About Flood modeling

[shernren]

Something I'm really curious about is whether creationists actually have tried to do any modeling of what the Global Flood would have looked like. The more I learn, the more I suspect that they haven't - not because they can't so much as because they won't.

This afternoon over on campus I had the privilege of attending a presentation by fellow physics students about some advanced study courses they'd been doing. Among them was one about simulating double gyre circulation due to wind stress in the ocean. It's a very practical thing to do: double gyre circulations are essentially what drives things like the Gulf Stream, which delivers a lot of heat to Europe so that Brits don't freeze their noggins off a lot worse in winter.

The student was able to convincingly simulate ocean flow in the Atlantic, over a period of 5 years, given different wind conditions, which quite well reflected actual conditions given a very rough model (dept. head: "The Atlantic ocean basin isn't a rectangle, is it?"), and was able to successfully conclude that no, the Atlantic mid-ocean ridge didn't have anything much to do with why the Gulf Stream does what it does.

Given this kind of project, I'm beginning to wonder why the flood geologists still don't have any convincing numerical models of what a global flood looks like. This is the third ocean behavior modeling project I've seen. The first is of course the distributed computing project from climateprediction.org, which I'm running as I type, which computes data pretty much on a global scale, covering 160 years of development in half-hour intervals (which is presumably very good resolution!). The second is a project I saw on one of my lecturers' homepage, which is an upclose model of how basin shape affects flows of things like tsunamis and floods, and which included a pretty video (without sound - bummer) of a tsunami flooding a hypothetical Australian city. And the third is this project.

Mind you, the project I just described above wasn't done by a professor or even a postgrad. This was work done by at most a third-year undergrad student, as part of a courseload that included at least three other full-study courses, over half a year. In fact, given the amount of back-and-forth I've been having here about the Flood, I probably wouldn't mind taking on one or two geology courses to do some computational simulation myself.

Well, add to that the fact that AiG just built a $27 million museum.

I don't think there's any convincing excuse for Flood geology to not have working computational models, or at least to not have started on some.

 

[juvenissun]

Something I'm really curious about is whether creationists actually have tried to do any modeling of what the Global Flood would have looked like. The more I learn, the more I suspect that they haven't - not because they can't so much as because they won't.

This afternoon over on campus I had the privilege of attending a presentation by fellow physics students about some advanced study courses they'd been doing. Among them was one about simulating double gyre circulation due to wind stress in the ocean. It's a very practical thing to do: double gyre circulations are essentially what drives things like the Gulf Stream, which delivers a lot of heat to Europe so that Brits don't freeze their noggins off a lot worse in winter.

The student was able to convincingly simulate ocean flow in the Atlantic, over a period of 5 years, given different wind conditions, which quite well reflected actual conditions given a very rough model (dept. head: "The Atlantic ocean basin isn't a rectangle, is it?"), and was able to successfully conclude that no, the Atlantic mid-ocean ridge didn't have anything much to do with why the Gulf Stream does what it does.

Given this kind of project, I'm beginning to wonder why the flood geologists still don't have any convincing numerical models of what a global flood looks like. This is the third ocean behavior modeling project I've seen. The first is of course the distributed computing project from climateprediction.org, which I'm running as I type, which computes data pretty much on a global scale, covering 160 years of development in half-hour intervals (which is presumably very good resolution!). The second is a project I saw on one of my lecturers' homepage, which is an upclose model of how basin shape affects flows of things like tsunamis and floods, and which included a pretty video (without sound - bummer) of a tsunami flooding a hypothetical Australian city. And the third is this project.

Mind you, the project I just described above wasn't done by a professor or even a postgrad. This was work done by at most a third-year undergrad student, as part of a courseload that included at least three other full-study courses, over half a year. In fact, given the amount of back-and-forth I've been having here about the Flood, I probably wouldn't mind taking on one or two geology courses to do some computational simulation myself.

Well, add to that the fact that AiG just built a $27 million museum.

I don't think there's any convincing excuse for Flood geology to not have working computational models, or at least to not have started on some.

Well, as we know, a computational model on the Genesis Flood is not likely be supported by any secular foundation (hey, may be AiG or ICR would support it). Let's say that is a minor problem. The major problem is there is no one sits in the middle of these disciplines and faiths to devote a chunk of time to it.

I like to do it. However, first, I have some ongoing work to do, and second, I do not have enough computing resources to do it (knowledge and computing power). Third, and probably is the most critical one, I am not sure on what major considerations should be included in the model. It will definitely include more than just oceanography. I would imagine some submodels on tectonics in both Archean time and perhaps recent geologic time are needed. It would probably be the best project for a Ph.D. students in ICR.

One might be able to draft a very crude model on that. But I don't know what would it show (it could be seriously biased to start with). Any slightly more complicate model would certainly take a lot of time to set up. I think the answer to your question is that because of the complexity, no one has ever look at this excellent idea seriously.

Thanks for bring this up. I am afraid one or two courses in geology won't help much and I don't really think you would need them to start the modeling. However, if you are serious, I would certainly help you on the geology part.

 

[laptoppop]

ICR has bought a small computer cluster and is definitely working on flood modeling projects:

COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LARGE-SCALE TECTONICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENESIS FLOOD

COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LARGE-SCALE TECTONICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENESIS FLOOD (Figures)

(I believe the computer modeling for this next one is just getting underway)
CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY

PATTERNS OF OCEAN CIRCULATION OVER THE CONTINENTS DURING NOAH'S FLOOD

PATTERNS OF OCEAN CIRCULATION OVER THE CONTINENTS DURING NOAH'S FLOOD (figures)

Numerical Climate Modeling at ICR

Alexander V. Lalomov, Ph.D. Geology

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Any flood model done by literalists will be rejected by science because it will have to include a 'supernatural' element or event to make it work.

The fact is that even a 'local' flood of the magnitude described would also have to have a supernatural cause. So if either flood story is to be believed the supernatural element must also be accepted. This would put TE's and others up against it as Jesus, and Peter, affirmed that there indeed was a (supernatural) flood.

 

[juvenissun]

ICR has bought a small computer cluster and is definitely working on flood modeling projects:

Good for them. It is about time to do that.

However, A model could be designed and modified to fit the goals no matter how objective the processes in the content could be. That is the basic problem with modeling. And in this case, the initial conditions set in the model would be crucial. I do not doubt YE and OE would develop very different models.

To me, I just want to see if it is possible to have the earth be covered by water "once", no matter at what time. (The earth's surface might be relatively flat at her earlier stage, but there would be less water available too). However, for ICR people, they have one more hard problem to solve: the accelerated plate tectonics. However, it could also be an integrated part of the whole problem. One could not do without another.

 

[laptoppop]

However, for ICR people, they have one more hard problem to solve: the accelerated plate tectonics. However, it could also be an integrated part of the whole problem. One could not do without another.

Check out the first paper I referenced. It is dealing with exactly that issue.

 

[laptoppop]

Any flood model done by literalists will be rejected by science because it will have to include a 'supernatural' element or event to make it work.

Maybe, maybe not. Scripture says God brought the animals together and He closed the door on the ark. OK, those are amazing miracles where we can only step back and say goddidit.

But the flood itself could have been caused by other means, such as an asteroid or asteroids hitting the earth. Still caused by God, but more natural means.

Also, modeling of the flood (I've seen more articles - just not enough time to find them right now - they're easy to find on the creationist sites) can help us understand the dynamics of current flow, temperatures, deposition, etc. that unless God intervened, would have proceeded in a "normal" way. A global flood is not a "normal" event - but AFAIK, it does not require a suspension of the laws of physics, for example.

The long day of Joshua is more problematic. That one I have to take on faith. Of course it helps that there are other cultures that recorded a long day, and cultures on the other side of the world that recorded a long night, so it makes it easier to believe. Its still hard to *understand* how God did it.

 

[shernren]

ICR has bought a small computer cluster and is definitely working on flood modeling projects:

COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LARGE-SCALE TECTONICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENESIS FLOOD

COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LARGE-SCALE TECTONICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENESIS FLOOD (Figures)

(I believe the computer modeling for this next one is just getting underway)
CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY

PATTERNS OF OCEAN CIRCULATION OVER THE CONTINENTS DURING NOAH'S FLOOD

PATTERNS OF OCEAN CIRCULATION OVER THE CONTINENTS DURING NOAH'S FLOOD (figures)

Numerical Climate Modeling at ICR

Alexander V. Lalomov, Ph.D. Geology

Cool! That's exactly the sort of thing I'd love to look at. Will let you know when I've gotten a good look at the conclusions (if any) they're drawing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I found this verse by accident today. This flooding by the sea is found in the context of destruction:

Amos 9:

5 The Lord, the LORD Almighty,
he who touches the earth and it melts,
and all who live in it mourn—
the whole land rises like the Nile,
then sinks like the river of Egypt-

6 he who builds his lofty palace [b] in the heavens
and sets its foundation [c] on the earth,
who calls for the waters of the sea
and pours them out over the face of the land—
the LORD is his name.

 

[juvenissun]

Amos 9:


who calls for the waters of the sea
and pours them out over the face of the land—
the LORD is his name.

Thanks for the verses. It is wonderful.

The two quoted lines is a true description of the hydrological cycle, which is absolutely not known to people at that time. (or do they? never underestimate the builders of the tower of Babel.)

 

[juvenissun]

the whole land rises like the Nile,
then sinks like the river of Egypt-

These two verses give me a mental picture of sedimentary deposition and erosion.

The "Nile" does not mean the Nile river, but means the Nile "dalta". The whole land rises like the Nile delta means that the sedimentary rocks managed to cover 90% of the continents.

"The river of Egypt" to me means the Nile river. The Nile river surface water "sinks" (recharge) into the delta deposit as it enters the delta area. The downward percolation is slow and quiet. Just like the erosional process on the land. So it says "the whole land ... sinks ..."

Well, this is just a 2-minutes understanding. May be there are better "literal" interpretations.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

These two verses give me a mental picture of sedimentary deposition and erosion.

The "Nile" does not mean the Nile river, but means the Nile "dalta". The whole land rises like the Nile delta means that the sedimentary rocks managed to cover 90% of the continents.

"The river of Egypt" to me means the Nile river. The Nile river surface water "sinks" (recharge) into the delta deposit as it enters the delta area. The downward percolation is slow and quiet. Just like the erosional process on the land. So it says "the whole land ... sinks ..."

Well, this is just a 2-minutes understanding. May be there are better "literal" interpretations.

The verse states that "the whole land" sinks and rises like the Nile. Here the annual movements of the Nile is a metaphor for a much larger event. Imo.

 

[juvenissun]

The verse states that "the whole land" sinks and rises like the Nile. Here the annual movements of the Nile is a metaphor for a much larger event. Imo.

I do not like to see this interpretation as a "metaphor". We could use one "example" to illustrate a process. I would insist that my interpretation is an example or a demonstration. This is the difference of being literal or not literal.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I do not like to see this interpretation as a "metaphor". We could use one "example" to illustrate a process. I would insist that my interpretation is an example or a demonstration. This is the difference of being literal or not literal.

I'm happy with 'example' as long as we don't lose sight of the larger 'whole land' event being referred to.

 

[juvenissun]

Something I'm really curious about is whether creationists actually have tried to do any modeling of what the Global Flood would have looked like. The more I learn, the more I suspect that they haven't - not because they can't so much as because they won't.

The more I think about the Genesis Flood, the more I find the GREAT wisdom hidden in this simple, incredible description. Models presented by ICR researchers, in fact, only addressed a small part of the whole processes, namely, the mantle physics. On a much "higher" level, the origin of continent, the origin of ocean water, and the origin of sediments composed another big puzzle which no one has ever dare to give a model for it. We may think the description of the Genesis Flood is an abstract of this very profound model.

I applaud the effort of ICR people in that they started to deal with this issue positively. And I feel it is a great opportunity for Christian scientists to open an entirely new, and a better window for the understanding of Earth History. We all know it would take new approaches to make breakthroughs. The Genesis Flood is indeed a brilliant guide that could lead to the breakthrough.

To give an example: I would spend a lot of time to explore what does it mean that a lot of water could come up from the "fountains of the great deep".