Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6326 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 182 of 234 (39449)
05-08-2003 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Bill Birkeland
05-07-2003 8:43 PM


Dear Bill Birkeland;
I thought you might still be lurking about, all that "victory" stuff was bait to hook a big fish who was hiding. This board is small potatoes, and most of the posters I have probably worn out rather than won over, but it still is a victory of sorts, just still being on the board is a victory in itself. By the way, I am not a YEC, yet you reject my theory and you didn't even know that, sounds prejudiced to me. Whatever happened to being impartial, what chance does any theory have if it is already prejudged?
I think your lack of an open mind well illustrates why for now I will pass on being "sliced, diced, and shredded into innumerable pieces" until I have much better lab work and perhaps a few papers under my belt before I try a presentation before such a potentially hostile group. "If you manged to survive"? just what kind of meetings have you been attending?
If you read my earlier post, I am working on improving my lab work for the purpose of doing a second edition and publishing a paper. One thing I have learned on this board is the higher level of evidence that is required and I feel that if I work at it I can meet that level. Once I have more impressive results from a wide range of sites, I will have the foundation for a paper. As I have learned on this board, my current results are not that persuasive to those who have already made up their minds. But once I have completed my work, hopefully I will have such powerful evidence it will sweep the opposition away.
On pollen sequences, I have read some on Palynology and the records would probably miss the type of brief late glacial flooding event I am theorizing. A marine submergence of perhaps a only few months would leave a very thin sediment layer that unless it was specifically and carefully looked for, it would be too easy to miss. Marine sediments described as 'blue clay' does turn up in lakes in low elevation areas where there was a more prolonged submergence long enough to leave behind a more easily detectable deposit. I suspect that once I have published a few papers, some of the lake sediment cores will be rechecked for marine diatoms and a thin trace of marine diatoms will be found in many of them. Since it is apparently on the bases of these findings of Palynology that your reject any notion of a recent global flood, it seems that you have made up your mind prematurely. Not until a thorough search is made of these records for a brief marine transgression will they have a bearing on this issue. Sometimes the thing we are most ignorant of is the thing that we think we know all about already, because we have stopped thinking about it.
Since you are going to Lake Baikal, look for the seals while you are there, they are descended from the Arctic Ringed Seal and are now a long way from the ocean. Also you may want to look at the elevated beach terraces in the area at an elevation of 6093 feet, (The Quaternary Era; With Special Reference to it's Glaciation by J.K. Charlesworth 1957, volume two, p.1119). Since you are a geologist and are going to be visiting the area, I would like your opinion on how the beach terraces were formed. Have a good trip and enjoy yourself, I envy you, I have a hard enough time just getting to the college library. I am reading Melosh's book, very good and I will have to look into "North America and Adjacent Oceans. The Geology of North America," any others you think I should read?
--Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Bill Birkeland, posted 05-07-2003 8:43 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 183 of 234 (39466)
05-08-2003 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by wmscott
05-08-2003 6:13 PM


So rather than saying that the flood happened on this or that date at 4:35 pm or whatever, I concentrate my efforts on first proving the occurrence of the event before I worry about exact dating.
Well, if so, how would you discern evidence for a global flood from evidence for multiple, unrelated local floods if you don't specify a time frame for the global flood?
Under your methodology, flood evidence from 10,000 years ago in one area and flood evidence from 100,000 years ago in another would be taken by you to point to one global flood; most people wouldn't agree with this conclusion.
Floods happen, no one disagrees, but a global flood has to leave evidence all at once, in the same time window. Until you've pinned down a time frame I don't think your theory holds much water (so to speak).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by wmscott, posted 05-08-2003 6:13 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by wmscott, posted 05-09-2003 8:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1067 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 184 of 234 (39483)
05-08-2003 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by wmscott
05-08-2003 6:14 PM


Thank you wmscott. I'll take a look as soon as I have a chance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by wmscott, posted 05-08-2003 6:14 PM wmscott has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6326 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 185 of 234 (39566)
05-09-2003 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by crashfrog
05-08-2003 8:32 PM


Dear crashfrog;
I do not tie the occurrence of the flood to a specific year, but I do state that it was a late ice age event which restricts it to the time period of about 10k to up to maybe as much as 30k in radiocarbon years. And local flood evidence is not evidence of global flooding, such evidence has to be weeded out if one is trying to prove a global flood. I suspect that Meltwater pulse 1A (16-19k) is when the flood shows up the marine records, most of the land evidence is dated 'late glacial' or about 10k, but some my be dated as high as 30k. So that is the temporal ball park I play in.
--Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2003 8:32 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6326 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 186 of 234 (89076)
02-27-2004 3:14 PM


Ice Age Impact Flood Theory
Until very recently to the best of my knowledge I have been single handily promoting a new theory on how the Biblical flood may have occurred, but as I have just discovered, someone else has independently developed the same basic theory.
quote:
Theory Supporting the Biblical Account of the Great Flood
James A. Marusek
(As published in the Cambridge-Conference Network (CCNet) , Issue 47/2003 of 29 May 2003))
Summary of Theory
A large comet or asteroid impact in a glacier ice sheet produced the Biblical Great Flood which brought the last Ice Age to an abrupt and sudden end.
http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/Flood.htm
While differing in details, the fact that James A. Marusek has looked at the evidence and has reached the same basic conclusions as I have, shows that this theory is a logical deduction. A large scale flooding event at the end of the last ice age caused by an impact event or events on the ice sheets is a reasonable and plausible event. Such an event having occurred is not ruled out by any of the evidence we have today, and we do have evidence that points towards such an event as having occurred. This Ice Age Impact Flood Theory is far from being currently accepted, but it appears it may starting to be heading in that direction.
What is needed is further documentation of supporting geological evidence and mapping of the extent of the flooding. By mapping the marine diatom trace layer left behind by the flood waters, it is possible to map how far they reached and determine if only (1)major portions of the continents were flooded, or if (2) the flood waters reached the edges of the glaciers then existing at higher elevations so the whole world was covered by water or ice, or if (3) the flood waters did indeed somehow reach high enough to cover the then highest mountain.

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Joe Meert, posted 03-01-2004 9:07 AM wmscott has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5758 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 187 of 234 (89549)
03-01-2004 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by wmscott
02-27-2004 3:14 PM


Re: Ice Age Impact Flood Theory
JM: Yes, well Kent Hovind has also reached the same conclusion. There are lots of people looking for excuses to generate a global flood. No good evidence is ever provided, but they keep on trying. I've seen your 'hypothesis' and not really found much in the way of compelling evidence to support it. As it stands now, your hypothesis is unpublished, unsupported and non-existent in the scientific community. You've got much work to do if you are ever to make headway.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by wmscott, posted 02-27-2004 3:14 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by wmscott, posted 03-02-2004 4:03 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6326 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 188 of 234 (89828)
03-02-2004 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Joe Meert
03-01-2004 9:07 AM


laughing so hard the first time I saw your avatar
Hi Joe;
Long time no see. Yes I certainly do have much work to do, but it is do able. I think there is a good case to be made for a late glacial global flooding event. Kent Hovind has not reached the same conclusions, his theories are just the standard stock idems from the YEC alternative reality fantasy world. The point was that James A. Marusek (unlike the lost YECs) came up with the same theory I have on how the flood happened, by looking at the evidence and making a logical deduction. The fact that we both came up with the same novel answer to the problem, implies ether a coincidence or we both figured out a solution that works. When you are grading your tests, if a common 'wrong' answer starts showing up, ether they are cheating or it is time to check the test to see if the students found an alterative solution.
You stated in regard to my theory, "not really found much in the way of compelling evidence to support it." from you that is high praise in your phrasing to allow for the fact that I do have some evidence, just that you do not find it at all convincing. Yes I agree with you that I need to publish, I am working on that. Perhaps in time there will be enough published evidence for you be convinced, but perhaps till then, you may want to give me the benefit of the doubt and allow my theory a 'wait and see' status instead of a blanket rejection.
Almost fell out of my chair because I was laughing so hard the first time I saw your avatar, but if Walt Brown was ever brave enough to post here, does he get to do the same with your picture?
Sincerely yours;
Wm. Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Joe Meert, posted 03-01-2004 9:07 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Loudmouth, posted 03-02-2004 5:21 PM wmscott has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 234 (89858)
03-02-2004 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by wmscott
03-02-2004 4:03 PM


Re: laughing so hard the first time I saw your avatar
Mr. Anderson,
If the Noah story was not in the Bible, would you still be coming to the same conclusions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by wmscott, posted 03-02-2004 4:03 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by wmscott, posted 03-03-2004 5:57 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6326 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 190 of 234 (90131)
03-03-2004 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Loudmouth
03-02-2004 5:21 PM


Interesting question, to which I would have to say no and maybe yes.
Interesting question, to which I would have to say no and maybe yes. Now that I have looked for the evidence to support the biblical account, I have found enough that points towards a major flooding event, covering much of land at the end of the last ice age, I don't have enough evidence to support the case for higher elevation flooding at this time, but some of the evidence seems to imply it. But if I had not heard of the biblical account I never would have thought to look for evidence of recent global flooding and would not have found the evidence and hence would not have believed or even thought of the possibility of a recent global flood. But some of the evidence by itself does point in that direction if you are aware of it, such as the evidence of super flooding, such huge releases of glacial melt water into the seas would bring up sea levels sharply and result in a sudden submergence of areas that had been exposed by lower ice age sea levels. The puzzle is there in the evidence waiting to be solved, the biblical account is a huge hint, but doesn't explain how to solve the puzzle. But I would expect that once more evidence is found, the solution will become increasingly obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Loudmouth, posted 03-02-2004 5:21 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Loudmouth, posted 03-04-2004 12:45 PM wmscott has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 234 (90283)
03-04-2004 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by wmscott
03-03-2004 5:57 PM


Re: Interesting question, to which I would have to say no and maybe yes.
quote:
Now that I have looked for the evidence to support the biblical account, I have found enough that points towards a major flooding event, covering much of land at the end of the last ice age, I don't have enough evidence to support the case for higher elevation flooding at this time, but some of the evidence seems to imply it.
Is any of this evidence impossible to explain using conventional, old age earth mechanisms? It would seem that we have two competing theories, conventional/no global flood vs. non-conventional/global flood. To distinguish between the two you would need evidence that can only be explained by one theory, IMHO. From what I have seen, there are quite a few geologic formations that seem to fly in the face of a global flood. These include alternating layers of arid and aquatic sedimentation, including obvious signs of dessication (such as salt layers) between layers of aquatic sedimentation. This would seem to be evidence that could not be explained using a global flood theory, at least if the Noah account is to be taken literally (40 days rain, 1 year submerged). Is there anything similar within global flood geology, that is formations that can only be explained using the flood model?
My knowledge of the following scenario is sketchy, so feel free to correct me. It has been theorized that the Black Sea was created when the Mediterranean Sea broke through a natural earthen dam. This sudden flooding caused a thick layer of silt to be deposited on the floor of the Black Sea. I think this is a good example of sudden inundation by water, and a global flood should leave something similar as well. Instead, what is claimed by global flood geoligists is multiple layers and fossil sorting. Shouldn't global flood geology try and use present examples of sudden inundation to form their theories instead of convuluted, sometimes ad hoc, explanations that bear no resemblance to present day examples?
My third question (sorry if this is too getting long), what would falsify a global flood? Although I will admit I am not a geologist, I do, however, work in a scientific field. It is impossible for me to say anything about the models I construct without setting up experiments that allow for potential falsification. It seems that almost every potential falsification of a global flood (eg, alternating dessication layers) is thought to be refuted by more ad hoc explanations that can never be tested. I just have a difficult time dealing with a model that can never be tested, or even dared to be tested in the light of falsification by proponents of the theory.
I hope you do not take this skepticism personally, only as one scientist to another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by wmscott, posted 03-03-2004 5:57 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-04-2004 1:43 PM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 194 by wmscott, posted 03-04-2004 5:54 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3946
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 192 of 234 (90289)
03-04-2004 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Loudmouth
03-04-2004 12:45 PM


Re: Interesting question, to which I would have to say no and maybe yes.
I believe that Wm. Scott Anderson's thoughts are largely in line with those of the mainstream. From what I recall, I'm pretty certain that he wouldn't at all be considered a creationist, much less a young earth creationist.
His topic and arguements are focused on whether or not a "great flood" happened in geologically recent times. I don't think he is proposing that this flood was anywhere near the magnitude of what "Noah's flood" is generally regarded to have been.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Loudmouth, posted 03-04-2004 12:45 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Loudmouth, posted 03-04-2004 4:37 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 196 by lfen, posted 08-14-2004 4:20 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 234 (90338)
03-04-2004 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Minnemooseus
03-04-2004 1:43 PM


Re: Interesting question, to which I would have to say no and maybe yes.
quote:
I believe that Wm. Scott Anderson's thoughts are largely in line with those of the mainstream.
Oops, I am jumping to conclusions conclusions it appears. Perhaps I should do some reading before posting anything more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-04-2004 1:43 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6326 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 194 of 234 (90365)
03-04-2004 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Loudmouth
03-04-2004 12:45 PM


Global yes, YEC no!
quote:
Is any of this evidence impossible to explain using conventional, old age earth mechanisms?
Yes all of it, there is no evidence that supports YEC. I am not a YEC, more of an OEC, the earth is billions of years old and the fossil record is a record of that great span of time. I have approached this problem from a geological point of view, wondering how or if it was possible to reconcile the biblical deluge with what we know about geology. Obviously there is no way a YEC type flood ever happened, it is clearly impossible, disproved by everything we know and see. So it was a challenge to try and see if there was a solution to the puzzle, and there was. My theory is basically that there was an impact or impact events on some of the ice sheets towards the end of the last ice age that resulted in a huge release of water and ice into the oceans. This in turn started the sea level rising which in turn destabilized the edges of the ice sheets resulting in surging which in turn resulted in further sea level rises causing more surging. This chain reaction could have raised sea level by several hundred feet to perhaps as much as two thousand in a matter of months. Then over time the sift of weight from the ice sheets to the oceans pushed the ocean floors back down to their pre ice age positions as glacial areas and land areas in general rebounded upward. These shifts are part of standard mainstream geological theories, the question is how large or small were they.
As you know real theories make predictions and can be tested and proved or disproved (better to say supported or not supported ) by the evidence. My theory predicted a gentle marine flooding of several months duration, which should leave behind a thin layer of marine sediments. In the open ocean the sediment rate is very slow and is mainly marine diatoms, so I looked for traces of marine diatoms in soil samples. Here in Wisconsin where I live, I found such at an elevation of 1000 ft above sea level. If I had not heard of the flood, I never would have thought to look for this, which is probably why no one else has noticed it, but now that I have seen it, the flood becomes an obvious conclusion. Now this area was probably at a lower elevation at the time, but it still implies a major flooding event, and the water level probably reached higher elevations. But I will need to verify that by finding marine traces at higher locations. The marine traces by the way occur only as a near surface deposit and are not mixed through out the whole thickness of the earth's surface as YEC flood models would demand, which means acceptance of this flood model would be a lethal blow for YEC flood theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Loudmouth, posted 03-04-2004 12:45 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Vidusa
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 234 (133834)
08-14-2004 1:46 PM


The meaning of Noah's Ark
Before the Great Flood the Lord told Noah:
"So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out.This is how you are to build it:The ark is to be 300 cubits long,50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high.Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 1 Cubit of the top."(Gen.6,14-16)
Sacred Cubit (the cubit of old standard 2 Chron.3,3)= 63,5 cm = 25 inches.
The Capacity of these measurements(300x50x30 SC)with the roof part of the Ark = 7.148.437.500 cubic inches = 117.141.987,5 liters.
Specific gravity of cypress wood = 0,51 g/cm3.
The total volume of the Noah's ark with the specific gravity of cypress wood gives a number of 59.742.413,6 kg
Earth weights 5974241360000000000000000 kg
According to the Great Pyramid the mean size of Earth = 40017,93119 km,and its mean volume gives 108221522000km3.
59742413600 : 108221522000 = 5,5203819944
Earth's pecific gravity = 5,520381944

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by NosyNed, posted 08-14-2004 4:52 PM Vidusa has not replied
 Message 204 by MarkAustin, posted 08-16-2004 9:11 AM Vidusa has not replied
 Message 205 by wmscott, posted 08-16-2004 5:01 PM Vidusa has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 196 of 234 (133873)
08-14-2004 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Minnemooseus
03-04-2004 1:43 PM


Re: Interesting question, to which I would have to say no and maybe yes.
My brother brought to my attention the work being done on the flooding of the Black Sea with the idea that that event provided a historical experience that would be the basis for a legend of a world wide flood that came to be the mythical story of Noah.
National Geographic - 404
I don't see how that could be proven though.
lfen
edit: I mean I don't see that it could be proven that it was the basis for the myth. The evidence for the Black Sea flooding seems to be good.
This message has been edited by lfen, 08-14-2004 03:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-04-2004 1:43 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 08-14-2004 5:07 PM lfen has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024