Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
...
I believe that deep in the the crust of the earth there are oceans of water and aquifers yet discovered. I believe that much of this water was forced out of the geysers on the floor of the deep ocean floor. This was no doubt a geologic event beneath the crust that caused enough pressure to force much of this water out of these "fountains of the deep" I think that there are undersea geysers deep in the ocean that we have yet to discover also. Of course if these deep crustal waters and deep sea geysers aren't discovered I guess that totally disproves this theory. lol
|
There have been studies done to track the circulation of water through the crust. For example, off the western coast of South America water was marked with radiological isotopes and then a few years later those same isotopes were found in the steam being emitted from Andean volcanoes. This one honestly surprised me - I would have thought that it took more than a lifetime for that water to run through the system.
There is a system in place of cycling water through the crust but there does not appear to be any vast underground reservoirs capable of emitting enough water to raise the sea levels by 6 miles.
Every earthquake is monitored and analyzed. The waves reveal the composition and density of the rocks from the core to the crust. Any vast reservoir circling the globe and with the equivalent of six miles of water depth would have been discovered long ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
...
5. Therefore, most of the earth’s surface was covered and protected from erosion within the first two weeks of the Flood.
|
The erosion that would have occurred and been most pronounced would have been when the continents were draining and the flood was abating. Massive canyons would have been formed. There would be literally thousands of Grand Canyons all along the margins of the continents. Most of the soil would have been washed into the sea beds.
Consider the channeled scablands in Washington state. This was caused by the run-off of the water from a large lake held back by ice dams in a series of floods between 15,000 to 13,000 years ago.
As the continents drained we should expect to similar scouring of the land globally. Thankfully we don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
6. Even torrential rains of the type that must have fallen would not have produced much erosion in solid rock.
|
But the soils would have been devastated globally. And the worst was yet to come. The draining of the flood waters back into those proposed aquifers would have left very little soil on the continents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
7. Since the main effect of the Flood was the sea level rising, and since the sea currents would not have produced much erosion, very little sediment was eroded during the phase of rising waters.
|
This would appear to assume that the vast majority of the water came from "the deep." But you don't yet appear to have accounted for the water draining from the continents at the end of the flood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
8. Most of the plants and animals killed during the rising waters would have floated on top of the declining waters.
|
One problem of the "Flood Geologist's" models is the "sorting" of the creatures in the fossil record. Somehow all of the animals were buried in a manner consistent with evolutionary biology.
You haven't addressed the fossil record, but it doesn't appear to be a consideration in your flood model any how. So I would score you higher than the ICR and AIG folks for what its worth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
9. Very little sediment was available for deposition.
|
Actually, all of the sediment in the world was available if it was a global flood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
10. Declining waters would have produced very little additional sediment, because the dominant effect in this phase was the decline of sea level by 30,000 feet in approximately 255 days—a rate of 118 feet per day (about 4.9 feet an hour).
|
Whenever there is a significant flood, sediments are found that can be associated with the flood event. That's just the nature of water, sediments and gravity. Despite finding such sedimentation globally, we do not find a global pattern of sediments that can be associated with a single global flood. We just find thousands and thousands of local floods.
You want to side step this problem with what I playfully called the "Global Bath Hypothesis" (tranquil). Even so, there still would have been significant formations of sedimentations and redistribution of soils that would mark such an event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
11. While some dead plants and animals would have been buried in would today be recognized as diluvial sediments, most of the dead plants and animals were left on the surface of the earth by the declining waters, to be subsequently decomposed.
|
This disassociates your model from the fossil record (I know you realize that, I'm just pointing it out). So, we still need an explanation for the fossil record which you appear to have alluded to in the earlier discussion of Schroeder's views on time.
Essentially, as I've understood it; your model purports to "prove" the literal interpretation of
Genesis 6 by showing how no such proof is necessary and in fact, that virtually all of this proof has never existed.
In the end, what you appear to be saying is that you believe in the literal interpretation of
Genesis 6 but you have no proof from natural science for such a belief. And that's a fair position to take. But it does put you on the sidelines for this debate. All you have is an assertion of a belief.
Linear Mode
