Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

[Joshua0]

Now THAT is what I call hyper-speed evolution!

Ironic that there are YEC people that depend on the theory of evolution so much to make their beliefs work.

 

[createdtoworship]

What I've read is that the earth's crust is pretty flexible. The Amazon river basin sinks and rebounds three inches each year under the weight of 30 to 40 feet of floodwater from seasonal rains.

I also read that the glaciers caused the earth to sink many meters in some areas, causing unusually high tides that flowed inland for many miles, and is still rebounding in many areas.



Main article: Isostatic rebound; from Wikipedia

This rise of a part of the crust is due to an isostatic adjustment. A large mass, such as an ice sheet/glacier, depresses the crust of the Earth and displaces the mantle below. The depression is about a third the thickness of the ice sheet. After the glacier melts the mantle begins to flow back to its original position pushing the crust back to its original position. This post-glacial rebound, which lags melting of the ice sheet/glacier, is currently occurring in measurable amounts in Scandinavia and the Great Lakes region of North America

Some believe this widespread rebounding is responsible for small deep earthquakes in areas far from fault zones.

Regarding the flood, we haven't yet constructed a reasonable model of how the flood might have occurred (imo of course), although the biblical story gives many hints. For example, the earth had not received 'rain' until the flood, but instead was apparently watered by (nightly?) dewfall. If this also means that there was no significant groundwater in the earth in the form of the large aquifers present today then the forty days of rain might have had a significant effect and may even have began the flooding process.

Consider a steady rainfall, perhaps started by one or several volcanic eruptions (dirt, previously absent, in the heavy moist air causing widespread rainfall) of a vigorous one inch per hour. This would soak the earth, filling the previously dry ground, with 80 verticle feet of water over the entire land, minus runoff at the seashores. Scientists estimate that the land sank as much as one foot under the weight of three feet of glacial ice, in some areas. Applying the same calculation the rainfall would cause the continents to sink twenty five or so feet, enough to begin massive flooding from the sea in lowland areas. Of course the additional weight would further sink the land and exacerbate the flooding,

It is also interesting to note that the earth's crust is solid rock, floating on molten rock, and barely floating at that. It doesn't take much additional weight to push it down. Of course the downward pressure will displace the liguid magma outward having the further effect of raising the seabeds, perhaps providing the needed water to cover the highest peaks, which may have now sunk considerably under the enormous weight of the incoming waters.

Also of profound interest is the mechanism for the abatement of these waters, now encompassing the entire globe, the wind. A strong and steady wind can move much water, and the usual limiting factors, such as a containment feature, would be absent from the flood scene allowing plenty of room for the windblown water to move freely away from the land. As the floodwaters return to the sea the weight presses down on the seafloor causing magma to flow back under the continents and raising them.

Also of interest is the size and scope of the changes needed to complete the flood as recorded in the bible. If you had a globe of twelve inches in diameter representing the earth you would need to deform it about the thickness of two or three sheets of paper to cause global flooding. Such a deformity would not be apparent to the naked eye. Additionally, although mountains look very tall and imposing they are little more than the height of grains of sand on this twelve inch globe.

Or, imagine a teeter-totter representing the dry land and the seafloor. An nearly imperceptible movement of the board is all that is needed to accomplish the movement of water in either direction.

We are so accustomed to thinking of cataclysmic movement of land and water when thinking about the flood that we ignore the information given in scripture. The most notable being the speed of the income floodwater from the sea, which I calculate at 1.6 inches rise per minute based on the duration of 150 days and displacement of 29,000 feet, the height of Mt. Everest.

This inflow is comparable to many incoming tides around the earth, hardly the gulleywashers imagined by most. Here's a video of one that gives a good idea of how fast Noah's flood came in from the sea:

Quand les touristes se font piéger Par la marée montante - YouTube


Notice the clarity of the water as it flows across the sand. At that speed there is no erosion, and as the flood waters flowed gently across many areas there would also be no or little erosion, especially healthy grasslands. It is where the flow of the waters are restricted or flow downhill that serious erosion takes place. A study of the earth's topography will easily reveal those areas.

Another mistake that is made is the assumption that because the flood presented massive amounts of water that massive amounts of erosion and deposition would occur. The reality is that massive amounts of water acted on finite or limited amount of deposition material, and that such erosion and deposition would occur with a much smaller (local?) flood. To demonstrate this for yourself place sand in the bottom of a bucket, then pour it out slowly. Notice that the sediments don't move until the last of the water flows out. It doesn't matter how large the bucket is, the results will be the same. Try the same experiment in your bathtub. Place some dirt or sand in the bottom then fill the tub. Notice that the sediment stops moving soon after the water starts to fill the tub. It doesn't matter how much water you put into the tub, the sediment will only move with the first water in and the last water that drains out.

Anyway that's my current working theory ( always subject to revision of course).

interesting. I find that there is a hard question for evolutionists to answer: namely why is there sediment placed globally (via water deposit)? Evolutionists will say something similar to what you describe above in the first paragraph: namely that the land bobbed up and down enough to gather a film of sediment over all of it. Thats absurd. I mean fossil preservation in the sedimentary layers would be complety null and void do to scavanging. As I said before fossilization is extremely rare, it must be in injected with one of three chemicals (similiar to sodium bicarbonate- I believe), and also be buried rapidly to seal in the chemicals and not allow scavenging or bacteria in the ocean floor to eat it. (I seen a show that in 100 year or so even the titanic will lose it's framework on the ocean floor due to barnacules of an iron eating bacteria). Even iron is not save in the ocean, why do we think fossils will somehow supernaturally exist, in a localized flood deposit!

it must be cataclysmic, i.e. like a global flood.

It also reminds me of the runoff evidence for the flood (not to contradict your theories), however there are percussion marks, (clination surfaces) on I believe what it called quartzites found at a site called cyprus hills I believe, and a rocky mountain study shown that for these erosion resistant rocks to be carried and scuffed up by water, it would have to be a 65 mph current at a depth of 180.' That is not even talking about channel flow, thats refering to sheet flow! A wave 180' high traveling as fast as a speeding semi on the freeway. Thats just to move a rock approx 6" wide and shaped like a bullet. I am not sure of the source, I will look more into it. This conversation sort of inspired me to to do some more research.

Some of the site was experiencing technical difficulties but the study was done by peter klevberg and it was a study done on the rocky mountain runoff, found here-

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=peter+klevberg+rocky+mountain+flood+deposits&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t

 

[freezerman2000]

Fossils being null and void in the sedimentary layers? Ever heard of wadis? Dry 99% of the time,but have a heavy rain in higher elevations and you have a flash flood..Things can and have been buried in the debris..no chance of scavenging..
Mud flows? Lahars?Cliffs collapsing? Sudden entombment pretty much guarantees no scavenging.
You need to do better...

 

[Joshua0]

Sources?

Let me explain something about my posts. I use KEY WORDS so people can look it up for themselves. Feel free to ignore any of MY opinions about those key words. For example, here are a few key words in my post that you can do a google search or a wiki search on: "GREAT OXYGEN EVENT", "CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION", "oxygen catastrophe", "pre cambrian", "biodiversity", "ecosystems". So my source is pretty much a dictionary. My approach is pretty much an expository approach. If you know what your words mean, then it is all pretty easy to figure it out from there.

The REALLY amazing thing about evolutionists is they insist that individuals DO NOT evolved. Only populations evolve. Yet it is rare that an evolutionist understands anything at all about a biodiverse ecosystem. So they usually are clueless when it comes to explaining how the populations interact with each other in an ecosystem.

When I explain that Eden was a biodiverse Ecosystem their lack of understanding about evolution really becomes known. They do not even understand that evolution offers the best evidence for the Bible. That is why they will be without excuse on the day of Judgement. "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Rom 1:21

 

[freezerman2000]

If someone does not provide sources,the info is pretty much called into question.
Look at research books,and you will see references to info on the bottom of the page..EVEN THE BIBLE HAS THEM!!!

It IS the populations that evolve due to outside influences..climate and the resulting changes in diet,plays a part part in the evolutionary processes..the LINK can be found HERE.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution See how easy that was? Now YOU try it! It's also helpful if you link because a lot of times,the search can reveal opinions from both camps.If you want your idea backed up the way you want it to be..LINK it!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

it must be cataclysmic, i.e. like a global flood.

It also reminds me of the runoff evidence for the flood (not to contradict your theories), however there are percussion marks, (clination surfaces) on I believe what it called quartzites found at a site called cyprus hills I believe, and a rocky mountain study shown that for these erosion resistant rocks to be carried and scuffed up by water, it would have to be a 65 mph current at a depth of 180.' That is not even talking about channel flow, thats refering to sheet flow! A wave 180' high traveling as fast as a speeding semi on the freeway. Thats just to move a rock approx 6" wide and shaped like a bullet. I am not sure of the source, I will look more into it. This conversation sort of inspired me to to do some more research.

I believe this as well. As the flood water recedes it actually breaks into thousands of 'local' floods. The great conjoined waters standing high (deep) above the earth would do little erosion or deposition. That would occur as the water finally flows over and through the various landforms, much like my bucket or bathtub examples. That's why there is no evidence of a 'single' flood. It just doesn't happen that way.

 

[Herman Hedning]

interesting. I find that there is a hard question for evolutionists to answer: namely why is there sediment placed globally (via water deposit)? (Long snip ...)

And what does that have to do with evolution? Please stop using the silly dichotomy Creationist / Evolutionist. Remember that there are (a lot of) creationists that believe in evolution. And that all things that contradict the Bible creation story are not "Evolution".

 

[florida2]

If the flood did not happen then Pangaea would still be there.

From Pangaea to the Modern Continents - YouTube

What about all the other supercontinents? Pangaea is simply the most recent

List of supercontinents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[createdtoworship]

And what does that have to do with evolution? Please stop using the silly dichotomy Creationist / Evolutionist. Remember that there are (a lot of) creationists that believe in evolution. And that all things that contradict the Bible creation story are not "Evolution".

there is nothing wrong with using evolutionist in place of old earth creationist, see either one can be saved. Hugh ross is a born again Christian but believes in evolution.

It is shorter, easier to use....and that is the reason why I use it.

Secondly, evolutionists typically adhere to local flood rather than a global flood (catastrophy), and this is why there are problems for them in the long run.

the presence of sedimentary layers found globally suggest a lot of water at one point in time.

 

[createdtoworship]

I believe this as well. As the flood water recedes it actually breaks into thousands of 'local' floods. The great conjoined waters standing high (deep) above the earth would do little erosion or deposition. That would occur as the water finally flows over and through the various landforms, much like my bucket or bathtub examples. That's why there is no evidence of a 'single' flood. It just doesn't happen that way.

I see your point, that local floods resulted, but there is evidence of actually a global scale flood, not a little, but a lot of evidence...

1. Evidence like the sedimentary layers show a global flood evidence. It can be interpreted as several local floods, but that would be the agenda of the evolutionary uniformitarian doing that, not typically those who adhere to creation and global flood catastrophy theory both.
   
2. Evidence such as the fact that fossils are typically buried in huge floods not local floods. Like the Dinasaur graveyard in north eastern montana that is about 1.5 miles by .25 miles wide where 10,000 duckbill dinasaurs are buried in 3 foot thick sedimentary layer. (one of the largest bone beds in america). Thats definitaly not a flash flood.
   
3. Evidence of Fossils buried quick, deep water fossils mainly!
   I mean, how do you bury fossils so fast that their food is still in their mouth!
   
   
   
   and here:
   
   
   
   
   Or bury a fish so fast that she didn't have time to give birth! (seen here
   
   
   
   That must have happened quick, with a lot of force, and a lot of mineral deposit to cement the hard tissue of the animal.
   
4. Evidence such as this: among the majority of fossils are vegetation yes, however among invertebrate fossils: 95% are marine invertebrates (mainly fish). That ought to tell you something. Also among those fossils are mollusks/clams (which are often closed.) If the majority of invertebrates are deep water life, that means that something must have happened to join the existing oceans and the land masses. Among with even the clams are closed... Meaning that they did not have time enough for bacteria and scavengers to pry open after death which takes an hour to days. IF most of the fossils are deep water life, as Fish don't typically live in puddles then it was not a local flash flood. Any of it! Thirdly, local flood doesn't provide a heavy enough pressure to bury say 10,000 dinasaurs in 3 feet of dirt (montana), sealed, cemented with chemical injected into the mold enough to preserve nearly all body impressions. The evidence is obviously a global flood, which resulted in techtonic activity, and a resulting Ice age.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

1. Evidence such as this: among the majority of fossils are vegetation yes, however among invertebrate fossils: 95% are marine invertebrates (mainly fish). That ought to tell you something.

Yes. If you don't realize that fish are VERTEBRATES (the very opposite of "invertebrates"), that ought to tell the reader more than just "something". It ought to tell them that your post is a mire of uninformed, illogical, "then the flood must have been global" nonsense.

Geologists have written extensively on the lack of evidence for a global flood---and why the early geologists who were specifically LOOKING for evidence of a global flood changed their minds.

Of course, there's also no evidence of a global flood in the Bible. But if you couldn't figure that out, I'm not surprised you had the same difficulties with geology and basic taxonomy and anatomy.

_____________________

And by the way, your signature refers to what is probably the most infamous error of the KJV Bible. It is based upon a reading absent from the Greek New Testament text and only found in some late Latin Vulgate manuscripts. It was added when Roman Catholic leaders demanded a more convenient proof-text to help with the Trinity doctrine.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

there is nothing wrong with using evolutionist in place of old earth creationist, see either one can be saved. Hugh ross is a born again Christian but believes in evolution.

I have no idea what the above means. But in fairness to Hugh Ross, he affirms a very old earth but he does NOT affirm the theory of evolution.

(Do you EVER get your facts right?)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I see your point, that local floods resulted, but there is evidence of actually a global scale flood, not a little, but a lot of evidence...

1. Evidence like the sedimentary layers show a global flood evidence. It can be interpreted as several local floods, but that would be the agenda of the evolutionary uniformitarian doing that, not typically those who adhere to creation and global flood catastrophy theory both.
   
2. Evidence such as the fact that fossils are typically buried in huge floods not local floods. Like the Dinasaur graveyard in north eastern montana that is about 1.5 miles by .25 miles wide where 10,000 duckbill dinasaurs are buried in 3 foot thick sedimentary layer. (one of the largest bone beds in america). Thats definitaly not a flash flood.
   
3. Evidence of Fossils buried quick, deep water fossils mainly!
   I mean, how do you bury fossils so fast that their food is still in their mouth!
   
   
   
   and here:
   
   
   
   
   Or bury a fish so fast that she didn't have time to give birth! (seen here
   
   
   
   That must have happened quick, with a lot of force, and a lot of mineral deposit to cement the hard tissue of the animal.
   
4. Evidence such as this: among the majority of fossils are vegetation yes, however among invertebrate fossils: 95% are marine invertebrates (mainly fish). That ought to tell you something. Also among those fossils are mollusks/clams (which are often closed.) If the majority of invertebrates are deep water life, that means that something must have happened to join the existing oceans and the land masses. Among with even the clams are closed... Meaning that they did not have time enough for bacteria and scavengers to pry open after death which takes an hour to days. IF most of the fossils are deep water life, as Fish don't typically live in puddles then it was not a local flash flood. Any of it! Thirdly, local flood doesn't provide a heavy enough pressure to bury say 10,000 dinasaurs in 3 feet of dirt (montana), sealed, cemented with chemical injected into the mold enough to preserve nearly all body impressions. The evidence is obviously a global flood, which resulted in techtonic activity, and a resulting Ice age.

Good stuff. This evidence actually supports my contention. Certain local areas will reveal evidence of a huge flood, but there isn't widespread evidence. This is because the flood's 'footprint' isn't the same in all areas. We're on the same page.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have no idea what the above means. But in fairness to Hugh Ross, he affirms a very old earth but he does NOT affirm the theory of evolution.

While violantly aposed to macro evolution and biological evolution, Hugh Ross (and most progressive creationists) believe in stellar evolution:

you will be shocked to hear this about a creationistic view....

“This entire process of stellar evolution is by natural process alone. We do not have to invoke Divine intervention at any stage in the history of the life-cycle of the stars that we observe.”

—Hugh Ross

He also originally made bad wording in His articles to make it sound more scientific:

like this quote about MAN-ANIMALS

“Starting about 2 to 4 million years [or at least 1 million years] ago God began creating man-like mammals.” Although some of these creatures looked completely human (e.g., Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal), “used tools… buried their dead and painted on cave walls,” they were actually animals and “had no spirits,” according to Dr. Ross. “The hominid species may have gone extinct before, or as a result of, the appearance of modern man.” [First two quotations: “Genesis One, Dinosaurs and Cavemen,” (Reasons to Believe, 1989); Third quotation: Creation and Time, p. 88, etc.; Fingerprint of God, p. 160, also see pp. 159-160.]

—Hugh Ross

Because of this problem of secularization among progressive creationism, it lead to the gap lessening between them and theistic evolutionists.

cThe American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) was founded in the early 1940s as an organisation of orthodox Christian scientists.[9] Although its original leadership favoured Biblical literalism and it was intended to be anti-evolutionary, it rejected the creationist theories propounded by George McCready Price (young Earth creationism) and Harry Rimmer (gap creationism), and it was soon moving rapidly in the direction of theistic evolution, with some members "stopping off" on the less Modernist view that they called "progressive creationism." It was a view developed in the 1930s by Wheaton College graduate Russell L. Mixter.[10] In 1954 evangelical philosopher and theologian Bernard Ramm (an associate of the inner circle of the ASA) wrote The Christian View of Science and Scripture, advocating Progressive Creationism which did away with the necessity for a young Earth, a global flood and the recent appearance of humans.[11]

-wikipedia

(Do you EVER get your facts right?)

Evolution is the main enemy, Hugh ross is married to a ministry that is basically married to the state system "campus crusade for christ", not to diminish from Their efforts as wonderful as they are.....however when you focus so much on loving the lost you tend to become lenient towards liberalism. I don't blame them, however Jesus never let the worlds views affect the Bible, and I am glad for it. Another example of this, is the problem of free grace theology among soteriological views. It's another example of people loving the lost so much that they become "lost", or they step down the ladder, of sorts, to pull up the lost. It's all good, until one day you look back and realize.....where did the ladder go? And see yourself down in a pit with no way out. (free gracers are christians, just seem to confuse grace and faith a little). It's the same with progressive creationism....they love the lost so much that they try to come up with "common ground", thus use terminology such as "the geologic column", "punctuated equilibrium" etc.

soon they are in a pit, with no ladder!

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

Evolution is the main enemy....

How strange that God would create marvelous evolutionary processes which diversify life on earth and adapt living things to changing environments---and yet you consider those evolution processes to be "the main enemy."

Of course, the Pharisees in the first century did likewise. They saw the marvelous works of Christ and called them "the works of Satan."

Some things never change.

 

[AV1611VET]

How strange that God would create marvelous evolutionary processes which diversify life on earth and adapt living things to changing environments---and yet you consider those evolution processes to be "the main enemy."

How do you know that God intended for life on earth to diversify?

After all, God had Adam name the animals, and it was no monumental task back then.

He didn't even need a computer.

As for evolution having to adapt -- nothing would have died before the Fall, thus there would be no need for adaptation.

No pressure = no adaptation.

 

[StormanNorman]

1. Evidence such as this: among the majority of fossils are vegetation yes, however among invertebrate fossils: 95% are marine invertebrates (mainly fish). That ought to tell you something.

Well, because presumably most of them died under water which is much more conducive to the fossilization process, e.g., far less susceptibility to oxidation and quicker sedimentary processes to hide the soon-to-be fossil from scavengers.

Your belief in creation and the flood is genuine, but it's entirely based on faith; don't look to science to confirm your faith.... just believe what you will and leave it at that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. If you don't realize that fish are VERTEBRATES (the very opposite of "invertebrates"), that ought to tell the reader more than just "something". It ought to tell them that your post is a mire of uninformed, illogical, "then the flood must have been global" nonsense.

Geologists have written extensively on the lack of evidence for a global flood---and why the early geologists who were specifically LOOKING for evidence of a global flood changed their minds.

Of course, there's also no evidence of a global flood in the Bible. But if you couldn't figure that out, I'm not surprised you had the same difficulties with geology and basic taxonomy and anatomy.

_____________________

And by the way, your signature refers to what is probably the most infamous error of the KJV Bible. It is based upon a reading absent from the Greek New Testament text and only found in some late Latin Vulgate manuscripts. It was added when Roman Catholic leaders demanded a more convenient proof-text to help with the Trinity doctrine.

Not only that, his third "fish" was a lizard:

Ichthyosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Split Rock]

[/LIST]
Good stuff. This evidence actually supports my contention. Certain local areas will reveal evidence of a huge flood, but there isn't widespread evidence. This is because the flood's 'footprint' isn't the same in all areas. We're on the same page.

How do we distinguish local floods, mudslides and such from a global flood?

 

[Split Rock]

[*]Evidence such as this: among the majority of fossils are vegetation yes, however among invertebrate fossils: 95% are marine invertebrates (mainly fish). That ought to tell you something. Also among those fossils are mollusks/clams (which are often closed.) If the majority of invertebrates are deep water life, that means that something must have happened to join the existing oceans and the land masses. Among with even the clams are closed... Meaning that they did not have time enough for bacteria and scavengers to pry open after death which takes an hour to days. IF most of the fossils are deep water life, as Fish don't typically live in puddles then it was not a local flash flood. Any of it! Thirdly, local flood doesn't provide a heavy enough pressure to bury say 10,000 dinasaurs in 3 feet of dirt (montana), sealed, cemented with chemical injected into the mold enough to preserve nearly all body impressions. The evidence is obviously a global flood, which resulted in techtonic activity, and a resulting Ice age.
[/LIST]

1. Fish are not invertebrates. They have a skeleton.
2. The majority of fossils being of marine life tells us that bodies of water are more condusive to fossilization than terrestrial environments. A global flood would not favor fossilization of marine over terrestrial life.
3. Deep water life would be the least affected by a global flood. That is just basic logic.
4. How does a global flood result in tectonic activity which then results in an ice age? What mechanisms are involved?
5. Where in the bible does it record any ice age?