You folks have to get with the program. I have told you how to get enough
water to cover the earth, which had low relief. This proves that there
was a universal flood. I have told you that the water drained into
current ocean basins when they dropped down and the continents rose. This
proves that the flood ended. The point is to take one problem at a time
and provide a solution, which is what I have demonstrated. Unfortunately,
you insist on coupling matters in ways that produce problems. You'll
never get to flood geology that way. Remember: one thing at a time, and
each explanation is independent.
You also need to remember that there are no massive water deposits under
the crust to detect. The great deep was emptied to produce the flood.
Also, the heat at the center of the earth did not have time from creation
(only about a millennium and a half) to be conducted up near the surface.
The temperature has risen in the four and a half millennia since the
flood, helped by the lack of a break (the emptied and collapsed great
deep) in the earth's structure since the flood. You have to keep these
things in mind when they support the biblical (YEC) position, but
otherwise tackle one point at a time.
Dave
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:59:31 -0700 "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
writes:
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> 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 Sun Jul 24 00:05:42 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jul 24 2005 - 00:05:42 EDT