Global Flood

[otseng]

One of the significant parts of the Creation Model (CM) is that a world-wide flood occurred. This flood covered the entire world. Naturally, many questions arise out of this:

How can a world-wide flood feasibly happen?
Where did all the water come from?
Where did all the water go?
What significance does it have on the CM?
What evidence are there of a global flood?

[otseng]

As the water eroded the sides of the crust, it carried sediments and deposited it rapidly around the world. The entire world was covered with water and sediments at this point. Meanwhile, the crust was gradually settling as the water underneath decreased. As the land mountain ranges were forming and as the sediments in the water settled, the water receded into the oceans we have now and also froze in the North and South poles.

The massive amounts of sediments from the crust erosion formed practically all the rock strata that we see today. So, instead of billions of years for it to form in the EM, it occurred within a year in the FM.

The rapid burial of the plants and animals caused the formation of most all the oil, coal, and fossils we find today.

Otseng, I'm going to wait until you have presented your full scenario before I weigh in with objections. But at some point, I'm going to hold your feet to the fire about non-biblical dating techniques. Yes, I know that the YEC's have objections to carbon dating - but is it any less reliable than, say, your hypothetical-laden population extrapolations?

OK, I'm pretty much done with my presentation of what happened during the flood.

I guess it's time to hold my feet to the fire now.

[perfessor]

All right Otseng, I’m ready to further the discussion on some points.

1. Are there any non-Biblical dating techniques that hold up to scientific scrutiny? If you took a team of android scientists – with no religious, cultural, or scientific dogma to taint their researches, and asked them to answer a simple question: How old is the Earth? What answer do you think they would come up with, and why? What evidence might they use that would point to a young earth?

You mentioned the interesting fact that written language first appeared some 3500 years ago. I went to the site you mentioned: it was two languages, geographically close, they could have been trading partners. Had it been, say, seven scattered languages, now that would be interesting. But two languages – I’m not impressed. Besides, one could always say that the flood predated written languages – it’s meaningless.

2. I asked earlier about a world-wide layer of mud, and I think you danced around the question. So let me be more specific, by offering a point of comparison: There exists a world-wide layer that is rich in iridium (a rare metal) and soot. The characteristics of this layer are very consistent regardless of which continent you pick the sample from:

Standard dating techniques all agree about the age of the layer: 63 million years ago (MYA).

There are dinosaur fossils below the layer;

There are no dino fossils above the layer.

Given that we can find, identify, and date this layer, I ask you again: what planet-wide stratum indicates a flood? I would expect to see it, say, in the Grand Canyon (presumably near the top), or Snake River Canyon, or Olduvai Gorge. Where is it? Given your explanation for the formation of mountains, it might be difficult to find there – so I’ll give you a pass, if you want it, in the mountainous regions. But in areas that have been fairly stable geologically, it ought to be a piece of cake to spot. And if you say that it's all the layers, then you have to show a trans-continental uniformity.

3. I’m also going to challenge your assertions about the pre-flood climate. As evidence, you cite the lack of growth rings in trees of the Carboniferous era. Now, the age of this era generally given is approximately 340 MYA to 280 MYA, or thereabouts. It is a little strange to have you citing evidence from a period you claim doesn’t exist. But the characteristics of this period, according to websites I’ve seen, indicate a tropical climate (depending on location), large insects, no dinosaurs (that is, pre-dinosaur), and proto-trees that sound to me more like giant weeds. The stems have a hard, perhaps woody, exterior, and a pithy interior (not woody). Not exactly giants either – about 40 feet tall, if they didn’t fall over first. The stem could not support anything close to “giant”. And the pithy interior would also not show a ringed structure.

And if you do find fossils that support your claims about pre-flood climate – how do you know? Again, we are back to the dating issue.

I have some other issues, regarding population genetics and the like, which I’ll save for another post. I have to go back to school again - to study more math!

[jwu]

The rapid burial of the plants and animals caused the formation of most all the oil, coal, and fossils we find today.

I think there wasn't nearly enough bio mass at one time to create the amounth of fossils that we find today. After all, some coal layers are like a hundred metres thick (one of these is near Cologne).
Also, if they were created by a single flood, how can it be that there are often several layers of coal, with other layers of dozenor even hundreds of metres of massive rock in between?

jwu

[ST88]

The greenhouse effect would produce a more tropical environment on the earth. This in turn would cause plants to grow faster. There wasn't the seasons back then as we know now. It certainly didn't have seasons of dryness. This is evidenced in trees found in the Carboniferous period. Trees in this period are characterized by having no growth rings. This implies that there was no changing periods of wetness, dryness. And based on the size of the plants, it can only mean it was wet all the time. Now, how can a climate be wet all the time? A greenhouse scenario is the best guess.

I just have to correct you on one thing here. By the Carboniferous period, the plant kingdom produced few plants that grew tree rings. The majority of plants that grew during this time and constituted the vast giant forests, e.g. tree ferns and Lepidodendrons, did not and do not produce the types of tree growth structures we are familiar with as tree-like, and their growth habit did not and do not cause the formation of tree rings even in times where you expect to see them in other plants. Cycads, for example, did not appear until the late Permian, and true angiosperms did not appear until the late Jurassic (I seem to remember this, but haven't confirmed it).

However, there are tree rings found in fossils from the Devonian period, which is earlier than the Carboniferous period (lower strata). And the dearth of tree rings in the fossil record is merely the result of the tropical climate of the continents' contemporary position from which the fossils have been found.

This is a good discussion:
http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/J_B_B ... ology.html

[otseng]

What evidence might they use that would point to a young earth?

I think this is another huge area of debate, how old is the earth? How about starting another thread on that and I promise we will eventually get to that (the threads are certainly multiplying and I've having a hard time juggling all theses babies. ).

You mentioned the interesting fact that written language first appeared some 3500 years ago. I went to the site you mentioned: it was two languages, geographically close, they could have been trading partners. Had it been, say, seven scattered languages, now that would be interesting. But two languages – I’m not impressed. Besides, one could always say that the flood predated written languages – it’s meaningless.

Two languages? There are 77 languages listed there. This is a list of the oldest written languages known to man.

The problem is, why did written language show up only after 3500 BC? If mankind is old, why did it suddenly just appear around the world?

2. I asked earlier about a world-wide layer of mud, and I think you danced around the question. So let me be more specific, by offering a point of comparison: There exists a world-wide layer that is rich in iridium (a rare metal) and soot. The characteristics of this layer are very consistent regardless of which continent you pick the sample from:

The flood deposited practically all the layers. Definitely since the Cambrian layer. The time period in which each layer would've been deposited would've been measured in days, not millions of years. So, pointing to a specific layer is meaningless in the flood model.

Here's another question in regards to the layers. Why are they all parallel to each other? What can explain that? The FM forming parallel layers is much more conceivable than the EM in which they form over millions of years.

Given that we can find, identify, and date this layer, I ask you again: what planet-wide stratum indicates a flood?

The entire stratas indicate a flood, not just a single one.

3. I’m also going to challenge your assertions about the pre-flood climate. As evidence, you cite the lack of growth rings in trees of the Carboniferous era. Now, the age of this era generally given is approximately 340 MYA to 280 MYA, or thereabouts. It is a little strange to have you citing evidence from a period you claim doesn’t exist.

I don't claim that the Carboniferous era was 340 MYA. I claim that all the periods in the geological column was much more recent than that. On the order of 5,000 BC, +/- several thousand years.

[perfessor]

Otsen wrote:

You mentioned the interesting fact that written language first appeared some 3500 years ago. I went to the site you mentioned: it was two languages, geographically close, they could have been trading partners. Had it been, say, seven scattered languages, now that would be interesting. But two languages – I’m not impressed. Besides, one could always say that the flood predated written languages – it’s meaningless.

Two languages? There are 77 languages listed there. This is a list of the oldest written languages known to man.

The problem is, why did written language show up only after 3500 BC? If mankind is old, why did it suddenly just appear around the world?

What I meant was - the timeline at that site shows two written languages appearing about 3500 years ago. All the others came significantly later. This hardly qualifies as appearing suddenly around the world.

And why only after 3500 B.C.? I can't explain that, except to say that there had to be a starting point somewhen. I also can't explain why we couldn't write music until the 13th century; why we couldn't write the number zero until 700 A.D., why we didn't have calculus until Newton.

The flood deposited practically all the layers. Definitely since the Cambrian layer. The time period in which each layer would've been deposited would've been measured in days, not millions of years. So, pointing to a specific layer is meaningless in the flood model.

Maybe meaningless in the flood model, but not to most others. It seems a bit disingenuous to say that any contrary evidence is "meaningless" by having a model that just "waves away" much of the data.

Also the fact that there are distinct layers indicates a time scale much longer than "measured in days". For two layers to be distinct, you would have to have a thorough drying of one layer , followed by deposition of a different composition of material in the next.

Here's another question in regards to the layers. Why are they all parallel to each other? What can explain that? The FM forming parallel layers is much more conceivable than the EM in which they form over millions of years.

The strata are parallel because gravity always acts in the same direction. Yes the strata would be parallel if formed within days of each other (though I think they would not be distinct in that case); they would also be parallel if formed over much longer time scales.

I don't claim that the Carboniferous era was 340 MYA. I claim that all the periods in the geological column was much more recent than that. On the order of 5,000 BC, +/- several thousand years.

Again, I think you are cherry-picking your data. You are using the convenient data from the carboniferous era, and discarding the inconvenient data (dating methods again).

[otseng]

And why only after 3500 B.C.? I can't explain that, except to say that there had to be a starting point somewhen.

Any my point is that it was after the flood.

According to the EM, when was the first human on the planet? Perhaps 2 MYA? Now, what happened in between 2 MYA and 3500 BC? Why would written languages only occur after humans have existed for 1,996,500 years? And then, after 3500 BC, civilizations around the world abruptly (within the last 0.175% of it's entire timeline) developed written languages.

Maybe meaningless in the flood model, but not to most others.

Are we not debating about the flood model? We can't mix in the EM and say that my arguments are inconsistent because it doesn't match both the FM and the EM.

Also the fact that there are distinct layers indicates a time scale much longer than "measured in days". For two layers to be distinct, you would have to have a thorough drying of one layer , followed by deposition of a different composition of material in the next.

Not necessarily. Different compositions could settle at different rates in a liquid mixture. It doesn't have to dry out before the next layer forms.

The strata are parallel because gravity always acts in the same direction. Yes the strata would be parallel if formed within days of each other (though I think they would not be distinct in that case); they would also be parallel if formed over much longer time scales.

Where on earth do we see such huge flat land areas? Now, where do we see such places having a consistent layer of dirt placed on top of that? Now, this not only occurs once, but throughout all of time.

The FM explains this much more easily than the EM.

You are using the convenient data from the carboniferous era, and discarding the inconvenient data (dating methods again).

What dating methods are you referring to?

[otseng]

The rapid burial of the plants and animals caused the formation of most all the oil, coal, and fossils we find today.

I think there wasn't nearly enough bio mass at one time to create the amounth of fossils that we find today. After all, some coal layers are like a hundred metres thick (one of these is near Cologne).

Yes, we see massive deposits of coal and oil. Some layers of coal are quite thick.

Coal formation is the result of plant material rapidly buried and compressed. Plants simply dying is not going to just form coal. It would also have to be rapid buried. It takes a lot of plant matter to form one foot of coal, perhaps 20 feet or so. Now we see coal deposits that are hundreds of feet thick. How did that form? Did plant material simply die in a peat bog and form coal? How did it get buried? With what did it get buried? More dying plant material? How can peat bogs be so big as to form coal deposits that are hundreds of feet thick? What was so special about the Carboniferous period that caused coal to form?

The FM explains coal formation better than the EM. There was an abundance of plant material because of favorable climate conditions prior to the flood. The flood water caused plants to collect and be buried at certain places. So huge amounts of vegetation were concentrated in certain areas by the flood. It was also all rapidly buried and compressed.

Also, if they were created by a single flood, how can it be that there are often several layers of coal, with other layers of dozenor even hundreds of metres of massive rock in between?

The plants and rocks were mixed in the flood. Different parts could have settled as different rates. Floodwaters could have also buried plants at different points in time.

[jwu]

Any my point is that it was after the flood.

According to the EM, when was the first human on the planet? Perhaps 2 MYA? Now, what happened in between 2 MYA and 3500 BC? Why would written languages only occur after humans have existed for 1,996,500 years? And then, after 3500 BC, civilizations around the world abruptly (within the last 0.175% of it's entire timeline) developed written languages.

Merely coincidence. Besides, the actual date of the proposed flood is not certain at all.

Even AnswersInGenesis proposes a biblical date of 2500BC, not 3500BC, which quite contradicts your point here.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... trophe.asp

Not necessarily. Different compositions could settle at different rates in a liquid mixture. It doesn't have to dry out before the next layer forms.

Then why isn't it all nicely sorted by size of the particles and density, as someone would expect? It doesn't look like sediments which settled down at varying speeds from a single flood at all. Also, the existence of a single layer somewhere which consists of a similar material and consistence as another layer somewhat above or below it would be a huge problem here. I'm quite sure such layers exist.

Where on earth do we see such huge flat land areas? Now, where do we see such places having a consistent layer of dirt placed on top of that? Now, this not only occurs once, but throughout all of time.

The FM explains this much more easily than the EM.

Actually exactly the same requirement applies to the FM too. I really don't see how a huge flood can get sediments on top of hills and mountains, instead of washing them away when the water receded...

Coal formation is the result of plant material rapidly buried and compressed. Plants simply dying is not going to just form coal. It would also have to be rapid buried. It takes a lot of plant matter to form one foot of coal, perhaps 20 feet or so. Now we see coal deposits that are hundreds of feet thick. How did that form? Did plant material simply die in a peat bog and form coal? How did it get buried? With what did it get buried? More dying plant material? How can peat bogs be so big as to form coal deposits that are hundreds of feet thick? What was so special about the Carboniferous period that caused coal to form?

Actually it doesn't need to get buried quickly, the only requirement is that it doesn't rot for a long time. This happens in swamps all the time, as proven by the very existence of peat and those nice swamp mummies.

Nature has quite a lot of time to bury even the deepest old swamps with thick layers of sediments.


However, this being buried by a flood poses some problems:
Biomass, especially plants and wood, and that's what coal mostly consists of, has a certain habit of floating on water for some time, so it should not have ben buried that way in first instance.

The plants and rocks were mixed in the flood. Different parts could have settled as different rates. Floodwaters could have also buried plants at different points in time.

Why do we find quite big and massive rocks *above* the coal layers (and lots of these)? A rock as big as my fist certainly would settle down to the ground somewhat faster than a piece of rotting wood.

The assumption that some bio mass settles down, then lots of rocks (and no bio mass), then some bio mass and no rocks, then some rocks again and so on is quite absurde and physically quite impossible.

jwu

[ST88]

And why only after 3500 B.C.? I can't explain that, except to say that there had to be a starting point somewhen.

Any my point is that it was after the flood.

According to the EM, when was the first human on the planet? Perhaps 2 MYA? Now, what happened in between 2 MYA and 3500 BC? Why would written languages only occur after humans have existed for 1,996,500 years? And then, after 3500 BC, civilizations around the world abruptly (within the last 0.175% of it's entire timeline) developed written languages.

There are a number of possible explanations for this.
1) There was no need for a written language before this time because spoken language (or gestured language) had sufficed up until that time.
There are no spectacular events around the time that the first cuneiform tablets were produced. There was extensive migration of Semitic tribes into the Ubaidians of Mesopotamia, causing religious upheaval. But this had happened in the past in other places without surviving written language examples. It could be argued that the tremendous population growth in this area necessitated that land squabbles be dealt with fairly and decisively.

2) Written artifacts from earlier times were not produced on long-lasting materials.
This is much more likely, such as scrawling on animal hides or even in sandstone. The pictographs and cuneiform used by the Sumerians do appear awfully suddenly in the record. It is reasonable to assume that the clay tablets used for administrative purposes represented some kind of "permanent record" for which laws could be enforced effectively. However, it is also reasonable to assume that other social procedures, such as trade between and within cultures, would not require that the records be permanent, if at all. Most trade is done on the spot -- something for something. Written language or pictographs would be a way to bridge the gap between differing spoken languages for a particularly complex transaction. And in this case, it would not be necessary to keep permanent records of such cross-cultural conversation. If, for example, a farmer trades one-quarter of his crop of grain for an immediate fix of ale from a merchant, the receipt would only need to be in existence for a year or two at the most.

3) Complex religious procedures required both objective precedents and common law.
In this case, for a religion that has moved from simple nature worship to set down actual rules for behavior depending on the situation, it would be necessary to create a record of such behaviors for specific gods, even if only for the high priests to consult. We can see this in the temple at Eridu (not the best reference, but OK) (5000-4000[?] BCE), which included a sacrifice table and (possibly) areas for idol worship.

In any case, humans are a remarkably mimetic species behaviorally. So once written language was introduced, it is not hard to extrapolate that this innovation would spread quickly. My argument here is that written language is a technology, not an instinct. I think right/left brain studies tend to support this. And, as any technology, it would spread rapidly from place to place. It would also appear in different places at different times in much the same way as the technology of bronze tools did.