Thought experiment: IF there were a global flood, what would we expect to see?

KerrMetric · Jul 3, 2006

Where are all the other run off canyons like the Grand Canyon. I keep being told that the Grand Canyon is a flood run off creation dumping into the ocean.

Where are the dozens of other such canyons that would be created on all the continents around the world?

OldWiseGuy · Jul 3, 2006

Mallon said:
He was slow to answer, but his reply essentially amounted to 'The Flood was catastrophic where we don't find footprints, and calm where we do.'
Talk about dishonesty. Your know your position is in trouble when you're forced to make up unsubstantiated stories on the spot in order to keep your beliefs intact.

Click to expand...

The fellow was correct, although he didn't know why.

Remember that the flood was only 'worldwide' when all the waters joined. Prior to joining up the flood consisted of many 'local' floods, the only constant being the rate of inwashing waters. Local geography determines the erosion/deposition action of the water in each local area.

By the time the waters joined to become the great flood the effects on the earth's surface had already occurred, and would certainly have been different and unique in many different regions.

The same would have occurred in the outwash of the receding waters. Once again local topography would determine erosion and deposition, not the sheer size of the worldwide flood.

The same holds for evidence of the flood. All evidence would be local, not global. The demand for global evidence is the biggest strawman ever constructed by science. Imo of course.

OldWiseGuy · Jul 3, 2006

KerrMetric said:
Where are all the other run off canyons like the Grand Canyon. I keep being told that the Grand Canyon is a flood run off creation dumping into the ocean.

Where are the dozens of other such canyons that would be created on all the continents around the world?

I've always heard that the Grand Canyon is unique, but if there should be more of them caused by massive flood runoff there should also be more of them carved by rivers.

Where are they? Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

shernren · Jul 3, 2006

Remember that the flood was only 'worldwide' when all the waters joined. Prior to joining up the flood consisted of many 'local' floods, the only constant being the rate of inwashing waters. Local geography determines the erosion/deposition action of the water in each local area.

However, all these local geographical erosions/depositions would be rapid geological actions. The flood was a "multiple-local" flood for at most forty days according to a historical-indicative reading, after which the water levels held constant and then subsided. I'm no expert in this area but I'm sure others can raise examples of observed stratification phenomena which simply couldn't have happened in forty days, no matter what the local geological circumstances.

Willtor · Jul 3, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
I've always heard that the Grand Canyon is unique, but if there should be more of them caused by massive flood runoff there should also be more of them carved by rivers.

Where are they? Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

I'm no geologist, but I would imagine that a river in an environment similar to that of the Grand Canyon could change course or dry up. This can hardly be said of a flood.

gluadys · Jul 3, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
I've always heard that the Grand Canyon is unique, but if there should be more of them caused by massive flood runoff there should also be more of them carved by rivers.

Where are they? Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

I expect they are more common than you think, if not so spectacular. This one is in British Columbia in Canada. Sorry, I don't know exactly whereabouts.

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=77609&stc=1&d=1151986654

Mallon · Jul 4, 2006

You raise an interesting scenario, oldwiseguy, though it sounds to be a bit of a cop-out. You seem to be admitting that there is no evidence for a global flood, and that instead the rock record represents a series of mainly local events (a position with which I agree). If you do, however, feel there is evidence for a global flood, then which strata were deposited by such an event? Please be specific.

oldwiseguy said:
The same holds for evidence of the flood. All evidence would be local, not global. The demand for global evidence is the biggest strawman ever constructed by science. Imo of course.

Science isn't the one coming forward with "proof" of Noah's deluge. Creationism is.

OldWiseGuy · Jul 4, 2006

shernren said:
However, all these local geographical erosions/depositions would be rapid geological actions. The flood was a "multiple-local" flood for at most forty days according to a historical-indicative reading, after which the water levels held constant and then subsided. I'm no expert in this area but I'm sure others can raise examples of observed stratification phenomena which simply couldn't have happened in forty days, no matter what the local geological circumstances.

Local geography would determine the 'rapidity' of geological actions. It is highly doubtful if 'all' local areas would be affected in the same way.

Regarding the historical-indicative reading of forty days: while it rained upon the earth for forty days and nights the main flood came from the fountains of the deep being broken up-the seas. The duration of the whole event indicates that the waters rose at a uniform rate for nearly six months. crested, then receded at the same rate. The major effects of inwash and outwash would have occurred near the beginning of the inwash, and at the end of the outwash. These dynamics must be considered when imagining the effects of the flood on the surface of the earth. So far I have read nothing to indicate that this phenomenon is even known much less considered.

OldWiseGuy · Jul 5, 2006

Mallon said:
You raise an interesting scenario, oldwiseguy, though it sounds to be a bit of a cop-out. You seem to be admitting that there is no evidence for a global flood, and that instead the rock record represents a series of mainly local events (a position with which I agree). If you do, however, feel there is evidence for a global flood, then which strata were deposited by such an event? Please be specific.

Science isn't the one coming forward with "proof" of Noah's deluge. Creationism is.

You're making my case for the strawmen arguement. I am saying that, by it's own nature, there will not be evidence of a single worldwide flood, but there will be evidence of worldwide flooding, and that on a massive scale. All that is needed is to join all the local floods together into one great event. I don't think it's a stretch to do that. Remember that after a certain point more water won't do much more damage. After the initial surface damage the water could pile up to very great depths but leave no residual evidence.

Mallon · Jul 5, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
I am saying that, by it's own nature, there will not be evidence of a single worldwide flood, but there will be evidence of worldwide flooding, and that on a massive scale. All that is needed is to join all the local floods together into one great event. I don't think it's a stretch to do that.

I do. Please refer to the lines of evidence I have presented in this and other threads regarding terrestrial footprints and sequenced forests in the fossil record. These are found throughout the fossil record and they defy rapid deposition. Thus, the onus is on you to correlate these catastrophic local events when the evidence opposes your claim.

seekingpurity047 · Jul 5, 2006

laptoppop said:
OK, I have a bunch of ideas on my own, but I am very interested in what others would add/subtract and why. If there were a global flood of the type you would have if taking the first part of Genesis literally, what would you expect the resulting evidence to look like?

This is not a thread to debate if there were a flood -- there are plenty of those. Rather, I think it could be helpful to jointly think about what we would expect from such an event.
-lee-

I think it wouldl look exactly as it is today becuase the flood actually happened

OldWiseGuy · Jul 5, 2006

Mallon said:
I do. Please refer to the lines of evidence I have presented in this and other threads regarding terrestrial footprints and sequenced forests in the fossil record. These are found throughout the fossil record and they defy rapid deposition. Thus, the onus is on you to correlate these catastrophic local events when the evidence opposes your claim.

I stand by my first statement, that is is difficult to impossible to make perfect sense of flood evidence. There is just too much destruction i.e flood upon flood upon flood over millions of years. I believe in an ancient earth that has seen many cataclisms like the great flood.

In short I believe it was an actual event, based on the bible story, and massive flood evidence generally found throughout the earth.

Mallon · Jul 5, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
There is just too much destruction i.e flood upon flood upon flood over millions of years. I believe in an ancient earth that has seen many cataclisms like the great flood.

In short I believe it was an actual event, based on the bible story, and massive flood evidence generally found throughout the earth.

Fair enough. You admit that your position is based on faith and that it is not grounded in science. I can respect that.

shernren · Jul 5, 2006

Local geography would determine the 'rapidity' of geological actions. It is highly doubtful if 'all' local areas would be affected in the same way.

Regarding the historical-indicative reading of forty days: while it rained upon the earth for forty days and nights the main flood came from the fountains of the deep being broken up-the seas. The duration of the whole event indicates that the waters rose at a uniform rate for nearly six months. crested, then receded at the same rate. The major effects of inwash and outwash would have occurred near the beginning of the inwash, and at the end of the outwash. These dynamics must be considered when imagining the effects of the flood on the surface of the earth. So far I have read nothing to indicate that this phenomenon is even known much less considered.

Fair enough, but would you agree with me that the maximum time from the flood's start to end has to be one year, in a literal interpretation of the passages?

I'm sure there are observed deposition phenomena that can't happen in one year of submerging, anywhere on the planet Earth.

OldWiseGuy · Jul 5, 2006

Mallon said:
Fair enough. You admit that your position is based on faith and that it is not grounded in science. I can respect that.

I will always, in faith, defer to the biblical account.

Willtor · Jul 5, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
I will always, in faith, defer to the biblical account.

Or, at least to your interpretation of it.

OldWiseGuy · Jul 5, 2006

shernren said:
Fair enough, but would you agree with me that the maximum time from the flood's start to end has to be one year, in a literal interpretation of the passages?

I'm sure there are observed deposition phenomena that can't happen in one year of submerging, anywhere on the planet Earth.

Yes, one year, approximately. But as I said; many floods, large and small, washed stuff here and there for millions of years. Hard to make sense out of it all.

OldWiseGuy · Jul 6, 2006

shernren]

Fair enough, but would you agree with me that the maximum time from the flood's start to end has to be one year, in a literal interpretation of the passages?

Yes, approximately one year.

I'm sure there are observed deposition phenomena that can't happen in one year of submerging, anywhere on the planet Earth.

I agree. But the earth has suffered many floods over millions of years. That makes it tough to sort out the whole geological record thing.

shernren · Jul 6, 2006

Oh wait, you're a gapper, right, how could I forget? *blur* Haven't seen you in a while 'aight. But wouldn't you agree that since the most recent flood has been a global, at-most-year-long, all-life-exterminating flood, we should expect its effects to be the most prominent on the geological record? It hardly makes sense to say "many floods over millions of years" should obscure evidence for a massive global flood when they happened before it, not after.

humbledbyhim · Jul 8, 2006

I would not know what to expect for one simple reason. The global flood (if taken literally) was a divine event (not purely natural) done explicitly by God Himself. There doesn't tend to be any evidence (scientifically speaking) when God Himself does things.

laptoppop said:
OK, I have a bunch of ideas on my own, but I am very interested in what others would add/subtract and why. If there were a global flood of the type you would have if taking the first part of Genesis literally, what would you expect the resulting evidence to look like?

This is not a thread to debate if there were a flood -- there are plenty of those. Rather, I think it could be helpful to jointly think about what we would expect from such an event.
-lee-

Thought experiment: *IF* there were a global flood, what would we expect to see?

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

you are not reading this.

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Legend

Attachments

Senior Veteran

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Senior Veteran

Why am I not surprised

Wake me when it's soup.

Senior Veteran

you are not reading this.

Wake me when it's soup.

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

you are not reading this.

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Thought experiment: IF there were a global flood, what would we expect to see?