Laminar Flood Redux
DS
Douglas Cox,dougl...@canrem.com, wrote about the Noachian
Flood in talk.origin article #11637;
>Noachian flood was not only much greater, but it really happened and
>left real evidence: eg, the currents of the Noachian Flood excavated the
That the Noachian Flood occurred is a matter of great debate and
little evidence. Anybody interested in the problems with the Noachian
Flood and evidence for it are referred to the talk.origins FAQs titled
*Problems with a Global Flood* and *Frequently Asked But
Never Answered Questions*, Strahler (1987), and Weber (1983a, 1983b).
>Great Lakes basins, and streamlined the landscapes over much of Canada,
>forming drumlins by the thousands; the retreating flood waters excavated
>canyons and wide valleys, including the submarine canyons in the oceanic
>shelves. Tectonic events associated with the flood caused uplift of
>great mountain ranges.
These are great claims for which creationists offer very little detailed
explanation. This is like the UFO advocates who claim that the
pyramids of Egypt and Central America, the Nazca Lines, crop
circles, and the "face on Mars" are conclusive proof of visitation
by extraterrestrials, but fail consistently to answer the question;
*how these things provide conclusive proof of such origin?*
when there is abundant evidence to the contrary.
For example, years of careful observations by geologists have
documented evidence that show;
1. continental glaciers, not a massive flood, formed the landscape
of Canada (Fulton 1986, 1989);
2. drumlins were formed by continental glaciers (Fulton 1989;
Menzies and Rose 1987; Aylsworth and Shilt 1989);
3. canyons and valleys were excavated over time by the rivers
that occupied them (Selby, 1990; Strahler 1987);
4.submarine canyons had been and still being excavated by turbidity
currents and slope failures. (Farre et al. 1983; May et al. 1983;
Weimer and Link 1991); and
5. Mountains were formed by continental collision and plate
tectonics over a long period of time. In fact, such tectonism can
observed in progress within the Himalaya Mountains and
elsewhere in the world (Selby, 1990; Strahler 1987).
In case of items 1. and 2., creationists, e.g. Coffin (1983), Morris
(1989), and Oard (1990), have conceded that a continental ice sheet
covered all of Canada at one time. Thus, some creationists have had
to admit that drumlins and other landforms within Canada are of
glacial origin. Although they argue for only one Ice Age and a
very young Ice Age, this demonstrates that the evidences for a
continental ice sheet having once covered Canada are undeniable.
If Mr. Cox is going to dispute the claims of these papers, he needs
to offer specific evidence as why each of these studies is wrong and
his conclusions are right. Currently, Mr. Cox just waves his arms
about how the Noachian Flood washed in and the Noachian Flood
washed out without providing any hard evidence why we should
believe him over the work of people who present detail data,
discussions, and reasons for concluding what they conclude.
Geologists call this *arm-waving geology* when their colleagues
engage in it.
>Unlike the LF, the Noachian Flood has evidence supporting it.
As discussed above, this is a highly questionable statement. For
additional problems with the evidence offered by creationists for
a Noachian Flood, I refer the interested reader to Webb (1983a,
1983b) and Strahler (1987) for more detailed analysis of these
claims. Also, the previously mentioned talk.origins FAQs are
again applicable.
>Furthermore, educated men have believed in it throughout history.
That is admittedly a true statement. But, there are educated men
and, also, educated women who believe that the Moon landings
were all faked on a Hollywood sound stage or that they have been
abducted by space aliens at some point in their lives.
>In ancient times, great towers were built by which men hoped to escape
>the consequences of a recurrence of such a flood, which they saw
>evidence of all around them. Only in the last century or so have men
Does any documentation to this statement exist? If so, provide it..
>gradually become ignorant of the effects of the Noachian flood, due in
>large part to the ubiquitous "flood" of uniformitarian dogma.
This is a grossly incorrect statement. People, even *evolutionists*
and *uniformitarianist*, have always been aware of the concept of
a Noachian Flood. Any book on the history of geology shows that
the concept of the Noachian Flood was deliberately abandoned by
geologists because it clearly failed to explained all too many of the
geological phenomena that they were finding and documenting.
The only real dogma that geologists engage in is the idea that the laws of
physics and chemistry are the same now as they were in the past.
>>Douglas Cox (dougl...@canrem.com) wrote:
>>
>>: While the mountains were covered, perhaps this was not at the same
>>: time as the oceanic islands were covered. I think mountains were
>>: elevated during the flood, and there was a lot of tectonic activity
>>: connected with the adjustment of the levels of continents and ocean
>>:basins at the end of the flood.
More arm waving geology without any specific proof offered or
cited. The previously cited references greatly dispute these claims
....parts irrelevant to my discussion eliminated....
>>: I view the flood as a clue for solving some of the great mysteries of
>>: the earth. The rocks, of course, confirm it. Eg, drumlins, shaped by
>>: rapid currents, as Sir James Hall showed; the Great Lake basins, and
Hall's work on drumlins has been completely discredited since he
studied and published papers on drumlins back in the 1880's. For
examples, see Aylsworth and Shilt (1989) and Menzies and Rose (1987).
The Noachian Flood is a clue tried, tested and found useless by
geologists long ago.
>>: other evidence of great erosion shows the effect of currents, as J.W.
>>: Dawson argued; mammoths frozen in muck also support the flood concept
>>: as Sir Henry H. Howorth argued. And how can one explain potholes,
Dawson (1883) arguments are over a hundred years old. They have
been superseded and made obsolete by the work of others. Also, the
*mammoths frozen in muck* argue against a Noachian flood. For
the evidence see the talk.origin FAQ on mammoths, Farrand
(1961, 1962), and Gutherie (1990). Also, Farrand (1961) and other
workers show that Howorth (1887) work is based upon misstated
facts, unreliable and unsubstantiated data, and unwarranted
conclusions. Interested parties are referred to Farrand (1961,
1962) for specific details.
....parts irrelevant to my discussion eliminated....
>The Noachian flood must have been the very last widespread geologic
>event to have caused major effects; drumlins and eskers formed during
>the flood in many areas have not been extensively eroded, but are still
>intact; the Great Lakes have not filled up with sediment; screes on most
>mountains are quite limited, etc. so it can be only a few thousand years
>ago. For a more specific date, see the Bible. I want to avoid that flood
>dating thread, as my newsreader truncates long subject lines ;)
Even more arm-waving geology on the part of Mr. Cox without
any proof offered. The examples which he lists as being proof
of the Noachian Flood can also be explained as;
1. The Great Lakes represent fluvial valleys that have been enlarged
by continental glaciers (Fulton 1986, 1989);
2. Drumlins were produced by continental glaciation (Fulton 1989;
Menzies and Rose 1987; Aylsworth and Shilt, 1989).
3. The screes on most mountains are quite limited because they are
removed by a variety of processes as they accumulate (Parsons 1988;
Selby 1990, 1993).
In his explanation of how the Noachian Flood came
in and the Noachian flood came out Mr. Cox has a distinct
advantage. He can just state <A> is proof of <Z>, <B> is proof
of <X>, <C> is proof of <Y>, and so forth without having really
to demonstrate it. Anybody rebutting such unsubstantiated claims
has to spend time to actually research the topic and write out a
lengthy explanation of why <A> is not proof of <X> and so
forth. As a result, I have tried to simplify this process by listing
references that give data and arguments as to a statement being
incorrect. I will presume that if evidence exists that refutes the
reference which I have given, that it will be presented in detail
as part of an extended explanation of why the specific reference
is in error.
In summary, the Noachian Flood explains nothing that so-called
*uniformitarian* geology can already explain. If a person takes
the time to read the given references, it will be found that these
references give a much more detailed and integrated explanation
of why the Earth is as it is than Noachian Flood geology can ever
hope to do. In fact, as a person examines Noachian Flood geology,
e.g. when a person reads the talk.origins FAQs, more and more
contradictions and impossibilities will become apparent as
a person gets beyond the arm-waving geology stage.
Sincerely Yours. Darby South sout...@tyrell.net
Speak to the Earth and it Will Teach You
(But only to Those Who Want to Actually Listen!)
References
Aylsworth, J. M., and W. W. Shilt, 1989, Bedforms of
the Keewatin ice sheet, Canada. Sedimentary-Geology.
62(2/4):407-428.
Dawson, J. W., 1883, Some Unsolved Problems in Geology.
Science 2: 190.
Coffin, Harold G. 1983. Origin by Design. Review and Harold
Publishing Association, Hagerstown, MD. 494 pp.
Gutherie, R. Dale, 1990, Frozen Faunas of the Mammoth Steppe:
the Story of Blue Babe. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL. 467 pp.
Farrand, W. R., 1961, Frozen Mammoths and Modern Science.
Science 133(3455):729-735.
Farrand, W. R., 1962, Frozen Mammoths.
Science 137(3527):450-451.
Farre, J. A. and others, 1983, Breaching the shelfbreak: passage
from youthful to mature phase in submarine canyon evolution. in
The Shelfbreak: Critical Interface on Continental Margins, D. I.
Stanley and G. T. Moore, (eds.), pp. 25-39, SEPM Special
Publication No. 33, Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa,
OK.
Fulton, R. J., 1986, Quaternary Stratigraphy of Canada. in
Quaternary Glaciations in the Northern Hemisphere, V.
Sibrava, D. Q. Bowen, and G. M. Richmond (eds.),
pp. 207-249, Quaternary Science Reviews, vol. 5.
Fulton, R. J.(ed.), 1989, Quaternary Geology of Canada and
Greenland. Geology of North America, vol. K-1, Geological
Society of America, Boulder, CO.
Horworth, H. H., 1887, The Mammoth and the Flood, London,
England.
May, J. A. J. E. Warme, and R. A. Slater, 1983, Roles of
submarine canyon on shelfbreak erosion and sedimentation.
in The Shelfbreak: Critical Interface on Continental Margins,
D. I. Stanley and G. T. Moore, (eds.), pp. 315-332, SEPM
Special Publication No. 33, Society for Sedimentary
Geology, Tulsa, OK.
Menzies, John and J. Rose, 1987 Drumlin Symposium,
Brock Univ., St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada. A. A.
Balkema Publ., Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Morris, Henry M., 1989, The Ice Age. Creation Ex Nihilo.
11(2):10-12.
Oard, Michael. 1990. An Ice Age Caused by Great Flood.
Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. 243 pp.
Parsons, A. J., 1988, Hillslope Form, Routledge, NY
Selby, M. J., 1990, Earth's Changing Surface. Oxford
University Press, NY.
Selby, M. J., 1993, Hillslope Materials and Processes.
Oxford University Press, NY.
Strahler, A. N., 1987, Science and Earth History.
Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.
Weber, C. G., 1983a, The fatal flaws of flood geology.
Creation/Evolution 1(1);24-37.
Weber, C. G., 1983b, Common creationist attacks on
geology. Creation/Evolution 1(2);10-25.
Weimer, P., and M. H. Link, 1991, Seismic Facies and
Sedimentary Processes of Submarine Fans and Turbidite
Systems, Springer-Verlag, NY.