Local Flood

[A4C]

Did you know that only enough water exists to flood 22% of the earth's surface? As far as the scientific and theological side of the question, please refer to the article I posted by Dr. Hugh Ross.

And what is your estimation on the basis of distribution of ground water , moisture canopy, and top soils in their original condition prior to the global flood of Noah

 

[notto]

Possibly by animals walking on peat moss laid down by rotting vegetation before the flood . Do you have to keep PRATTing this stuff at me all the time?
Now how about for a change -How do you explain footprints in coal?

So then we can assume that any material, fossils, formations, under these coal seams were from before the flood, right?

Why don't we discuss the material below the coal seams. Are you game for that? That would be an interesting discussion to have with a creationist because it would pretty much mean that somehow before the flood, we get many of the same fossils, formations, and materials as after the flood.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

There is evidence and it is discussed in this article...

The Waters of the Flood
By Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/flood.shtml?main


I am surprised that you are a Roman Catholic young earther.

"Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283).
http://www.catholic.com/Library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp

Indeed.

PS

I am a Catholic, not a Roman Catholic...although you probably don't know any better and think "Roman" Catholic is the proper name of the Church, when its actually offensive.

 

[Elduran]

So then we can assume that any material, fossils, formations, under these coal seams were from before the flood, right?

Why don't we discuss the material below the coal seams. Are you game for that? That would be an interesting discussion to have with a creationist because it would pretty much mean that somehow before the flood, we get many of the same fossils, formations, and materials as after the flood.

He doesn't discuss it because he's fully aware that he hasn't got a leg to stand on if you actually tie him down to a scientific conversation. All he can do is spout ignorant rhetoric over and over again in the hope that someone will believe him. It's quite sickening to watch someone so completely uneducated in science try to disprove science...

A4G: do yourself (and us) a favour: Go away and learn something about science. After all, bearing false witness is braking one of your 10 commandments, and by deliberately passing off what you know are falsehoods is bearing false witness.

 

[Routerider]

It was a global flood. There was NO POINT in building an ark for a local flood. Noah and family could have just walked 20km or so to safety.

Noah's Flood questions and answers:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

If the Genesis flood were local, why didn't God just sent Noah and his family packing. Once they were out of the Mesopotamian flood plain, God could have judged the unrighteous without making Noah go to all the trouble of building a huge ark. It is true that God could have done this, although there are some good biblical reasons why He chose not to do so. Why did God make the Israelites march around Jericho for seven days prior to the wall falling down? Why did God make the Israelite look upon the bronze serpent to be healed of snake bite in the wilderness? Why did Jesus make the blind man go to the Pool of Siloam to heal his blindness? Were any of these things actually required for God to do His work? No! God could have just wiped out all the evil people in the world, as He did later to the all the Egyptians' first-born. Maybe God had good reasons for Noah to build the ark? God has a purpose for each person of faith to join Him in preaching His message. God's plan will be accomplished regardless of our participation in it. However, God gives obedient humans the privilege of participating in God's plans. Likewise, God had a plan for Noah, part of which was for him and his sons to demonstrate their commitment and perseverance to the Lord.

Taken from:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

 

[Routerider]

The rain of the Flood had to be global. Otherwise, why would we have 270 surviving flood legends?

We also have UFO, Bigfoot and Sea Monster legends.....so?

 

[Routerider]

Could you imagine the scene: All the scientists are gathered and the leader speaks:
No we have this problem on what to tell the poeple . You see we have all this sediment on the West Coast and little on the East coast so how are we going to get away with saying that it was ALL laid down over millions of years.
Yes Prof. Evo Lution
"Well Sir how about telling them it was glaciars that did it"
Good suggestion OK any more? OK Prof. Godidit what is it this time.
"Sir, Perhaps it was the flood"
"WHAT Get that obstrucionist out of the meeting, we don't want his type here. Now are there any more suggestions? No . OK then we will go with the glacier one they ought to accept that. "

Then the gentlemen leave in their black helicopters ready to meet soon for another exciting episode of "Evil Atheist Scientists and their plots of Doom"....produced by Jack Chick and A4C.

 

[Prince Lucianus]

Personally, I never understood why god had to flood the place, when killing everybody in one stroke instead of the horrible drowning death would have been much quicker. Now he had to transport two of each kind to the boat, help build a boat to support them, organise food for penguins and sorts and get rid of the huge amount of water afterwards....

Just killing every human was so much more efficient. Now he had to kill billions of innocent animals as well. Most drowning just as horribly as the humans.

It's obviously a history like the Trojan war, of which we know as well that it might have taken place, but not as Homer described it.

Lucy

 

[Routerider]

Remember, all of the human race and animals except those on the ark and the sea animals died.

Not to mention 99.9% of all vegetation....that's a small problem for post flood survivors.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

There is evidence of a world wide devsetating flood all over the world.

1. What stratum or sequence of strata in the sedimentary rock record indicate this event occurred?

2. What evidence points to this deposition occurring during the timeframe claimed by creationists?

Since those questions continue to remain unanswered, it's not reasonable or intellectually honest to claim that there is evidence of a world wide flood.

It is an insult by the scientific world to virtually say "OK so you say there was a big flood OK we will let you have one but it was only a local one around the Black Sea "
Thank you all the same scientific community but we are not interested in your crumbs

That is not how science works, so you are only furthering that perception that you neither understand the science relevant to your claims nor science in general.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Can you explain why there is no sediment layers on the east coast of US and there is massive even mile thick sediment on the west coast.

I would be surprised to learn about there being "no sediment layers on the east coast" given that I have spent time there measuring the locations, orientations, and expansiveness of sedimentary strata that you claim do not exist.

Given that your premise is so obviously false, your argument falls apart as a result.

 

[notto]

1. What stratum or sequence of strata in the sedimentary rock record indicate this event occurred?

And was it above or below the layer that contains dinosaur footprints and rooted trees on top of a coal seam?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Can you show me where the "column " is represented there

As has been previously explained to you numerous times, there is no such thing as a singular geologic column, nor should there be unless a global flooding event occurred.

A geologic column is merely a cross sectional representation of the rocks in any given area. Furthermore a geologic column that contains rocks from each defined period in the geologic timescale does not necessitate a lack of sedimentary haituses either. You are arguing against a strawman rooted in your basic misunderstandings of geology.

However, in the east coast states you can find sediment that ranges from early Paleozoic to (obviously) recent Cenozoic. The sediments are not limited to deposition during a short period of time, nor is the east coast devoid of sedimentary strata.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

All the sediment/fossils WERE NOT laid down at the same time.

A time period of one year, in the context of geology, equates to the same time. The point is, this sediment, which has no source in your explanation, would have had to be deposited continuously and without any significant sedimentary haitus. That is to say, at the same time.

There were many days of rain and many factors would determine what/who perished during that time. Add to this the complete upheval of a massive receeding of water taking a further amount of time where previously laid down sediment would be re distributed.

Creative storytelling but nothing more. Why is there not enough water on earth for this to occur? What is the source of this sediment? What is the barrier between sediment deposited during the flood and that redistributed after?

Do you think this could account for the unequal distribution of sediment in the US .

The only case in which we should expect an equal distribution of sediment would be in the case of a global flood.

The explanations given by modern geology that take into account tectonic events, the variance of environmental factors in different geographic areas, and the impact of global climate changes. These are complexities that you ignore, and they explain why there are different types of sediment deposited in different areas and different areas are covered with sedimentary columns of different thickness. That there is an unequal distribution of sediment on continental platforms disproves the simplistic notion of a global flooding event.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Suggesting that I am wrong does not make it so

You've been presented with so many evidences disproving your position that you have never addressed and so many basic questions you cannot answer that no objective evaluation of global flood discussions in which you are involved result in you not being wrong. You are wrong, and your position was disproved almost two centuries ago.

Perhaps the challenge is to investigate the sedimentary/fossil record over the US and see if you can come up with explanations

This has been an ongoing endeavor for quite some time now. It's called the science of geology. Perhaps the challenge is for you to learn something about it.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Could you imagine the scene: All the scientists are gathered and the leader speaks:
No we have this problem on what to tell the poeple . You see we have all this sediment on the West Coast and little on the East coast so how are we going to get away with saying that it was ALL laid down over millions of years.

Geologists are not concerned about what explanations to give the public. Geologists are concerned with which explanations actually fit all the available evidence.

Furthermore, as you should already know, sediments are not assumed to be deposited and eroded many times over hundreds of millions of years. This is a conclusion from the evidence.

Yes Prof. Evo Lution

The topic of whether or not a global flood occurred not only has nothing to do with evolution but was also disproved before the theory of evolution ever came on the scientific scene.

"Well Sir how about telling them it was glaciars that did it"
Good suggestion OK any more?

Another dishonest representation of how scientific explanations come about. They are not brought up as excuses, they are brought up because they best explain the evidence.

When we see glacial moraines, which represent the sediment that was pushed up by glaciation episodes, we can track their movement in the past by looking at terminal ridges associated with the glaciers an the outwash that would result from their melting. We can look at the rocks that would have been exposed by glaciation as they will exhibit striations from being effectively scraped by the ice. We can look at kettle lakes, which would form from pieces of the glacier being left behind. Et cetera. This phenomenon of glaciation is well substantiated and understood, also in part due to the fact that we observe these same evidences forming presently due to glaciation.

OK Prof. Godidit what is it this time.
"Sir, Perhaps it was the flood"
"WHAT Get that obstrucionist out of the meeting, we don't want his type here.

This would only occur in the nineteenth century. Flood geology has been long since disproved. Such professional flood geologists of modern day have no evidence nor any honesty.

Now are there any more suggestions? No . OK then we will go with the glacier one they ought to accept that. "

Again, geologic explanations are not subject to what the public will accept. They are subject to the evidence and what logical explanations geologists would accept. You don't know what you're talking about with your misfire attempt at a parable to try to paint the picture of a scientific conspiracy against you.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Glaciers +Ice ages = total fabrication

Prove it or admit you don't know what you're talking about.

That's the only way to regain any credibility you lost from making that post.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

It was definitely a world wide flood.

The notion of a global flood was disproved by geologists (Christian creationists who were searching for evidence of that event) almost two centuries ago.

Nothing else. This has been taught since the days of the flood and since the Apostles, there should have never been any other teaching.

That means either your interpretation of what the Bible says is wrong, or this just illustrates another error in the authors' understandings of the world around them.

All the scientific evidence points to a global flood...

I have a feeling you know this is wrong, but you made the statement anyway. After all, if "all the scientific evidence" actually pointed to a global flood, that's what framework geologists would be working in and that's what would be taught in geology classrooms. Since it is not, you know you must be in error on that point.

The fact is, there is zero evidence for a global flood. There's not even enough water on earth for such an event to occur. There's also an abundance of evidence that disproves the notion of a global flood that have been discussed here previously. Many of those discussions have been archived already in the second post of the following thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1161676-the-ce-thread-archive.html

Also, the C14 exists more in post-flood fossils than in pre-flood fossils all over the earth. This shows that it was in fact a world wide flood...

Until you identify which sediments are pre-, syn-, and post-flood your statement lacks any credibility whatsoever.

Not only that, but flood sediment has been found all over the earth...

And again, until you identify this supposed flood sediment, that statement lacks any credibility whatsoever.

Additionally, they have found animal footprints, which, if it was a local flood wouldn't exist because they would have dissapeared over time.
Below and around some of those footprints, they have found footprints resembling what a raindrop would do...

These trace fossils and sedimentary imprints disprove the notion of a global flood because they have been observed in strata from different time periods throughout the sedimentary rock record. A creature cannot be walking around in sediment during a flood in which such mass amounts of sediment are being deposited. We should only expect such features in localized positions in the sedimentary rock record if a global flood occurred.

Such imprints require sedimentary hiatus rather than continual deposition. It's inconsistent with a global flood.

They have also found in layers of the earth all over the world, that the layer has wave patterns as if it was underneath a lot of water in the past.

It's not revelatory to state that sediments in the geologic record have been deposited underwater. Geologists already know this. It is a non sequitur, however, to assume that since some sedimentary strata were formed in water that all were formed in water, just as it is the same fallaceous reasoning that implies that water deposition of sediment means that it happened rapidly.

Two excellent counterexamples could be found at the Grand Canyon alone:

1. The Coconino Sandstone has large scale structures called cross bedding that are the same as what we find in cross sections of sand dunes migrating as well as evidence of desert fauna. This is an example of a sedimentary stratum not deposited by water, but rather in a desert. Obviously that won't happen in the middle of a global flood.

2. The Redwall Limestone is a chemical sedimentary rock, in that its crystals are formed by the precipitation of chemically weathered constituents dissolved in water. These types of sedimentary rock require not only specific environments to form (typically shallow water depth and warm climate that promotes evaporation and thereby saturating the fluid causing precipitation, for example), but also a great deal of time to form. They form at an observable rate in only specific environmental areas today at a rate of only centimeters per year in thickness. The Redwall limestone is up to 600 feet thick in some sections. That formation alone won't form in a year, much less along with the hundreds of feet of sediments you also need to form in a year.

To give you another idea of the difference between these two types of rocks, clastic (e.g., sandstone) and chemical (e.g., limestone), here are pictures of thin sections of examples of each, respectively (the first a sandstone, the second a limestone). It's clear that in the former its structure is composed of weathered fragments from previous rocks cemented and/or pressurized to form a rock, whereas the latter its structure is more cohesive as the crystals would have formed around each other. So these are completely different processes at work.

I don't know why this URL is being censored so the picture won't show up, but I'm going to find out and correct it if possible.

Not all sedimentary rock is created equal, and some of those methods are incompatible with formation during a global flood event. These examples are prevalent throughout the sedimentary rock record and that's exactly why the notion has been disproved and no serious scientist actually believes that all the evidence points to such an event happening.

Remember, all of the human race and animals except those on the ark and the sea animals died.

It's an interesting story (borrowed from an earlier Sumerian flood myth depicted in the Epic of Gilgamesh where a man is instructed to take examples of animals all over the earth onto a large boat while the gods flood the earth to rid it of evil, after which he lands on a mountain and releases a dove...sound familiar?), but it's still just a story without any facts to back it up and plenty that go against it.

 

[A4C]

The only case in which we should expect an equal distribution of sediment would be in the case of a global flood.

The explanations given by modern geology that take into account tectonic events, the variance of environmental factors in different geographic areas, and the impact of global climate changes. These are complexities that you ignore, and they explain why there are different types of sediment deposited in different areas and different areas are covered with sedimentary columns of different thickness. That there is an unequal distribution of sediment on continental platforms disproves the simplistic notion of a global flooding event.

I would wonder if modern geology takes the concept of a global flood seriously and examines its likely effects. We saw recently that the effects of the Asian sunami altered the equilibrium of the earth as relatively large amounts of land mass was redistributed. This was of course measureable due to the fine instrumentation we have today. Could it be imagined what sort of impact the forces of thousands of massive sunamis would have if they were all acting concurrently all over the world. Mt St Helens is another example of local impact that could as well be extrapolated to a world wide event. To say that such catastrophic events would have no bearing on the distibution of sediment is like saying that the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima would have no effect except on whoever the bomb casing might have hit.

 

[A4C]

I am still wondering if scientists hae ever considered what I have mentioned in the above post. I would be interested to hear if any have and of any reference to documentation on the issue.