The global flood

[Agnostic75]

One of the easiest, simplest ways to discredit the global flood theory, a way that even science novices can understand, involves the law of gravity. According to the law of gravity, if a global flood occurred, lighter fossils and sediments would have to be sorted on top of heavier fossils and sediments. What do we find in the world today? Well, we find a number of examples where heavier fossils and sediments are sorted on top of lighter fossils and sediments, thereby adequately refuting the global flood theory. It is elementary science, my dear Watson.

There is a lot more information about the sorting of fossils and sediments at my thread on that topic at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...6-global-flood-sorting-fossils-sediments.html at the Evolution/Creation Debates forum.

Some Christian global flood advocates have used the following arguments:

1. Flood legends are spread throughout the earth.
2. Even peoples in remote parts tell historic Flood stories with few survivors.

Regarding item 1, consider the following:

Flood myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some geologists believe that quite dramatic, unusually great flooding of rivers in the distant past might have influenced the legends. Also episodes of massive flooding of short duration of ocean coastal areas have been caused by tsunamis. One of the latest, and quite controversial, hypotheses of long term flooding is the Ryan-Pitman Theory, which argues for a catastrophic deluge about 5600 BC from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea. This has been the subject of considerable discussion, and a news article from National Geographic News in February 2009 reported that the flooding might have been "quite mild".


There also has been speculation that a large tsunami in the Mediterranean Sea caused by the Thera eruption, dated about 1630–1600 BC geologically, was the historical basis for folklore that evolved into the Deucalion myth. Although the tsunami hit the South Aegean Sea and Crete it did not affect cities in the mainland of Greece, such as Mycenae, Athens, and Thebes, which continued to prosper, indicating that it had a local rather than a regionwide effect.

Another theory is that a meteor or comet crashed into the Indian Ocean around 3000–2800 BC, created the 30 kilometres (19 mi) undersea Burckle Crater, and generated a giant tsunami that flooded coastal lands.

It has been postulated that the deluge myth may be based on a sudden rise in sea levels caused by the rapid draining of prehistoric Lake Agassiz at the end of the last Ice Age, about 8,400 years ago.

The great deluge finds mention in Hindu mythology texts like the Satapatha Brahmana, where in the Matsya Avatar (Fish incarnation) of the Hindu deity Vishnu takes place to save the pious and the first man, Manu.

Historically, it has not been odd for ancient writers to use factual events, and embellish them with extraordinary claims. Large local floods, and tsunamies, could easily have been the source of embellished global flood stories. Some of the myths must have been written merely for entertainment.

Regarding item 2, it is not the similarities between various global flood myths that is apparent, but the differences, which are often dramatic. As far as I know, no other writings except the Bible mention the mountains of Ararat, and maybe no other writings except for Muslim writings mention Noah. That is suspicious if the only people who survived the flood were Noah's group, all of whom knew Noah, and knew about the mountains of Ararat.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yep. Thanks.

 

[ChristineES]

I wonder how many people believe that the flood story is a literal story?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I just love reruns.

 

[ChristineES]

Maybe we should count how many people have posted this in the past 12 months.

 

[Desert Snake]

I wonder how many people believe that the flood story is a literal story?

Nobody, most likely.

 

[Agnostic75]

Since about 40% of Americans are creationists, and believe that the earth is young, obviously, almost all of them believe that a global flood occurred. I can post the relevant polls if necessary.

 

[Caladan]

Historically, it has not been odd for ancient writers to use factual events, and embellish them with extraordinary claims. Large local floods, and tsunamies, could easily have been the source of embellished global flood stories. Some of the myths must have been written merely for entertainment.

I made bold the part of your argument which I agree strongly with.

 

[outhouse]

I made bold the part of your argument which I agree strongly with.

I agree as well.

It floods in almost every part of the world sooner or later.



What im seeing more of is YEC hiding their opinions because they know its a minor position they cannot argue successfully.

 

[fallingblood]

Your argument is quite week. It assumes that all of the sediments and fossils have been in a stagnate state. That no new fossils or sediments have acquired since a supposed food. However, one could simply counter your argument by saying that heavier sediment and fossils settled there later on, after the lighter ones. I mean, we are still talking about thousands of years of shifting, floods, etc that could have placed more sediment or fossils in an area.

Really, it just isn't a good argument. I think the best argument is that simply, there is no geological record of such a massive flood. That and there simply is not enough water for such a flood.

Also, as I stated in another thread, being a creationist does not mean one is a literalist or YECer.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[fallingblood]

You do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Being a creationist usually means believing in a young earth, and believing in a young earth usually means believing that a global flood occurred. An Internet article at Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation says that in 2010, 40% of Americans believed that "God created man pretty much in his present forum at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." So that means that 40% of Americans are creationists "and" YEC's. If you do not know that most YEC's believe that a global flood occurred, that means that you have seldom debated YEC's. I have debated lots of YEC's at another website, and all of them that I debated believe that a global flood occurred. I assume that almost every extensive creationist website endorses the global flood theory.

First, it really is not a good tactic to claim that your opponent doesn't know what they are talking about just because they disagree with you. That really is a tactic that only makes the other side want to quit, as well as become unreceptive of the information that you are saying. Really, it is a poor tactic.

Now, for the study you cited. It has nothing to do with the idea of a young earth. It has more to do with the idea of evolution. Creationism and the idea of a young earth are not synonymous. When we look at the study you cited, it's not even talking about YEC's. The 40% that you quoted talked about individuals who believed that humans were created, as is, sometime in the last 10,000 years. That isn't talking about creationism, that isn't talking about when the earth was created, and that is not talking about whether or not other beings have evolved. It simply deals with humans. So you are blowing that statistic out of proportion, into something that it isn't.

Also, I didn't say anything about YEC's. I'm talking about creationists. A creationist can also accept evolution. Being a creationist, as you suggest, doesn't make one a YECer, or a literalist. I'm simply pointing out that your definitions are incorrect. And really, you aren't even supporting your idea really.

Finally, you didn't say anything that offered a rebuttal to what I said. Are you denying that sediment and fossils do not continue to be deposited in areas? Would it not be logical then that heavier sediment and fossils could be later deposited on lighter ones? Really, you're argument is weak.

 

[Agnostic75]

First, it really is not a good tactic to claim that your opponent doesn't know what they are talking about just because
they disagree with you.

I agree, and I apologize.

Do you think that I made some false statements in the opening post.

A global flood would contradict the law of gravity, as the ways that fossils and sediments are sorted shows. Whether or not I explained that adequately, I quoted a source who did explain it adequately.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[Agnostic75]

A creationist can also accept evolution.

Not a literalist creationist.

Creationism and the idea of a young earth are not synonymous.

Literalist creationism is synonymous with the idea of a young earth. Consider the following:

Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic god. As science developed from the 18th century onwards, various views developed which aimed to reconcile science with the Genesis creation narrative. At this time those holding that species had been separately created were generally called "advocates of creation" but they were occasionally called "creationists" in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation–evolution controversy developed, the term "anti-evolutionists" became more common, then in 1929 in the United States the term "creationism" first became specifically associated with Christian fundamentalist disbelief in human evolution and belief in a young Earth, though its usage was contested by other groups, such as old earth creationists and evolutionary creationists, who believed in various concepts of creation.

Today, the American Scientific Affiliation and the UK-based Christians in Science recognize that there are different opinions among creationists on the method of creation, while acknowledging unity on the Christian belief that God "created the universe." Since the 1920s, literalist creationism in America has contested scientific theories, such as that of evolution, which derive from natural observations of the universe and life. Literalist creationists believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth. Fundamentalist creationists of the Christian faith usually base their belief on a literal reading of the Genesis creation narrative. Other religions have different deity-led creation myths, while different members of individual faiths vary in their acceptance of scientific findings. In contrast to the literalist creationists, evolutionary creationists maintain that, although evolution accounts for biodiversity, evolution itself is cosmologically attributable to a Creator deity.

When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, creationists often reject the conclusions of the research or its underlying scientific theories or its methodology. The rejection of scientific findings has sparked political and theological controversy. Two offshoots of creationism—creation science and intelligent design—have been characterized as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community. The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system and the origin of the universe.

40% of Americans accept the following:

Young earth creationism
Humanity directly created by God
Biological species directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur.
The earth is less than 10,000 years old. Reshaped global flood

The article mentions "literalist creationists." That is the group of people who I am referring to. Virtually all of that group are young earth creationists, and believe that a global flood occurred.

Have you underestimated the number of Americans who believe that a global flood occurred? There are tens of millions of them.

The 40% that you quoted talked about individuals who believed that humans were created, as is, sometime in the last 10,000 years. That isn't talking about creationism, that isn't talking about when the earth was created.......

The website that I just quoted is talking about about when the earth was created.

 

[Agnostic75]

Are you denying that sediment and fossils do not continue to be deposited in areas? Would it not be logical then that heavier sediment and fossils could be later deposited on lighter ones? Really, your argument is weak.

Consider the following:

flood_predictions

We would expect to see no sorting in regard to sediment type and size. The maelstrom of a flood would only permit "dumping" of transported sediment in accord with Stokes Law. Furthermore, HOW could floodwaters have deposited layers of HEAVIER sediments on top of layers of LIGHTER sediments? In other words, if there had been an ultramassive Flood, we would not expect to see limestone strata overlaid by granite. No creationist has ever explained how the Flood could have deposited layers of heavy sediment on top of layers of lighter sediment.

Consider the following from geophysicist Glenn Morton, who is a Christian, and former YEC, and has studied and written extensively on the global flood:

Evolution - June 1997: Problems with Global Flood II, Fossils

The sorting of the fossils are due to hydrodymanic sorting.

Morris writes:

"The hydrodynamic sorting action of moving water is quite efficient, so that each stratum would tend to contain an assemblage of fossils of similar shapes and sizes." Henry M. Morris, Evolution and the Modern Christian, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967), p. 40.

Morris as a hydrologist should know that hydrodynamic sorting does not apply only to fossils. It also applies to rock fragments ranging in size from boulders, gravels pebbles, sand and shale. If the geologic column is due to hydrodynamic sorting then fossils of similar size should be found in deposits with rocks of similar size! Morris never mentions this. Fossils like Productus giganteus, (having a diameter of a foot) should be found with boulders of similar size. Microscopic fossils should be found only with shale and sand-sized rock particles. This is not the case. Each bed contains fossils of all sizes.

Fossils are not sorted according to size but morphology. This is what index fossils are all about.

The other day I posted the Jurassic ammonite index fossils. Creationists who continue to deny the existence of index fossils need to visit a library and do some research. The fossils are not sorted as would be expected by a global flood.

Global Flood

The fossils are too well sorted. I am indebted to R.S. Beal Jr. for reminding me of this. Conodonts are microscopic fossils which are the "teeth" of an ancient animal. The shape of these conodonts change with each succeeding geologic level are unique. In the Grand Canyon, in the Redwall limestone, is divided vertically into the Whitmore Wash, Thunder Springs, Mooney Falls and Horseshoe Mesa members. In each of these layers a peculiar shaped and unique conodont is found. A conodont named Gnathodes typicus is found in the Whitmore Wash member and not in the other layers. Scoliognathus anchoralis and Dolignathus latus are unique to the Thunder Springs member. Gnathodus texanus is found in the Mooney Falls member only and the conodont Taphrognathus variarus is limited to the Horseshoe Mesa member.

Conodont are extremely small and microscopes must be used to examine them. How in the world could a global flood so perfectly sort these tiny particles into layers that only contain conodonts of certain shapes? The turbulence of the flood was supposed to be so great and yet world-wide, microscopic animals are sorted vertically through the various layers of the geologic column.

In the Gulf of Mexico, when we drill wells, we always find the same vertical order of microscopic planktonic foraminifera, nannoplankton, and benthic foraminifera. I know that a peculiar shape of planktonic foram, Glob Menardi changed its coiling direction at the same geologic horizon as the last occurrence of D. brouweri "A", and the benthic foram, Cristellaria S. I know that microscopic benthonic Trimosina A is found above this level and the microscopic calcarious nannoplankton Discoaster A is below this level. Each of these fossil forms have a unique shape and are easily distinguishable. How could the flood so perfectly sort these small uniquely shaped creatures into vertical layers?

Other fossils are equally well sorted but not on the characteristics that global Flood advocates suggest. I use some rather old books for this, because it illustrates how long ago this information was known. This is important because as long as this has been known, Christian apologists never talk about ammonites in their books on the Flood.

Ammonites were a nautiloid-like animal that lived in the Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic seas as the animal grew, it excreted a shell wall behind the animal but inside the shell which was attached to the outer shell. The junction of this interior partition with the external shell left a suture pattern on the exterior of the shell. This suture pattern was constant for each species and was constant for each individual throughout its life. A small individual had the same sutures as a large individuals of the same species. This is important because global flood advocates believe that the fossils are sorted according to the laws of hydrodynamical sorting. These laws, Stoke's Law and variations of it, would predict that the ammonites would be sorted by size, with the biggest ones on bottom and the smallest ones on top. (See Potter et al, p. 9)

Henry Morris, an expert on hydrodynamics (1967, p. 40) wrote:

"The hydrodynamic sorting action of moving water is quite efficient, so that each stratum would tend to contain an assemblage of fossils of similar shapes and sizes."

Now, what do we find? We find that the ammonites are not sorted by size in the geologic column, but are sorted by suture shape!

The same sized organism with different suture shapes are found at different stratigraphic levels. In the Jurassic ammonite zones are defined nearly world wide based upon the different sutures of the animals.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_2.html

Claim CH561.2:

The order of fossils deposited by Noah's Flood, especially those of marine organisms, can be explained by hydrologic sorting. Fossils of the same size will be sorted together. Heavier and more streamlined forms will be found at lower levels.

Source:

Whitcomb, John C. Jr. and Henry M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., pp. 273-274

Response:

1. Fossils are not sorted according to hydrodynamic principles. Ammonites, which are buoyant organisms similar to the chambered nautilus, are found only in deep strata. Turtles, which are rather dense, are found in middle and upper strata. Brachiopods are very similar to clams in size and shape, but brachiopods are found mostly in lower strata than are clams. Most fossil-bearing strata contain fossils of various sizes and shapes. Some species are found in wide ranges, while others are found only in thin layers within those ranges. Hydrologic sorting can explain none of this.

2. The sediments in which fossils are found are not hydrologically sorted. Coarse sediments are often found above fine sediments. Nor are the sediments sorted with the fossils. Large fossils are commonly found in fine sediments.

3. A catastrophic flood would not be expected to produce much hydrologic sorting. A flood that lays down massive quantities of sediments would jumble up most of them.

Do you disagree with those sources?

 

[Dubio]

If someone takes the flood myth literally, I would point out that the flood method of purging the world of sinners is a cruel method. Imagine all those families with children desparately trying to stay above the waters. Imagine the terror felt by the children as the water rose higher and higher. Imagine the terror of the parents who wanted to protect their children but could do nothing. Imagine all of those tens of thousands of little children fighting to stay afloat and gasping for air.

If this global flood myth really happened and if God is merciful and kind(which I believe He is), He could have easily had all of the bad people die in their sleep or just disappear. Then God could have sent down his Angels to comfort and guide the children. Also, what are the odds that the only good people in the world out of tens of thousand or millions of poeple were Noah and his wife?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

[Do you disagree with those sources?

Great sources. It's wonderful watching the ease with which you bravely and expertly pick and crush the low-hanging fruit. :beach:

 

[Agnostic75]

Great sources. It's wonderful watching the ease with which you bravely and expertly pick and crush the low-hanging fruit.

What do you mean?

 

[outhouse]

What do you mean?

take a bigger bite on creationism then YEC

maybe a more detailed explanation of how the tradition came to be