You are correct in stating that I want a solution that encapsulates the entire problem. We have the solution: the flood didn't occur globally. We have many reasons that are all nicely scientific so how do we share that with non-scientists and scientists who have never thought about it? As a side note, I think everyone should believe your great idea that the earth was originally flat - I love it! :) The earth was flat and the water was underneath, like a drinking glass under a plate. As the flood began, the pressure from the water was released and the earth curled up to its current spherical shape. The earth was basically like a dry sponge so the waters were able to soak right in after the flood.
Despite the flat sponge earth theory above, this is the discussion for which I am looking. I will comment on several emails. First, Dave and Jim were discussing the waters of the earth, pillars, etc. We have absolutely no evidence of giant caverns, even with the seismic abilities of today. I believe the caverns required to hold such a large volume of water would be easily detectable. If the caverns ever existed at any depth, the space that contained the water would have collapsed. As Jim pointed out, the temperature of the water when it reached the surface would have been very warm, easily 130 degrees F or more. This still doesn’t allow for a mechanism to cause the water to escape: both a route and the pressure required. I have frequently seen tectonism addressed in young earth theories, in that the mountain building events all occurred during the flood. The physics required to create this type of tectonism would have destroyed everything.
Glenn commented on sedimentation and erosion with reference to the hardness of the rock. I contend that erosion can occur by reworking existing loose sediments but this could not have created the miles deep sediment seen in Wyoming and other areas (I agree Don, Wyoming was just an example). Glenn also commented about creating a worldwide uniform level of beaches. I hadn’t thought of that but Glenn's idea seems correct. Don also made excellent points about the sedimentation rates in the deep receding waters. Those sedimentation rates would be low with virtually no erosion. Would we expect erosion anywhere?
What else would happen?
Sheila
"D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:Sheila, you have a problem. You want explanations to be consistent with the whole package of information. What I've found among YECs is "solutions" to problem A that are contradictory to problem B. We are not describing how water returns to its original subterranean (great deep--it's true because it's in scripture) position, for that was destroyed when the waters broke forth and the surface broke up as it collapsed into the space vacated by the waters. The waters could not return to a place no longer in existence. However, you are not to ask where they went to, but maybe the original earth had virtually no water on its nearly smooth surface and all the water simply drained into the current ocean basins which were produced by the Flood. But before they gathered, they had to tear everything up and redeposit it as seen in the current strata. This was not the kind of yearlong simple soaking that you seem to envision. It was a cata
clysmic
flow and cross flow so extreme that virtually none of the original crust (except perhaps the lowest levels if crust includes everything down to the Moho or below) could possibly survive. But you mustn't say that such violent stormy seas would destroy the Ark! You must turn your uniformitarian mind off and believe what they claim the Bible says.
I think I have a better scriptural basis in a different theory. In the original creation the earth was flat, surrounded by the great sea and sitting over the waters of the great deep. At the time of the Flood it curled up to become spherical. The YECs are mistaken when they hold that the earth on which Adam was placed was already spherical. If they only get their exegesis right, they will acknowledge that I'm right in this. ;-)
Dave
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Sheila Wilson <sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net> writes:
I had not heard the idea of a layer of mostly water just under the surface. I am a geologist and teach hydrogeology at university. Obviously, the theory is ridiculous. The theory implies that as the water retreated, it went back to its original location because it had to go somewhere. The one-time compaction event would destroy the space from which it came, with limited similarity to the resurfacing of Venus (magma vs. water, of course). As Jim said, even if it were possible, the thermal energy release would definitely be mind boggling, completely altering the atmosphere. As I said in an earlier email, I don't think the laws of physics would allow something of that magnitude on earth. I also agree that the chronologies don't mix - I've indirectly stated that from the beginning.
With all that in mind, is there any realistic mechanism that would release that amount of water? I can't think of any. If we grant the flood geology a miracle mechanism and say it happened, how would that affect the sediment? I think a global flood that lasted less than two years would have limited effects in eroding existing rock. Obviously some would occur but I don't know that it would be measurable.
Would a short term global flood of 1/4,500,000,000 cause any noticable changes or leave any recognizable changes? What would they be? Surely a thin layer of millions of bones of all recent animals would be noticable but we don't see that anywhere. What other indications would we have?
Sometimes in science, it is important to look at what we would expect and what we do or do not find. Obviously, I find this an interesting exercise.
Sheila
Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
Once again, one might start with the very real example of the recent tsunami and the damage that resulted from that minor (in terms of Earth dimensions) movement of a portion of the earth's shell. If that were multiplied in any rational way to get some sense of what might happen with surface layers of the Earth collapsing into the voids previously occupied by "the waters of the deep", I think the whole idea of the living biosphere surviving in any semblance of what it was before the collapse would be pretty hard to justify, let along the survival of a tiny ark. The thermal energy release alone would surely be mind-boggling. JimA
D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
Sheila,
You're still talking about 1/4,500,000,000 instead of 1/6000. As for tearing things up, one of the flood geologists has claimed that the great deep was a layer of mostly water under the entire original earth. Its collapse would reduce the diameter of the earth and therefore alter the surface under the universal water. You can't mix the standard geological chronology with flood geology/recent creation chronology and ask an intelligent question of their interaction. There is TOTAL incompatibility.
Dave
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Sheila Wilson <sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net> writes:
I agree with all the implications and ramifications that you have given. Focusing on the hypothetical question, however, how much of the primordial land (using your term) would have been torn up given an old earth scenario. In other words, if we had a global flood today on our 4.5 billion year old earth, how much different would the topography look? In Genesis, the waters flooded for forty days. Would that have been enough time and power to significantly erode existing rock? Or would the waters rise so quickly that very little erosion would occur?
I believe these questions are important in understanding what a geologically instantaneous global flood would do. Many of us agree that a global flood never happened. Others believe that it did. If it did, how much different would the earth's surface look before vs. after. Could we have a global flood without cataclysmic plate shifting, as suggested by Humphreys, Ham, and others? How could cataclysmic plate shifting possibly cause a global flood. I don't believe that it can. I don't think the laws of physics would allow that type of plate shifting, nor do I think the earth has the potential energy to cause it. Even if it could, I don't think the atmosphere, much less a boat of any size, could possibly survive the turbulence created by plate shifting of that magnitude.
Venus appears to undergo periodic resurfacing caused by global, cataclysmic volcanic events. The resurfacing is probably a function of cooling and the lack of plate tectonics. Even with that level of deformation, the planet itself appears to remain stable in orbit, rotation, and tilt. How could a flood possibly cause the earth's axis to tilt? I don't think it can.
Also, given the geologically instantaneous event and the depth of the water, would enough sediment be created to fill the basins of Wyoming? The depth of sediment there can be measured in miles, not feet. I think the speed at which the proposed global flood occurred would not generate the sediment volume required. A global flood would probably just resort existing sediment more than erode existing rock and a lot of the sediment would end up in the ocean as the water receded.
Sheila
"D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
Sheila,
I think you are not taking into account the broader requirements of a global flood less than 6000 years ago. It has to be something that tore up the primordial land and redeposited it in the strata now encountered. That the Flood only lasted a year is, from the standpoint of geological time, virtually nothing. But geological time is absolutely excluded from consideration by all who hold to a global flood. The deluge was, according to flood geology, catastrophic and cataclysmic. One thing possibly suggested as a model is the length of time it took for the atomic bombs to explode over Nagasaki and Hiroshima relative to the extended existence of the cities. But it seems inadequate. Even destruction times duration of the recent tsunami off the Indonesian coast seems relatively close to zero compared to the destruction required and yearlong duration of the Flood.
A major problem which we have in analysis is focusing on a single aspect of a greater problem as if it were the crucial and major factor--tunnel vision. There are always ramifications galore.
Dave
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Sheila Wilson <sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net> writes:
I understand your position but that wasn't my question. My question was, if it did occur, what would we see. Purely hypothetical, no debate on whether or not it happened.
These questions came after reading Chris Sharpe's essay on the age of the universe and astromony. One significant point that he made was, if the universe was only 6000 years old, we would not see most the stars because they are too far away. The light didn't have time to get here. So what would the earth look like if a global flood did occur? I don't think we would see any geologic evidence of a global flood as described in Genesis. In geologic time, it was instantaneous. Of course, volcanoes are instantaneous and we can see lots of evidence of them. How deep of sediment layer would we expect?
Any ideas?
Sheila
Sheila McGinty Wilson
sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net
Sheila McGinty Wilson
sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net
Sheila McGinty Wilson
sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net
Received on Sat Jul 23 15:18:04 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 23 2005 - 15:18:05 EDT