right in the event of Noah's Flood. This makes the description of Noah's Flood very precious to me.

An interesting point is the description of the flood waters abating because God sent a wind. That is a description of a local flood. Wind would not help if the whole planet was under a couple of kilometres of water.

 

[mindlight]

A new vid on youtube. Tell me what you think!!

I can't wait for the second part!!

The video was an interesting summary of the arguments from your point of view even if the commentators manner betrayed the kind of arrogance and belittling mockery that I find so off putting in many scientists.

However the video proves nothing because the flood event it describes is so unique that it cannot be measured by the kinds of uniformitarian calculations that formed the basis of all its evidence. Also its simplistic experiments did not fit the conditions described in the biblical account. Put simply there has never been a global flood of this sort except for this one time.

The bible account in genesis is clear that this was a global event:

All living creatures must die for the earth is filled with violence because of them...
Everything that is on the earth will die..
The flood waters engulfed the earth...
All the high mountains under the entire sky were covered.....
They were wiped off the earth...
I will never again destroy everything that lives as I have just done..

.

Also the bible account affirms a unique set of events whose effects would be so hard to quantify as there is no comparable set of events with which to compare them.

1) I will cause it to rain on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights.
2) After seven days the floodwaters engulfed the earth..
3).The deeps were opened and the floodgates of the heavens..... In the second month....
On that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
4). The whole set of events lasted more than a year:

The waters prevailed over the earth for 150 days....
In the seventh month the ark came to rest on Ararat. In the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible. noah removed covering from ark by the first month of following year and saw the earth was dry about the end of the second month a full year after the flood began.

There are also alternate explanations possible for for example the growth of chalk or coral in different climatic, or nutrient rich circumstances.

So not impressed.

 

[Mallon]

Hmmm. So the consensus between mindlight and juvie seems to be, "Noah's Flood was so unique and extraordinary that we'll never be able to positively identify the deposits it made, but trust us, they exist."
Is that a fair summary of your views?

 

[juvenissun]

You are not arguing the sedimentary record isn't a problem because there are even bigger problems?

Yes, that is what I was saying. As you said it well, if the idea were set right, pieces of puzzle will fall into the place.

An interesting point is the description of the flood waters abating because God sent a wind. That is a description of a local flood. Wind would not help if the whole planet was under a couple of kilometres of water.

Defense: Wind comes with heavy rain (local flood). Wind is calm when flood water recedes (under high pressure air).

Offense: My "idea" is that the wind was driven by the (quick) formation of oceanic basin. Not sure how, but that is the idea.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, that is what I was saying. As you said it well, if the idea were set right, pieces of puzzle will fall into the place.

Which it has for conventional geology but not creationism?

Defense: Wind comes with heavy rain (local flood). Wind is calm when flood water recedes (under high pressure air).

The text suggests God sent the wind so the rain would end and the flood abate. Could work for a local flood blowing away the weather system and storm surge. Are you saying the flood was local?

Offense: My "idea" is that the wind was driven by the (quick) formation of oceanic basin. Not sure how, but that is the idea.

Wouldn't a massive shift in ocean floor result in mega tsunami?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which it has for conventional geology but not creationism?


The text suggests God sent the wind so the rain would end and the flood abate. Could work for a local flood blowing away the weather system and storm surge. Are you saying the flood was local?


Wouldn't a massive shift in ocean floor result in mega tsunami?

The word for wind could also mean spirit. If so this spiritlike wind was more connected with God remembering Noah than an operative element in abating the flood. Notice that the next two verses state that the fountains of the deep returned to normal and the rain stopped, then the flood abated. It may have just signaled the change that was about to happen.

A massive shift would cause a massive tsunami, but that is not what the story describes. A gradual raising of the ocean floor, or a 'breaking up' that would have the same effect, would cause slow and steady flooding, not the great 'surge' that many envision. As it took about the same time for the flood to abate one can assume a more gentle retreat of water than is usually envisioned as well.

owg

 

[Mallon]

Wouldn't a massive shift in ocean floor result in mega tsunami?

No. Because that would be assuming uniformitarianism in the laws of nature. Can't allow that in creation science.

 

[The Barbarian]

Keep in mind, the Bible does not say the flood was worldwide. "Eretz" can mean "my land", "the land hereabouts", "Israel", or "all the land we know about."

So there isn't really a need to be concerned about it. It was, if you take it literally, a huge flood, but not a worldwide flood.

 

[juvenissun]

Keep in mind, the Bible does not say the flood was worldwide. "Eretz" can mean "my land", "the land hereabouts", "Israel", or "all the land we know about."

So there isn't really a need to be concerned about it. It was, if you take it literally, a huge flood, but not a worldwide flood.

Global or local, one problem is the same: some mountain peaks should be drown. This kind of flood is not likely to happen today, even at a local scale.

 

[The Barbarian]

Global or local, one problem is the same: some mountain peaks should be drown.

In Mesopotamia, the mountains were dozens of feet high. On the other hand if it happened, as seems likely, in the present Black Sea area, the mountains could have been over a thousand feet, and still covered. So that's possible.

This kind of flood is not likely to happen today, even at a local scale.

The evidence indicates it did happen there, when the Mediterranian finally broke through and filled the Black Sea Basin.

 

[Assyrian]

The word for wind could also mean spirit. If so this spiritlike wind was more connected with God remembering Noah than an operative element in abating the flood. Notice that the next two verses state that the fountains of the deep returned to normal and the rain stopped, then the flood abated. It may have just signaled the change that was about to happen.

Given the weather context here the most obvious reading is that it is a wind rather than a spirit, besides wouldn't the Spirit of the Lord, be called 'the Spirit of the Lord' or 'the Spirit of Elohim'? Even if it was some other type of spirit it would be described as 'a spirit of soemthingorother' or even a spirit from the Lord? Gen 1:3 And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Note as well how it is the Spirit of the Lord who is the subject and performs the action of hovering over the waters. In Gen 8 the wind is the object of the verb, made to blow by God. Gen 8:1 And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided.

A massive shift would cause a massive tsunami, but that is not what the story describes. A gradual raising of the ocean floor, or a 'breaking up' that would have the same effect, would cause slow and steady flooding, not the great 'surge' that many envision. As it took about the same time for the flood to abate one can assume a more gentle retreat of water than is usually envisioned as well.

owg

I don't see how the ocean floor could drop a couple of kilometers without causing massive tsunami. The earth's crust does not move gently and water is very good at sloshing about when it moves. But the story does not describe a shift in the ocean floor at all. It describes rain and artesian springs opening up as the cause of the flood and it ending when the wind blew and the rain stopped.