---

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)

---

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank