Re: hypothetical question about Noah's flood

Did I forget Mt. St. Helens?!! JimA

Jim Armstrong wrote:

> Yep, deep, massive water deposits undetected is a pretty big pill to
> swallow. Moreover, it gets hot fast as you descend even a mile or so
> below the surface (less in some places). So, doesn't take long to get
> to where liquid water wouldn't exist (long). Of course, where water
> trickles down to reach boiling or superheat temperatures, you get the
> stuff of Yellowstone and Iceland. Perhaps this is the sort of
> plausibility description that might help the non-technical folks sense
> that the "fountains of the deep" describes something other than
> enormous cisterns. The tsunami argument (earlier) might similarly help
> them with understanding that the giga-cataclysmic collapse of such
> "caverns" would wipe everything out and change the atmosphere in the
> process. ...maybe. JimA
>
> Sheila Wilson wrote:
>
>> 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 cataclysmic
>> 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
>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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 16:00:26 2005