From:    Marty Leipzig
To:      Mike Staab                             Mar-30-94 12:07:44
Subject: Flood

Mike Staab, who get fired up over incendiaries, said to: Marty Leipzig

 MS> Marty, I've a question for you that I hope you'll be kind enough to
 MS> answer.

     Fire away!

 MS> If the Noachian flood were literal, what evidence should be
 MS> available?

     Well, first it must be established what kind of flood to which
     you are referring. The Creationists themselves argue variably
     for a huge global catastrophe, replete with tsunami,
     earthquakes, fountains of the deep and mass Earth in upheaval.
     Other creationists argue for a perfectly smooth Earth and a
     vapor canopy which collapsed with slightly different results.
     Other still yet argue for a much quieter, more local flood over
     a longer period of time. For the sake of argument, let's look
     at the one described in the first few chapters of Genesis.

     If there was such an event as a Noachian Deluge of
     approximately 1 years duration some few thousands of
     years ago, the geological evidence for such an event
     would not only be ubiquitous, but inescapable. The most
     obvious would be the stratigraphic evidence;: a globally
     correlative layer of tremendously exotic and chaotic blocks
     forming the base of the system, admixed with finer sediments as
     the force of the storms abated. There would be readily globally
     correlative transgressive and regressive sequences, and a
     complete dearth of biogenic rocks (reefal limestones,
     globigerina oozes, coal, peat, diatomites, etc.) in
     the section.  How would it be possible for a colony of coral polyps
     grow to a thickness of 1000's of meters in one year when they only
     grow millimeters per year in reality? But I digress.

     Secondly, the fossil record would be the ONE most damning piece
     of evidence. Instead of the progression of life from the simple
     to the more complex over the span of geologic time, we would
     see, if this "flood scenario" were actual would be an
     incredible hodge-podge and admixture of organisms. Fishes with
     three toed tree sloths, men and dinosaurs, trilobites and
     pterosaurs, _T. rex_ and _Wiwaxia corregata_. The Creationists
     try to explain away their absence by "hydrodynamic stability"
     and "geographic locations". But surely in all that roar and
     crash, one trilobite, paddling mightly, would win a place in
     the Mesozoic or Cenozoic strata. Surely, one old, obese human
     would vapor lock on the beach on the first night of this
     holocaust and end up sleeping with _Dunkleosteous_.

     But that is never the case. Therefore, we can safely conclude...

 MS> I ask this seriously, as I've read some of what you post
 MS> I've come to respect your understanding of geology.

     Thank you. You are wise in your observations.

 MS> Since water always
 MS> seeks the lowest level,

     Explain Lake Titicaca, at 13,500' elevation. Water seeks it's
     OWN level.

 MS> and the flood account indicates that it
 MS> covered the highest mountains, it seems that there ought to be
 MS> unmistakeable evidence worldwide within the same basic layers.

     Simplistically (descriptive, not a flame), yes.

 MS> Also, in
 MS> terms of the polar caps ice mass,(provided you know this?)have you any
 MS> idea of the amount of water this represents?

     Not much. A few percent of the global hydrosphere is tied up in
     the global polar ice sheets. Melt those and all you'd do is
     raise MSL a few 10's of meters.

 MS> I mean no tricks or traps
 MS> in these questions. I've been labled a "fundy" on this echo, and I
 MS> believe incorrectly. The belief in God is not a concept that science
 MS> can address directly, but science isn't the enemy of theology either.

     Science neither requires nor desires God(s), demons, angels, or
     other supernatural spectrals. It just doesn't do the
     supernatural.

 MS> I
 MS> refuse to get into protracted "us vs them" discussions. I'm trying to
 MS> get to the truth wherever it leads me. I don't see atheism as a
 MS> rational position, mainly because such a position is as untenable,
 MS> from a perspective of actual evidence, as the deists.

     There is a complete and total lack of evidence for anything
     supernatural. Now, which is the more tenable view. Believe that
     despite all this there is a God (etc.) or accept reality at
     it's face value and concern yourself with those tangibles?

 MS> I see that the
 MS> question of a God cannot ever be properly in the realm of science.

     Agreed. Now, if some of your benighted brethren at the ICR
     could ever see it that way...

 MS> But
 MS> I do believe that, and I know that some reject belief in any regard,

     Hello?

 MS> that science may demonstrate probabilities. Why the question of Noah
 MS> interests me as it does is because I accept nothing blindly, and I
 MS> have been reading about this and I need to learn more. So, if you
 MS> would please help me, I'll be glad for any information that you would
 MS> care to provide. In anticipation, thanks.

     No problem. I hope this little treatise was a start. If you
     have any other Noachian specific questions, please do holler. I
     could fill this forum for years on the flood, it's physical
     impossibility and the utter lack of evidence for this "event".



... Flood evidence? Quick! Alert the global scientific conspiracy!
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.12
 * Origin: A Little Corner in Time BBS (1:106/113.0)