Talk:Flood Geology

List of criticisms

Despite suggesting that this is the place for criticisms of flood geology, I'm deleting the list that Cgday put in this article for the following reasons:

1. Because it is a copy and paste from a discussion forum on another web-site. Conservapedia articles are supposed to be original content.
2. Because a list of this format and length is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
3. The list is introduced with the comment, "'This list is to establish that those criticisms have been raised, not to suggest they have any weight". If that is all, then mentioning the fact and putting a link in a footnote is sufficient.
4. Also on that comment, and to use an analogy, an article on the moon landings that listed criticisms (that they were faked) simply on the grounds that they have been raised is ludicrous. Surely the criticisms should have some validity before being included/mentioned/etc.
5. I doubt that a forum post would be considered an acceptable source even for linking to in a footnote.

Philip J. Rayment 06:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

just as a point of clarification - it's not copied from there but they did copy that from my original source. Never mind, I'll construct the list from scratch - Peer reviewed journals are fine as sources right? --Cgday 06:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I shouldn't worry. If we start to put too much science in User:Conservative will lock the page and replace it with quotes. Nematocyte 06:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

That site was the only one that showed up on a Google search, although another search earlier in the day (probably with a slightly different search string) did show up another one that was very similar. But I'm not disputing you on that point.

Yes, peer-reviewed journals are okay as sources. But please keep in mind comments 2, 3, and 4 in my post above.

Also, please avoid arguments that rely on assuming uniformitarian geology to be true, as that is the logical fallacy of begging the question. A number of the arguments on that list did that.

Philip J. Rayment 07:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Dating

From the Article: "On this basis, archaeological dates which purport to show civilisations and artifacts being older than the Flood cannot be used to invalidate the date of the flood because they are based on the presumption that there was no Flood."

But we know that there were civilisations before the flood? Just checking. Cracker_talk 10:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Good point; I'll have to clarify that. (By the way, it is still a work in progress.) Philip J. Rayment 11:06, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, archaeological dates that purport to show that any civilization spanned the year of the Great Flood ought not be used, because they presume that there was no Flood. Yes, at least one civilization existed before the Flood. But the Flood destroyed it. An artifact--called an out-of-place artifact--might persist from that antediluvian civilization. But it would not be part of any post-diluvian civilization.--TerryH^Talk 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, when you think about who needs to provide the burden of proof on this matter those who believe that there was a flood need to provide the proof. Those who do not believe that there was a flood only has to be shown proof that there was a flood. To discredit evidence on the basis that there was a flood and therefore the evidence is not valid due to the impossibility of existence because of the flood leads to forming the research around the idea instead of forming the idea around the observations. This is contrary to impartial research.--TimS 15:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You haven't explained why it is that the burden of proof is on supporters of the flood.

I wonder what "those who do not believe that there was a flood" would consider to be "proof". I suspect that they would not be convinced even if a lot of supportive evidence was offered.

Your comment about discrediting evidence on the basis that there was a flood misses TerryH's point. First, a date is not "evidence" itself (you don't dig up dates), it is a calculation based on evidence and assumptions. Second, TerryH was talking about such dates that are calculated presuming that there was no flood. To use dates based on the presumption that there was no flood to show that there was no flood is a circular argument, and it is quite proper to exclude them.

Philip J. Rayment 23:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Philip the reason why the burden of proof falls on the shoulders of those who say there was a flood is because of a basic principle of scientific reasoning, that claiming that something happened requires evidence of the event passing while claiming that nothing had happened requires a lack of evidence that the event happened. So in other words without evidence that there was a world flood then those who said it did not happen are supported whereas with evidence of the world flood those who claim no flood occurred would be shown false.

I know I would be convince that there was a world flood if

1. The divergence in species (both human and animal) could have happened in that short of a time after the flood, assuming the 2 of every animal.

2. If the water chemistry supported a flood.

3. If the evidence of a superstructure (ark) were found.

4. If humanoid fossils could be proven to be younger than the flood.

5. If the glacier erosion of the great lakes was shown to be false.

6. If the diversification of plant life could be explained within the time frame after the flood.

7. If the earth's strata showed a single mineral deposit band consistent with a flood on all land masses today within the same geological time frame.

8. A model could be provided of how the flood occurred that would not have reasonably destroyed the Ark (falling stones and water pressure from the crack idea), Starved the animals (how did the animals live without several times their body weight in food), and explained where the water went in such a short time (if the land masses split and rose the strata would show it on surfaced landmasses as well as oceanic strata cores).--TimS 12:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Philip about the date thing, this is forming the research around the idea and not the idea around the research. Dates are arbitrary, that is true however time between events is not arbitrary, it can be used for scientific research. When TerryH said that we should not count the evidence that presumes that there was no flood it leads to a biased research. The evidence that is dated older than the flood should be counted and verified with the evidence supporting a flood. This is the only way to prevent unbiased research. Evidence is not biased, it is the person interpreting the evidence that is. To ignore evidence on the basis that it is in conflict with your idea is like a drug company saying that a product is safe even though it has killed 18 out of 100 clinical trial patients. For research to be trustworthy it must explore all practical and available routes within the scope of its study.--TimS 12:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

As far as the burden of proof is concerned, you may be right in your argument, but I'm not sure, because the alternative is not "nothing happened". In theory it may be, but in practice secular geology proposes that something happened. So we have two competing theories of something happening. From that point of view, why should the burden of proof be on one of those "somethings" and not the other?

As for you numbered points:

1. Speciation has been observed happening within a few generations, so I would argue that points 1 and 6 have been shown to be possible.
2. I don't understand this one.
3. I hope they find it one day!
4. See my comments below about dating.
5. I believe that this does not need to be false; it could be consistent with flood geology.
6. See No. 1.
7. This is not what flood geology proposes, so is a straw-man. See also my comments below about dating.
8. There might be a bit of a straw-man in this one, but the rest has been answered. See the book A Feasibility Study of Noah's Ark by John Woodmorappe.

Dates are a time between two events (being the event being dated and the present) adjusted to a common reference. So when we are talking about dates, it is really the time between events that we are discussing.

I agree that evidence is not biased but the interpreters of the evidence are. But dates are not evidence. They are a calculation done by a biased interpreter of the evidence. And his biases can affect that calculation. So we are not saying that evidence should be ignored; we are saying that dates that are calculated according to opposing biases should be ignored.

I agree that "for research to be trustworthy it must explore all practical and available routes within the scope of its study", which means that naturalistic science that excludes some ideas (such as flood geology) on the basis that it involves a supernatural being are not trustworthy.

Finally, thanks for the civil discussion; it makes a change from many that I've had.

Philip J. Rayment 22:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

As far as “nothing happened” I may have understated this. Since the variables that are being tested are based on the logic of what is changed from the current norm. In other woods since we have not see a global flood since the declaration of a flood, it is considered a one time event then the proof is to be based on the change. For example, the meteor impact idea that a meteor supposedly landed in what is now the Gulf of Mexico and caused 200 foot tidal waves that washed out the southern part of now the US. This idea had to provide the proof of a meteor and impact speeds and size for it to gain any ground in the scientific community. We know that meteors hit the planet several times each year, so that was not implausible, however for one of this size and did this much damage there needed to be proof, much like a world flood. We know that there are floods on the planet several times each year but a flood of this size and this damage would need to have evidence to convince the scientific community that it happened.--TimS 09:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Just to point out a couple of things,

1. While speciation had been observed happening within a few generations it has never been shown to happen so rapidly and to include such diversity. Consider this, if Noah had 10 types of grass on the ark to reach the rough 10,000 we have today there would have been at least 1.6 new species each year. Now keep in mind this is for grass only, an organism that can change rapidly due to selective breeding (When I mean rapidly I mean within 20 to 30 years) we would have to apply this to trees and other plants as well. Consider the number of species of plants we have in the world today (excluding the aquatic plants, however fresh water aquatic plants would have died) it is highly unlikely that 6K years would produce enough change without some unstable environment that would be rapidly mutating the plants to produce the 1M plus species of plants we see today. If this was the case, (free radicals, UV light and other mutagens) it would have affected humans as well.
2. The water chemistry is based on the saturation of salts and minerals, with the addition of the water to the already existing ocean and in conjunction with the idea that the water was removed from land by placement within the oceans would mean that the salinity of the preexisting oceans would have been so high that only the most primitive forms of bacteria could have lived in it. On that same note fish would have had to adjust within a year to the decrease of salinity in order to survive, this is highly unlikely since anyone with experience in marine chemistry and marine biology knows that fish are highly sensitive to changes in alkalinity and salinity in their environments, enough that only a few increases in PPM is enough to kill them.
3. I do as well
4. I agree as well about dates but the time that had passed should not be ignored. To do so would discredit ideas that a based on timelines, like creationism.
5. It is the speed at which the glaciers move. Not to mention the concept of an ice age occurring between the time of the flood and modern time. For an ice age to have occurred to create the glaciers large enough to form the great lakes it would have had to lower the global temperature significantly, enough that it would have been noticed by civilizations, even at the equator. As for the speed, the glacier formation and the advancing and retreating of the glacier to develop the lakes would have taken thousands of years to achieve. The only way for it to not have is if the earth went through a series of freeze thaws with high precipitation during the freezes to accumulate enough snow pack to form a glacier and that allows enough time for glacier movement then thaw the glacier away to do the cycle once more. This would have been detrimental to any and all wildlife in the area not to mention the extreme climate foliations that would have been felt globally.
6. Mentioned above.
7. Maybe this would be of interest with the strata argument. Why is most sediment on high ground? Most sediment is carried until the water slows down or stops. If the water stopped in the oceans, we should expect more sediment there. Baumgardner's own modeling shows that, during the Flood, currents would be faster over continents than over ocean basins so sediments should, on the whole, be removed from continents and deposited in ocean basins. Yet sediments on the ocean basin average 0.6 km thick, while on continents (including continental shelves), they average 2.6 km thick.
8. I have read the book, it was interesting but there where a lot of holes in the idea. Mostly about waste management and animal handling for 15,754 animals. It did not however answer how the ark could have survived the turbulent nature of the flood with the upheaval of the earth’s crust to form new land masses as well as the energy released from the mantle in such a process.

I must comment about the supernatural. The search for the supernatural is considered scientific since it is falsifiable, we find evidence of the supernatural or not (why SETI is scientifically based) but to use the supernatural to explain an observation is not scientific due to the lack of falsifiablity of the research unless the supernatural entity has been shown to A. exist and B. contribute to the event.

I am glad you enjoy the discussion. I do believe that evidence tends to speak for itself as long as it is looked at objectively, which can be hard for some. I know that some feel that debating is negative, mostly due to insecurities of background knowledge of a topic (ToE for example), and try to prevent the opposing POV from presenting its evidence. I do hope to continue this discussion, for I am very interested in gleaning why a person believes as they do.--TimS 09:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

The way I see it is this:

• Most people/scientists/geologists accepted the global flood until about 200 years ago.
• Then James Hutton declared that geology should be based on processes that we see in the present. This simply wiped flood geology off the radar without disproving it. Surely by your logic, the onus on him was to demonstrate his non-flood geology. But he didn't.
• So now secular geology tries to put the onus on flood geologists to convincingly demonstrate their case, despite the fact that secular geology never convincingly demonstrated its case in the first place.

Those are excellent points, I have to mention something though, about 200 years ago scientists were still using the bible as a frame of reference. This was due to the indoctrination of the educational system at the time. Many of the universities and schools where sciences were taught were run by the church. It took a considerable effort for scientists to break from the norm and apply their observations instead of relating them in accordance to scripture. “James Hutton, after considerable observation, proposed an idea that placed him into opposition with Abraham Werner. He opened up the concept of deep time for scientific purposes, in opposition to Catastrophism. Rather than accepting that the earth was no more than a few thousand years old, he maintained that the Earth must be much older. His main line of argument was that the tremendous displacements and changes he was seeing did not happen in a short period of time by means of catastrophe, but that processes still happening on the Earth in the present day had caused them. As these processes were very gradual, the Earth needed to be ancient, in order to allow time for the changes. Scientific inquiries provoked by his claims had pushed back the age of the earth into the millions of years” He did demonstrate non-flood geology. His understanding of rock formation and the time that had to pass in order to form the rock and strata was convincing enough that other geologists followed suit and began experimentation under the mindset that the earth had to be older since what was observed was in contradiction to what had been thought. The irony of all of this is that the only reason why Neptunisum had existed was through the formulation of data to support the idea and not the idea supporting the data. When you look at modern geology there are only a hand full of scientists that even consider the flood as valid, a huge turn from 200 years ago. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why the reversal if their logic, observation and experimentation is flawed?--TimS 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Despite me questioning why the onus of proof is on Flood Geology, I claim that the evidence to support it is there. The problem is not a lack of evidence, but a worldview that refuses to see the evidence that way.

1. Grass likely survived off the ark on floating mats of vegetation, and there could have been a lot more than ten types surviving the flood. In addition, and even assuming only ten surviving the flood, those 1.6 species per year (actually about 2.2 per year, as the flood was about 4,500 years ago) do not need to happen sequentially. How do you know that there aren't two or three new species all around the world this year?
Additionally, you are putting speciation all down to mutations. It can and does happen through genetic bottlenecks and natural selection, a sorting out and elimination of genes in given population groups produces new species. Mutations are an additional method.

Yes this could be logarithmic and rapidly advance speciation, however consider what we know of mutation, if the environment was not ever changing then the mutations would be far fewer in fact natural selection would be reduced unless the environmental stresses were greater. Keep in mind though, that genetic bottlenecks and natural selection have a much slower rate of adding to speciation since they are reducing the species through environmental castration. This would greatly hinder the time needed to produce such a large verity of species of plant life. Now another matter is, how did we go from grass to a tree in such a short time, or even from an oak to a pine with the possibility that there were possible seeds on the ark? Another note would be based on the different species found in differencing climates around the world? How long would it take to diversify the little plant life on the ark and provide something like the Amazon rainforest within 4500 years with the understanding that the land masses had already divided and that certain plants can not survive such an infusion of water? (Cacti in the Mojave Desert). --TimS 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

2. Flood geologists believe that the salt content prior to the flood was smaller than now, not larger. We don't know how much water was added to the oceans, but likely a lot of salt was added at the same time, and has been added since (salt entering the oceans exceeds the quantity leaving). Also, the ice age (see below) would have reduced the water content, concentrating the salt a bit in the remaining water.

Very good point, as the water escaped from the ground it would have a higher salt content due to the dissolved minerals. This still would change the salinity of the water and would have caused such a drastic change that is would have killed off the aquatic life. Unlike plants, animals reproduce much slower and in a year’s time the fish population would have been destroyed. Something to note however is that the salt content would remain the same, “A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed (Morton 1996). Within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed.”--TimS 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

3. —

4. What time that has passed? Are you still talking about uniformitarian-based time calculations?

I am saying the time that had to pass in order to cause certain geographical features to evolve. For example, the Appalachian mountains vs. the Rocky Mountains. If these two mountain ranges had been formed at the same time, during the upheaval then why the erosion difference? This can be verified by the strata found in both mountain ranges. We could attest the erosion to be based on weather patterns but to do so would be inverse to what we observe, the Rockies would be far more eroded than the Appalachian due to the direction of the weather systems as well as the moisture patterns. So how are we to conclude the difference without using time calculations? (Just to point out that the vegetation and weather eroding would require hundreds of thousands of years to develop the Appalachians into what we see today.) Another point in regards to time would be found in caves. The fast-growing stalactites form via processes very different from calcium carbonate stalactites found in limestone caves. Limestone is not soluble in water. When carbon dioxide (from decaying plants in the soil above the cave) mixes with water, it forms a very weak carbonic acid. This turns the calcium carbonate into calcium bicarbonate, which dissolves. When drips are exposed to air in the cave, a little carbon dioxide escapes from them into the atmosphere, which reverses the process and precipitates a small amount of calcium carbonate. The upper average rate for limestone stalactite growth is ten centimeters per thousand years, with lower growth rates outside of tropical areas. Fast-growing stalactites, on the other hand, either grow from gypsum through an evaporative process, or they form from concrete or mortar. When water is added to concrete, one product is calcium hydroxide, which is about 100 times more soluble than calcite. The calcium hydroxide absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to reconstitute calcium carbonate. Direct measurement via radiometric dating gives stalactite ages over 190,000 years (Ford and Hill 1999). Other deposits in caves have been dated to several million years old. For example, argon-argon dating of alunite (an aluminum sulfate mineral) gives an age of 11.3 million years for a cave near Carlsbad Caverns (Polyak et al. 1998). Oxygen isotope measurements in stalactites give an indication of outside temperatures. They are consistent with the coming and going of ice ages back at least 160,000 years (Dorale et al. 1998; Wang et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2004). --TimS 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

5. An ice age could occur in the several hundred years after the flood. Lower temperatures globally would not produce an ice age, because of the lower evaporation hence lower precipitation. Higher temperatures globally would not produce an ice age because the precipitation would be rain, not snow. However, lower land temperatures with still-warm oceans following the flood would produce an ice age. The flood is the best (only?) mechanism that could produce one. Despite it not being as drastic as you indicate, civilisation did notice; Job makes reference to the vast storehouses of ice in the north.

Adding heat to a system tends to make it hotter. The falling moisture would have been a hot rain, not snow. You must not forget that all the heat lost to evaporation returns when the water condenses again and that more latent heat is then released in the freezing. A proper ice age cannot fit into the 4500 year timescale. For a continent-scale glacier to form, advance enough to change the landscape, and retreat takes centuries or more, not a decade. Cores from ice sheets reveal annual layers that date back 160,000 years in places. Volcanic eruptions recorded in the top few thousand years match historic records. The top 4,000 or so layers have to be annual layers. It is unlikely that the other 156,000 layers were laid down in just a few years (Brinkman 1995). The earth under the ice sheets is isostatically adjusted to the mass of ice. Even if 10,000 or more feet of ice were dropped on Greenland and Antarctica in only a few years about 4,000 years ago, it would take over 12,000 years to reach the observed (today) degree of adjustment. Scandinavia and Canada are still rebounding from the disappearance of glaciers covering them at the end of the last ice age (Strahler 1987, chap. 27). It would have taken thousands of additional years for the weight of the ice to push them down in the first place. --TimS 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

6. —

7. Your argument assumes that the existing ocean basins were the ocean basins of the time. I don't know the detail of the Flood model on this point, but part of it is that "the mountains rose and the valleys sank" (Psalms, somewhere) as part of the flood. So the sediments were deposited in the low areas, which subsequently rose to make the continents, while the hight points without the sediments dropped to become the ocean basins. That may not be accurate, but it may be the explanation.

No, I was meaning the deposition of sediment while the water was retreating into the newly formed oceans. What we see in the sediment layers is contrary to what we should have seen according to the flood model.

8. I wasn't sure if the book talked much about the structural strength of the ark, but that or something like that has been studied by Korean naval architects.

It did talk a little about the architecture, but I am not an engineer so wrapping my head around that would have done no good lol. I just looked at the biology and the mechanics at which he proposed the handling of the wastes and food uptake. I did notice however that his understanding of the heat produced by that much biomass was a little understated. That boat would have been easily at 100+ degrees. At that temp and humidity I am sure there would have been bacteriological issues with infection, especially with the stall conditions and the primitive waste handling, no water sprayers.--TimS 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Very few people I've discussed this with will say that the search for the supernatural is scientific. But one does not have to observe or test the supernatural to see the results of the actions of the supernatural, so there should be nothing unscientific about concluding that a supernatural being was responsible. But naturalistic science will not even consider that possibility, so it not being objective.

I do not understand how you could state this and keep a scientific frame of mind. I could shoot someone and make the claim that Satan forced me to do it. How can that be tested? Science is willing to modify its claims as long as there is evidence. The supernatural does not provide evidence and there for is not scientific. As such using the term that something supernatural caused something to happen without providing a mechanism as to how it happened or how the supernatural enmity could have affected the event without showing how, can not be tested by science therefore not considered scientific.--TimS 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Evidence does not really speak for itself. We understand (interpret) the evidence within our worldview or paradigm.

That is true, how else could we understand it? Human minds work off comparisons.--TimS 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Philip J. Rayment 10:59, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

You seem to argue here that assuming part of your argument takes analysis outside the realm of science - at least that's what TerryH argues, when he says that "assuming there was no flood" makes it not good science. Conceding this point arguendo, I'd like to cross apply your reasoning, and broaden its scope: assuming part of an argument does invalidate the argument, I will phrase it. Applying this to creation science, which Philip concedes assumes a creator, it is clear that creation science is also bad science.-AmesG_yo! 23:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

If that comment is a response to mine, I don't know what you are referring to, as I didn't mention anything about "the realm of science". Philip J. Rayment 23:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Realm of science, meaning, "good science."-AmesG_yo! 23:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't mention anything about "good science" either, so that answer was less than helpful. Philip J. Rayment 05:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think that he's referring to Occam's razor, and that invisible pink elephant that's hovering over your shoulder. Go on, prove it isn't there! :-) Wikinterpreter^talk?

I can prove that there is no invisible pink elephant hovering over my shoulder in two ways; logical and according to the laws of physics.

Logical, because something cannot be both pink and invisible at the same time, so it is logically impossible for an invisible pink elephant to exist.

According to the laws of physics, and assuming that this invisible pink elephant differs from normal elephants only in that it is pink, invisible, and able to hover, because (a) I can't feel it, and (b) there is not enough space in this room I'm in for an elephant to fit.

As for any serious aspect to your comment is concerned, it hasn't enlightened me to what AmesG was getting at one bit.

Philip J. Rayment 11:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry - it's a philosophical example used to demonstrate that it's fairly shaky on a logical ground to say that something happened and then use it to justify itself. For example, I think the issue here is that your explanation of how flood geology works requires one to assume the correctness of flood geology theory to work. -- Wikinterpreter^talk?

I still don't see what that has to do with AmesG's comment (if you meant that). But as for your point itself, I totally agree that it is illogical to use an assumption to justify itself. That was my very point about dates that supposedly prove that the flood didn't happen. But despite your comment on what you "think" the issue is, you have not demonstrated that what you "think"—that flood geology requires the assumption of flood geology—is actually the case. Just saying that you "think" it is, is not a argument of any substance. Philip J. Rayment 11:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Subterranean Salt Deposits

There is a band of sea-deposited salt that underlies many sedimentary rocks stretching from West of Ireland into Russia. Would any 'flood-geologist' please explain this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LateralQuercus (talk)

I'm not a geologist but I know a bit about flood geology. But not knowing the deposits that you are referring to, this is not enough information on which to comment. Philip J. Rayment 23:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Why not?-AmesG_yo! 23:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Probably because he doesn't want to comment on something about which he doesn't possess information? Can't blame him for it.--M 10:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I would have to support Philip in this as well. Without the information, weblink would be nice, I would not want to make a guess either.--TimS 11:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)