Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Audie]

Howorth, H.H., The mammoths in Siberia, Geological Magazine 7, p. 551–552, 1880.....
Excerpt:

"The same conclusion was arrived at by [Johann Friedrich von] Brandt, from a consideration of the fact that the bodies and skeletons of Mammoths are sometimes found standing upright, as if they had sunk in that position into the soft ground. This was the case with the specimen found by Ssarytschef, near Alansk … with a skeleton found about 1827 near Petersburgh, as reported to Brandt by Pander; a third which was found in the peninsula of the Obi, fifty versts from the mouth of the Yerambei; and a fourth found in the government of Moscow, all of which are discussed by Brandt."

There are more....

After a bit of thought, I recalled that it is common for
large animals to bog. The first Baluchitherium,
or indrichotherium, larges land mammal ever known
to have existed, was found to have been standing in
muc when it died. Nothing left but part of four legs.

Not surprising that mammoths would bog in soft mud.

And the evidence that they flash froze in that position?

Oh yeah-same as for any other position. None

Evidence that it was 150 below, 188.53, or 200.00
degrees below zero?

As above. None.
.

 

[Audie]

When encased in ice, that's not at all unusual.

Matter of fact, when one of the Siberian mammoths was brought to the Royal Academy in London for a surprise display, and the people attending were eating "beef", it was disclosed to them at the end of the meal that they actually were eating mammoth.

Evolution is and has been happening as even common sense should tell one: all material things appear to change over time and genes are material things. The myth* of the Flood narrative seemingly is a reworking of the Babylonian narrative that was altered to reflect traditional Jewish beliefs and morals.


*In this context, "myth" does not mean nor imply falsehood but posits a narrative that's main purpose is to teach folkways and/or mores.

Due diligence, plz!

Sadly, as with so many great stories, this one was too good to be true, as a group of Yale researchers reported Wednesday in the journal PLOS One. Fortunately, the tale they uncovered, using the most modern research techniques, has some of its own surprises.


The Explorers Club Once Served Mammoth at a Meal. Or Did It?

 

[Audie]

Not "all".

Grief, you love to make sweeping generalizations, don't you?

Have you ever read about the quality of the ivory on some of those discovered mammoths?

Here's an excerpt from an article...

"The existence of ivory in Siberia in a sub-fossil condition, but still sufficiently durable to be used for all the purposes to which recent ivory is applied, has been known since the middle ages, and formed one of the earliest exports from Siberia to China. The very name given to the gigantic creature which produced it, Mammoth or Mammont---probably a corruption of Behemoth---was introduced by the Arab traders who initiated the traffic in fossil ivory in the tenth century. It was not, however, until the middle of the eighteenth century that the trade became considerable. In or about 1750, Liachof, a Russian merchant, discovered vast stores of elephant tusks and bones in the northern districts of Siberia, and especially on the islands off the mouth of the Lena, which have since borne his name. The ivory brought thence, says the traveller Wrangell, "is often as fresh and white as that from Africa." Since Liachof's discovery it has been computed that the tusks of at least twenty thousand mammoths have been exported, while an even larger number are too much decayed to be worth removal, and others are so large that they have to be sawn up on the spot where they are found. These buried hecatombs of elephants abound throughout the frozen soil of Siberia, but they are more numerous the further we advance northwards, and most plentiful of all on the islands above named and in those termed New Siberia. More remarkable still are the mammoth mummies--- several of which have been disinterred, whole carcases not unfrequently standing upright in the frozen soil, with their flesh "as fresh as if just taken out of an Esquimaux cache or a Yakout subterranean meat-safe." The most widely known of these is that discovered in 1806 by an English botanist named Adams, and the skeleton, or such parts of it as could be recovered---for in the interval between part of it being laid bare and the information reaching Adams wild animals had preyed on the flesh and carried off many of the bones---ls now in the museum at St. Petersburg. Caresses of rhinoceros have also been found under similar conditions. It is agreed on all hands that these bodies must have been submitted to "continuous congelation without a break" ever since they died; in other words, the catastrophe which slew them must also have buried them and so changed the climate that their flesh ban been preserved to the present day. Mr. Howorth shows, we think conclusively, that the animals lived in Siberia, and were not transported thither after death from some other place. The bones show no appearance of detrition; the largest numbers and those in the finest condition are found at a distance from the rivers; and, farther, their numbers decrease as we go farther south. Again, though the climate could not have been as cold while they were alive as it is now; it is evident that it was by no means a warm one; for there is ample evidence that they were protected by a thick coating of hair and wool. Collateral proof of a change in the climate is afforded by the debris of trees---"large stems, with their roots fast in the soil"--found in places where no vegetation, save lichens, grows at present; and that the elephants led on these tress may be conjectured partly from their long recurved tusks, which would be peculiarly useful in pulling down branches, partly from the analogy of the rhinoceros---for the contents of a mammoth's stomach have not as yet been observed. in 1878, however, the cavities of the teeth of a rhinoceros yielded fragments of the leaves of coniferous and other trees."

Source:
Anonymous review of H.H.Howorth, "The Mammoth and The Flood," Saturday Review, 65:52-53, January 14, 1888

Terrif! A creationist politician wrote that in 1887.
Now THERE is a scientific publication with all the
data one could want! (why do you have to reserot
to such, when there are lots of actual scientific papers?
Dont bother to answer, we know why.

Only woo woo
agrees with you.

All of the mammoths are in varying stages of decay.
All.

Heck, you are the one who made up an excuse for why that is!

Did your old timer politician to explain how buried frozen
animals got scavenged?

You sure have said nothing bout how they got scavenged.

Do you need more time to make something up?

 

[Audie]

Blind faith is credulity, so, to me you are saying Jesus had credulity.
Jesus based his teachings on the old Hebrew Scriptures often referring to them.
Jesus proved to be the promised ' seed ' (offspring) of Genesis 3:15
Earth's turmoil today is as it was in Noah's day.
So, whether one takes the Ark account as real or not, what Jesus warns about is real.
Mankind today can't dig himself out of earth's turmoil.
That leaves only Matthew 24:14 as man's alternate government of Daniel 2:44 to the rescue.
Only Jesus, as Prince of Peace and King of God's kingdom government, can and will usher in global Peace on Earth.

I would not doubt that "Jesus", would have been every bit
as superstitious and credulous as others of his day.

I cannot make the ark story real, or false, neither can you.

It is false, so what does that do for "Jesus" and what
he supposedly said?

IF you or the cowboy had to admit that there was a
problem with the story, your whole world would collapse,
so I dont expect anything resembling rational thought.

You MIGHT, though, think for a bit, just some quiet bit
of solitary contemplation.

What if the flood story is just a story?
And what if there really is a God?

WHAT have you been saying about "Him"?

That he was the author of by far the biggest
mass murder / atrocity in the history of the world?

That is not a nice thing to say about anyone.

IF you really believe in "God" how could you?

And without a moment's thought, certainly not
even one sincere hour looking into it, to see if
the story could be true

Did you know the polar ice is well over a hundred
thousand years old? No way it could be there if
there'd been a flood.

Would you like to see a partial list of the "explanations"
from creationists as to how that ice could be there,
despite a world wide flood?

Here is one-
The ice just floated up, spun around
over the south pole, and then settled back down
when the water receded!

And where did the water go? A wind took it to
Neptune, where is shines to this day as a
warning beacon against incoming rogue
angels!

I cant make this stuff up, but others do, and
then present it as true!

You sure you want to be part of that kind of
lunacy?

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Wyoming is beautiful, yes.
And yes, a lot of people never experience
much of what you live with. Me included.

My cities are New York, and Hong Kong.
I'd have the difficulties finding my way in
Wyoming that you might have finding yours
in Hong Kong.

Which I guess is by way of saying it wont
happen.

I simply can't imagine living in a big city, but I know that many people absolutely love city living. I much prefer woods and trails and skies dark enough at night to clearly see the stars.

And, yes, I agree...it won't happen!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I simply can't imagine living in a big city, but I know that many people absolutely love city living. I much prefer woods and trails and skies dark enough at night to clearly see the stars.

And, yes, I agree...it won't happen!

Redhorse, you are my kind of woman!

When I was younger, I lived in an Orthodox Jewish community in the city. Little by little, it made me so stressed out and sick that I literally could no longer work. I think I'd prefer a forest, but that would take me too far away from family. I enjoy now the rolling hills and country air and mountains in the distance. I can drive up to Big Bear or Lake Arrowhead for day with the Earth any time I like. Sometimes I just literally need to take off my shoes, and let my feet walk on the soil. My Lakota friends taught me that if you touch the earth you will live in harmony with all nature.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I would not doubt that "Jesus", would have been every bit
as superstitious and credulous as others of his day.

I cannot make the ark story real, or false, neither can you.

It is false, so what does that do for "Jesus" and what
he supposedly said?

IF you or the cowboy had to admit that there was a
problem with the story, your whole world would collapse,
so I dont expect anything resembling rational thought.

You MIGHT, though, think for a bit, just some quiet bit
of solitary contemplation.

What if the flood story is just a story?
And what if there really is a God?

WHAT have you been saying about "Him"?

That he was the author of by far the biggest
mass murder / atrocity in the history of the world?

That is not a nice thing to say about anyone.

IF you really believe in "God" how could you?

And without a moment's thought, certainly not
even one sincere hour looking into it, to see if
the story could be true

Did you know the polar ice is well over a hundred
thousand years old? No way it could be there if
there'd been a flood.

Would you like to see a partial list of the "explanations"
from creationists as to how that ice could be there,
despite a world wide flood?

Here is one-
The ice just floated up, spun around
over the south pole, and then settled back down
when the water receded!

And where did the water go? A wind took it to
Neptune, where is shines to this day as a
warning beacon against incoming rogue
angels!

I cant make this stuff up, but others do, and
then present it as true!

You sure you want to be part of that kind of
lunacy?

I had a guy tell me once, he thought when people died, their "souls went to the Sun, as fuel to keep it burning."

If one has no evidence to support their beliefs, then they are just opinions. But if there is sufficient evidence, then a person can put their trust in it. Build their faith on it.

I see the evidence.

Why haven't you commented on the Ark's ideal dimensions? I see that no atheist has.

 

[Looncall]

I had a guy tell me once, he thought when people died, their "souls went to the Sun, as fuel to keep it burning."

If one has no evidence to support their beliefs, then they are just opinions. But if there is evidence, then a person can put their trust in it. Build their faith on it.

I see the evidence.

Why haven't you commented on the Ark's ideal dimensions? I see that no atheist has.

No point in commenting on that. It is clear that the flood never happened.

 

[Audie]

I simply can't imagine living in a big city, but I know that many people absolutely love city living. I much prefer woods and trails and skies dark enough at night to clearly see the stars.

And, yes, I agree...it won't happen!

Hong Kong is a very high energy, high stress city, as
is NYC. Some people cannot handle it.

i was born to it, so it is so natural for me.
Handle the lone prairie, not so much! I have
no idea what to do there.

The stars in Wyoming, yes, I was just dumbdtruck.
Who knew? I just wanted to stare and stare.
They thought I was funny but also felt sorry for me.

Since then I've also seen Arctic winter night sky
(easy in winter, night lasts almost all day)
THAT is a treat, northern lights are just unbelievable.

 

[metis]

I simply can't imagine living in a big city, but I know that many people absolutely love city living. I much prefer woods and trails and skies dark enough at night to clearly see the stars.

I like both as up until just three months ago we had two places with one not too far from Detroit and the other in Michigan's U.P.

BTW, I'm a Me'tis, although I was not brought up in the tradition of the elders.

 

[Audie]

I had a guy tell me once, he thought when people died, their "souls went to the Sun, as fuel to keep it burning."

If one has no evidence to support their beliefs, then they are just opinions. But if there is evidence, then a person can put their trust in it. Build their faith on it.

I see the evidence.

Why haven't you commented on the Ark's ideal dimensions? I see that no atheist has.

Because it is just gishing to keep bringing up
different topics, skipping the old?

In the event-

I am no boat builder, but neither are you.

There have been boat builders for
thousands of years so it is astonishing that
whoever made up the "ark" story would
think to scale up from existing models.

Miraculous, not. Seaworthy, not. Silly, yes.

You keep forgetting to say how you
figure your "ffm" ( flash frozen mammoths)
could have been scavenged, either before
or after burial. Other that is from one found,
say, today, that is uncovered where foxes
etc could get to it. I put that last in so you
wont mention it in yet another dodge.

So hockey- how come they are all decayed
and scavenged? No fair making up data- free
"explanations" like freeze - thaw cycles in the
permafrist.

Or dodging the "scavenged" question.

 

[Audie]

I wonder if a flood fan would care
to explain polsr ice caps?

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Hong Kong is a very high energy, high stress city, as
is NYC. Some people cannot handle it.

i was born to it, so it is so natural for me.
Handle the lone prairie, not so much! I have
no idea what to do there.

The stars in Wyoming, yes, I was just dumbdtruck.
Who knew? I just wanted to stare and stare.
They thought I was funny but also felt sorry for me.

Since then I've also seen Arctic winter night sky
(easy in winter, night lasts almost all day)
THAT is a treat, northern lights are just unbelievable.

I know that I could not deal with living in a city. I try to avoid even smaller cities, and a city like Boston or larger is something I try to stay away from if at all possible. I worked for years on the outskirts of Boston, but didn't like all the traffic and congestion. Did it because it was necessary but didn't like it one bit.

The Northern Lights must be absolutely astonishing in person. I've never had the chance to see them in any venue other than a picture or a video.

 

[Bear Wild]

Was the argument about eroding mountains by a flood?
I wasn't aware that argument was being made. I thought it was about the relative age of mountains. I must have misunderstood.

Mountain Erosion
The tectonic forces that lead to mountain building are continuously countered by erosion due to intensified precipitation, wind and temperature extremes. These elements, aided by the force of gravity, are particularly powerful along the mountain ranges which form a barrier to the prevailing westerly winds that buffet New Zealand.

Imagine all the elements at work in an intense storm in the mountains. Gale force winds, lightning strikes, temperature extremes and a deluge of snow, hail or rain. These combined forces break up the rocks and erode the peaks into their stark, sculpted forms.

Falling ice, rocks and gushing water wear away at the mountain slopes. The ice and rock debris accumulates in the valleys and flows downwards as slow moving glaciers. When these melt, piles of rock debris called moraines are left behind.

• Strong winds pick up dust and abrade exposed rock surfaces.
• Lightning instantly vaporizes water and ice in rock fissures and literally blows rocks apart.
• Temperature changes thaw out and refreeze the ice in rock fissures, wedging them apart, whilst thermal expansion and contraction disintegrates exposed rock surfaces.
• Rock falls and ice avalanches scour mountain sides, further eroding the slopes.

The powerful earthquakes that are responsible for the uplift of New Zealand’s mountains also destabilise them, causing many rock falls and avalanches that help to wear them down.

These forces can cut a mountain peaks down quicker than it's built.
Taking that information, and transcending it back millions of years...
Please, show me an image that give evidence of erosion that took place millions of years ago.

Where are the countless rivers that should have formed?
What changes do we see on the highest mountains in just 86 years?

In realtime we can capture erosion.... and glaciers don't play.

A glacier's weight, combined with its gradual movement, can drastically reshape the landscape over hundreds or even thousands of years. The ice erodes the land surface and carries the broken rocks and soil debris far from their original places, resulting in some interesting glacial landforms.

One of the most striking examples of glaciated valleys can be seen in Yosemite National Park, where glaciers literally sheared away mountainsides, creating deep valleys with vertical walls.

Spoiler: Mysterious Glaciers

Glacier surges have both fascinated and perplexed scientists for decades. "If you think of glaciers as a bank account, then a surge is a massive spending spree," Kääb says. All glaciers have to shed mass that has accumulated in their upper reaches. "Some glaciers just flow faster, but others are unable to for whatever reasons," he says. "They are kind of stuck until the mass accumulated for decades or even centuries gets unleashed in a spectacular way."

Just over 1% of our planet's glaciers—some 2300 in all—are known to undergo these precipitous movements, though the number is likely to rise as glaciers come under closer surveillance by remote sensing. They are concentrated in geographic hot spots including Svalbard, Canada's Yukon territory, Alaska, western Tibet, and the Karakoram and Pamir mountain ranges of Central Asia. This geographic pattern only deepens the puzzle. For instance, some experts think glaciers in the Karakoram are prone to surging because of their steepness; as mass builds up from heavy snowfalls near the top of a glacier, for example, gravity alone may trigger a surge. But this cannot explain why Svalbard, where the terrain is relatively flat, abounds in surging glaciers.

Even glaciers right next to each other can have totally different personalities. Jack Kohler, a glaciologist at the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromsø, points to a pair of adjacent, massive glaciers on Svalbard: Kongsvegen and Kronebreen. "They are like twin brothers, but one surges and the other one doesn't," Kohler says. "It's a total mystery."

When I picture mountains millions of years ago. I don't see them.
Like everything else, mountains are born, grow, and die - become hills, and the cycle continues.
This is the way I see it.

How long does it take to erode away a mountain?
Disappearing Mountains

What about growth rate?
Can mountains shoot up rapidly?
That was the purpose of my post on how tectonic plate movement could have occurred very rapidly.
I don't understand what the problem with it was. Anyways...

Fast-Growing Mountains
The most dramatic relief found on any of the continents, a difference of 22,740 feet between the Indus River in Pakistan and the summit of Nanga Parbat just 14 miles away, evolved through very rapid uplift, relatively speaking, of the mountains in that region, according to studies of tracks left in the rocks by particles ejected from atoms subjected to radioactive decay. The mountains appear to have risen an average of almost a half inch a year over the past million years, though erosion has prevented a corresponding growth in their total height.


The Sierra Nevada is an asymmetrical range with its crest and high peaks decidedly toward the east. The peaks range from 11,000 to 14,000 feet (3,350 to 4,270 metres) above sea level, with Mount Whitney, at 14,494 feet (4,418 metres), the highest peak in the coterminous United States. Summits in the northern portion are much lower, those north of Lake Tahoe reaching altitudes of only 7,000 to 9,000 feet.


The Sierra Nevada mountain range is growing at a rapid pace, says new research.
The team of researchers from the University of Nevada's geodetic laboratory in Reno and the University of Glasgow in the UK, found the mountains growing at about half an inch every 10 years.

This is about one to two millimeters per year along the entire range, reported MSNBC.

"Our data indicate that uplift is ... active and could have generated the entire range in less than 3 million years, which is young compared to estimates based on some other techniques," said lead researcher Bill Hammond,of the University of Nevada, according to the Associated Press.

"It basically means that the latest pulse of uplift is still ongoing."

Using GPS data and space-based radar, the researchers were able to get pinpoint accuracy.

"The exciting thing is we can watch the range growing in real time," said Hammond, according to Red Orbit.

"Using data back to before 2000 we can see it with accuracy better than one millimeter per year. Perhaps even more amazing is that these minuscule changes are measured using satellites in space."

The study suggests that the mountains likely formed less than three million years ago making them comparatively young.


Fast -forming mountain ranges
We usually assume that mountain ranges take tens of millions of years to form …
Mountain ranges are so big, and continental plates move so slowly, that common wisdom suggests they must take millions of years to form. This seems to have been confirmed in the past with limited data sets that show the timing of their uplift; however, a recent paper in Science and another in Earth and Planetary Science Letters have suggested that uplift may occur much more rapidly in some cases.
.............
Of course, isotopic data from precipitation could also be indicative of a changing climate. In particular, the changes in the δ18O composition they see could be indicative of enrichment of heavier isotopes by evaporation. This is where the carbonate δ18O data come in. These data indicate that, despite evidence for increased aridity, the trends in carbonate δ18O are opposite what one would expect if there was an increase in evaporation. They conclude that the central Andean plateau may have risen 1500m in as little as one million years.

Traveling half way around the world to Tibet, we are presented with a similar story. An article published in the June 15th issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters suggests that the Tibetan plateau may have risen much more rapidly than previously thought. Similar to the Andean plateau, most people believe the Tibetan plateau rose to its present elevation over tens of millions of years, but this study suggests that much of that elevation may have developed over the past two to three million years.

Appreciate the evidence that shows the process may be described as rapid in geological time but still very slow in human time. As what you show only helps to show how old the earth is and that plate tectonics is the process causing the geological features. The information also shows how different mountain ranges are from different periods of time. None of this however supports evidence for the biblical flood.

 

[Bear Wild]

Was the argument about eroding mountains by a flood?
I wasn't aware that argument was being made. I thought it was about the relative age of mountains. I must have misunderstood.


I don't understand what the problem with it was. Anyways...

There is no argument that erosion occurs of the plate tectonics is the driving force for most mountain ranges. The relative age of mountains is still older than recorded human history and there are many ranges older than humans have existed. The question was on the biblical flood and thus any of the current mountain ranges do not have anything to do with the biblical flood.

 

[nPeace]

Appreciate the evidence that shows the process may be described as rapid in geological time but still very slow in human time. As what you show only helps to show how old the earth is and that plate tectonics is the process causing the geological features. The information also shows how different mountain ranges are from different periods of time. None of this however supports evidence for the biblical flood.

Please explain how that evidence helps to show how old the earth.

There is no argument that erosion occurs of the plate tectonics is the driving force for most mountain ranges. The relative age of mountains is still older than recorded human history and there are many ranges older than humans have existed. The question was on the biblical flood and thus any of the current mountain ranges do not have anything to do with the biblical flood.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that there aren't mountains older than humans, but the information reveals something significant - Mountains can form much more rapidly than assumed, and factors involved can contribute to their formation, including Continental drift, magma, and plate tectonics. So taking all this into consideration you cannot argue against the possibility of mountains forming rapidly during and after the flood period. Nor can you deny the evidence that mountains during the pre-flood period may well have been significantly low.

Something to keep in mind also. There is a vast difference between 10s of millions, and a few million.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Appreciate the evidence that shows the process may be described as rapid in geological time but still very slow in human time. As what you show only helps to show how old the earth is and that plate tectonics is the process causing the geological features. The information also shows how different mountain ranges are from different periods of time. None of this however supports evidence for the biblical flood.

This is just bad science. When mountain uplift happens it happens very quickly (in geologic time, not human time). There simply hasn't been enough time for erosion to wear most of the mountains down. Remember that much of what has transpired in geological history has disappeared through subduction. Unless I'm mistaken, we have extremely few of the earth's oldest rocks

The oldest rocks are not actually rocks but minerals. They are found in Australia. The area was once a sea floor that was once uplifted into mountains, but is now eroded into hills. It has taken more than 4.3 billion years for this to take place.

 

[Audie]

This is just bad science. When mountain uplift happens it happens very quickly (in geologic time, not human time). There simply hasn't been enough time for erosion to wear most of the mountains down. Remember that much of what has transpired in geological history has disappeared through subduction. Unless I'm mistaken, we have extremely few of the earth's oldest rocks.

Please tell us how old the US rocky mountains are, and
whether any of it is still rising.

Or t \he Andes, take your pick.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is just bad science. When mountain uplift happens it happens very quickly (in geologic time, not human time). There simply hasn't been enough time for erosion to wear most of the mountains down. Remember that much of what has transpired in geological history has disappeared through subduction. Unless I'm mistaken, we have extremely few of the earth's oldest rocks

The oldest rocks are not actually rocks but minerals. They are found in Australia. The area was once a sea floor that was once uplifted into mountains, but is now eroded into hills.

Extremely old rocks are very rare. But radiometirc dating has improved over the years. When it was first started it was whole rock dating. Now they can date not only individual crystals, they can take them apart atom by atom and date the different layers of a crystal:

Confirmed: Oldest Fragment of Early Earth is 4.4 Billion Years Old

 

[Bear Wild]

Please explain how that evidence helps to show how old the earth.


I don't believe anyone is arguing that there aren't mountains older than humans, but the information reveals something significant - Mountains can form much more rapidly than assumed, and factors involved can contribute to their formation, including Continental drift, magma, and plate tectonics. So taking all this into consideration you cannot argue against the possibility of mountains forming rapidly during and after the flood period. Nor can you deny the evidence that mountains during the pre-flood period may well have been significantly low.

Something to keep in mind also. There is a vast difference between 10s of millions, and a few million.

There is evidence that there are mountain ridges rising at 3-7 mm per year. At the rate of 5mm per year which means 200 years per meter then if every thing is steady without any accounts for change then it would take 1,770,000 years. Fairly fast for geological time. Very interesting but there are older mountain ranges that are declining in size secondary to erosion. That is all very interesting but how does that apply to the evidence of the biblical flood? Different mountain ranges rising at different rates with other decreasing at different rates. Very interesting geology and appreciate the information but it does not indicate anything about a proposed flood.