Local Flood vs Global Flood

[jenna]

Yes but your "local" flood only covers one area. The events I described happened worldwide, and as for the penguin, as mentioned before, that was just an example, not a literal finding. But for the sake of examples, the penguins you talked about were created to survive that type of environment, the "penguins" that were found were totally away from their natural habitat when they were found. And these weren't fossils, either. They were whole animals, skin, fur, bones and all, found buried in mud or rock or what-have-you. Evidence of a massive flood that took them by surprise.

[Himantolophus]

you you have a reference or picture or link to that penguin fossil? I'd be interested in seeing that because I've never heard of any creature being buried in mud/water and the soft tissue being preserved (only ice does this).

Also, unless these suddenly buried animals were all from the same era, then it is not an effective argument. If you find dinosaurs buried in the U.S. and mammoth tusks in Siberia, this indicates two, widely separated events. Being in different rock strata means events at different times. You cannot lay down strata, fossilize them, and then lay down another layer over the course of one year. If you've found an experiment that has, I'd be interested.

[WWJnotD]

On the other thing you mention... that is often-quoted and very poor evidence for a global flood. One, if the rain was coming down and down for 40 days and nights, the animals would have plenty of time to run away and seek high ground. They sure as heck wouldn't die with food in their mouths or cowering in fear unless it was sudden and instantanious. The LOCAL flood however, would be instantanious and sudden and would sweep them up before they would react. Second, there were flash flood/landslide/sand slide events millions of times in Earth's history. These local events would kill animals quick and kill them in the midst of a fight, meal, or sleep. This is a more reasonible explanation for these fossils. Plus, we find them most often in ancient riverbeds where animals congregate to drink and reproduce.

All of the questions on pg.1 of this post need to be answered before I consider these fossils as evidence for a global flood.

Yeah some animals would have plenty of time to run to high ground not all. What makes you think that all animals would be able to escape with plenty of time?The Bible says that all the springs of the great deep burst forth and the flood gates of the heavens were open. Kinda indicates a lot of water quickly. Some animals wouldn't be able to escape to high ground. Whats to sa that the global flood waters didn't create landslide and flash floods too?

[jenna]

Ok, how many times do I need to repeat myself? The penguin was an EXAMPLE, not an actual finding. Why do you keep asking about the penguin? It was actually another type animal, I don't remember what kind it was. Penguin-EXAMPLE. Got it now?

[IRQ Conflict]

I vote that the flood was local! ...............




..............to our planet.

[jenna]

Oh, good one! I wondered why your space took so long!

[Himantolophus]

Sorry to annoy you, I was simply asking where you found the info.

Which kind of gets to my point. Most of the time when I'm in a debate on this the "Global Flood Advocate" will mention these things that are either false or dubious at best. People who don't know any better will be like "oh, there was a so-and-so buried with skin and muscle in a frightened position", and be quick to believe that there was a global flood. People who know better will call you out on it and the person saying it looks bad. This happens alot because YEC's are desperate for some type of evidence, which doesn't exist.

That said, all of this stuff with the mass deposits of animals can easily explained by modern scientific thinking. These animals, all living at different times, were struck by a flash flood and were buried quickly in a local event (not talking the local Black Sea flood event but many others). For example, a herd of Igaunadons was killed by an event in North America 70 million years ago and a group of smilodons was trapped in quicksand 2 million years ago. This is supported by position in the geologic column, the type of rocks that they were found in, and the fact that they died while in some type of stress.

Now, I see that alot of people think these animals all lived together in a YEC timeline (which is just about imposssible considering that such a mix would not be supportable by the Earth's Biosphere). I would consider a Global Flood explanation for these mass burials unlikely due to these reasons.
1. We would see animals all over the world in the same layer of rock in the same dire circumstances. There would be nothing but mass burials everywhere on the planet. However, there finds are rare and widely scattered.
2. There would be bones of giant amphibians, dinosaurs, giant Ice Age mammals, and modern humans all in these deposits clumped together in a mass grave. We do not see this, only mass graves of animals that lived together in reality.
3. There would be marine creatures and land creatures fossilized together in the same strata. Nope.
4. If a global flood occurred you would find the bodies of certain species all over the planet (according to YEC's the Earth had one Pangea supercontinent before the Flood). Instead, you find fossil T-rex only in North America and other dinos only in Antarctica. If the world was uniform before the flood there should be a unform distribution seen in all Pre-Flood animals, not the patchwork distributions we see in the fossil record.
5. If the animals were caught by a global flood, they would not keep food in their mouths while they struggle and they sure as heck would not be fighting or sleeping. They were taken so fast that they were buried instananeously by a landslide or sandslide. They could not react at all.
6. The fountains of the deep (wherever they are now) would not have been everywhere. I think YEC's believe they were the Mid-Ocean Ridges or something?? The fountains of the deep would then be under water which would not influence land animals. And "opening of the gates of heaven" is a metaphor for a collosal rainstorm. We use figures of speech like "raining cats and dogs" and "sky is falling" for stuff of this magnitude. There is not a physical gate in the sky for water to just pour out of. Yes, there would be flash flood events with a global flood, but the scale would be much larger than what we see in the rocks.
7. For animals in these mass graves, they often find them in caves and low-lying areas. The only option I see here is flash flood because animals will always seek higher ground, not lower ground.

And above all this, there is still that list of questions that one needs to answer to make a global flood plausible. Trying to support it by saying "there are mass deposits of animal bones clustered together" is like plugging one hole in a sieve and saying it's watertight

[WWJnotD]

That said, all of this stuff with the mass deposits of animals can easily explained by modern scientific thinking. These animals, all living at different times, were struck by a flash flood and were buried quickly in a local event (not talking the local Black Sea flood event but many others). For example, a herd of Igaunadons was killed by an event in North America 70 million years ago and a group of smilodons was trapped in quicksand 2 million years ago. This is supported by position in the geologic column, the type of rocks that they were found in, and the fact that they died while in some type of stress.

How do you know that the event happened 70 million yrs ago. The geographic column is a non starter since it's just based on circluar reasoning, fossils date the rocks the rocks date the fossils. The so called column can be interpreated differently as the effects of a global flood therefore layers wouldn't equal huge time periods. The column is nothing more than a hypothetical classification scheme based on selected rock outcrops in Europe, and used flexibly to classify rocks around the world.

Now, I see that alot of people think these animals all lived together in a YEC timeline (which is just about imposssible considering that such a mix would not be supportable by the Earth's Biosphere)

I don't get this. How could you possibly know that? There is such a mix of animals on the earth now and oit seems to be doing a stella job!

I would consider a Global Flood explanation for these mass burials unlikely due to these reasons.
1. We would see animals all over the world in the same layer of rock in the same dire circumstances. There would be nothing but mass burials everywhere on the planet. However, there finds are rare and widely scattered.

Again you assume that there has to be a layer for the global flood but under the global flood notion most layers were created by the flood anyway. Large-scale catastrophic plate tectonics alter the earth and some mass graves will never be found since they are so deeply placed by rock flows or tectonics.

2. There would be bones of giant amphibians, dinosaurs, giant Ice Age mammals, and modern humans all in these deposits clumped together in a mass grave. We do not see this, only mass graves of animals that lived together in reality.
3. There would be marine creatures and land creatures fossilized together in the same strata. Nope.

In the global flood model the iceage happened after the flood. Plus just because we don't see them die together doesn't mean they didn't live together. Again your assuming that there is a particular layer for when the flood happened and we should therefore find these animals in that one layer cross the world but under a global flood hypothesis we wouldn't expect that.

4. If a global flood occurred you would find the bodies of certain species all over the planet (according to YEC's the Earth had one Pangea supercontinent before the Flood). Instead, you find fossil T-rex only in North America and other dinos only in Antarctica. If the world was uniform before the flood there should be a unform distribution seen in all Pre-Flood animals, not the patchwork distributions we see in the fossil record.
5. If the animals were caught by a global flood, they would not keep food in their mouths while they struggle and they sure as heck would not be fighting or sleeping. They were taken so fast that they were buried instananeously by a landslide or sandslide. They could not react at all.

In reference to 5. large scale plate tectonics would cause lanslides ect at speeds of 50-100m/s. http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_rs/
In reference to 4. Maybe mot t-rex were placed around what today is north-america on the 'pangea' continent.

6. The fountains of the deep (wherever they are now) would not have been everywhere. I think YEC's believe they were the Mid-Ocean Ridges or something?? The fountains of the deep would then be under water which would not influence land animals. And "opening of the gates of heaven" is a metaphor for a collosal rainstorm. We use figures of speech like "raining cats and dogs" and "sky is falling" for stuff of this magnitude. There is not a physical gate in the sky for water to just pour out of. Yes, there would be flash flood events with a global flood, but the scale would be much larger than what we see in the rocks.
7. For animals in these mass graves, they often find them in caves and low-lying areas. The only option I see here is flash flood because animals will always seek higher ground, not lower ground.

7. maybe an option would be that there were lanslide events caused by the beginning of the global flood and they didn't have time to get to high ground
6. Maybe the fountains of the deep didn't affect them directly but probably tsunamis would have been created easily spilling on to land affecting land animals.

[Forum Monk]

Having been through all of these arguments on this board, not long ago, we established beyond any doubt that God was fully capable of flooding the planet and saving eight humans and the various "kinds" of life that could not endure a flood. Afterall, God is God and he can do all things - God is a God of miracles. In addition, we have a book which, upon a cursory reading suggests the same, as well as provide a spiritual object lesson as to the nature of God, righteousness and holy judgement.

So the debate emerges when we take these scriptures and surmise they express scientific truth. In my opinion, God then becomes trapped into the necessity of functioning within the realm of physical science in order to justify our belief that the scriptures relate scientific facts, afterall, truth is truth and we know what is true. When such reasoning becomes problematic, as it always does, we claim the scripture does not mean what we think it means because we are so much smarter than those poor shepherds who didn't know about quantum mechanics, space-time, or evolution. And finally when all of the attempts to alter the traditionally accepted meanings of the words written by poor shepherds (or the words written by even more ignorant english translators) fails to satisfy our incessant need to justify our individual world-views, we finally concede, God can still operate with supernatural power. Now we are right back where it all started - God is a God of miracles.

Why not leave it at that?

[Byblos]

Having been through all of these arguments on this board, not long ago, we established beyond any doubt that God was fully capable of flooding the planet and saving eight humans and the various "kinds" of life that could not endure a flood. Afterall, God is God and he can do all things - God is a God of miracles. In addition, we have a book which, upon a cursory reading suggests the same, as well as provide a spiritual object lesson as to the nature of God, righteousness and holy judgement.

So the debate emerges when we take these scriptures and surmise they express scientific truth. In my opinion, God then becomes trapped into the necessity of functioning within the realm of physical science in order to justify our belief that the scriptures relate scientific facts, afterall, truth is truth and we know what is true. When such reasoning becomes problematic, as it always does, we claim the scripture does not mean what we think it means because we are so much smarter than those poor shepherds who didn't know about quantum mechanics, space-time, or evolution. And finally when all of the attempts to alter the traditionally accepted meanings of the words written by poor shepherds (or the words written by even more ignorant english translators) fails to satisfy our incessant need to justify our individual world-views, we finally concede, God can still operate with supernatural power. Now we are right back where it all started - God is a God of miracles.

Why not leave it at that?

Because Mt. Everest is there? I don't know, I guess it's only human to try to seek answers to complex questions. Problems arise not when we discuss issues such as these but when we hold on to an ideology, dogma, interpretation, whatever, as absolute truth to the exclusion of even the possibility of any other. That's not to say absolute truths don't exist, they most certainly do. One cannot profess to be a Christian and not believe that. It is often our unique interpretations of these absolute truths that get in the way, though. One of these absolute truths is that God created the universe; that's what the Bible says. To me at least, it would not make the least bit of difference if earth was 6,000 years old or 14 billion. It simply would not change my theology in any way. The Bible was never meant as a scientific book and science is not meant as a religious conduit (well, good science at least). They should not be seen as contradictory but rather complementary. Science, by nature, should, actually demands, that it is viewed with a degree of skepticism. Everything is proven until otherwise specified. There are, however, certain scientific observable truths we can pretty much bank on as consistent such as, gravity, speed of sound, light, laws of physics and chemistry, and so on. Whether or not these scientific truths were in effect when earth was created we simply do not know. Science makes the generalization based on what we can observe today and scripture is open for wide interpretations on the subject. Another absolute truth is that God's creation testifies to his magnificence and to me that, skepticism notwithstanding, includes the instrument of science.

[Himantolophus]

How do you know that the event happened 70 million yrs ago. The geographic column is a non starter since it's just based on circluar reasoning, fossils date the rocks the rocks date the fossils. The so called column can be interpreated differently as the effects of a global flood therefore layers wouldn't equal huge time periods. The column is nothing more than a hypothetical classification scheme based on selected rock outcrops in Europe, and used flexibly to classify rocks around the world.

This is a typical no-win situation in this debate because we are looking at it from different viewpoints. I don't see it being difficult to interpret the geologic column. Oldest latyers are usually the lowest and the upper layers are youngest (assuming no shifts or tilts). We look at the lowest rock and we find simple organisms (simple multicellular and single cell). As we go up we see sponges, early arthropods, crinoids, armored fish. Going further we see early dinosaurs and insects. Towards the top we have mammals and then only at the top do we see humans. Yes there is erosion and tectonics and some of the layers will be shifted or moved. But these rocks were laid down in sequential order (that had to). And since they progress from very simple to more advanced, this implies age. Not to mention that the layers correlate very well no matter where in the world you are (as continents are usually composed of the same rocks). You also see rocks of different origins stacked up on top of each other. You have limestone topped with shale, then conglomerate, a coal seam, and then limestone again. A flood would never leave layers like this... they would be sorted due to settling rates and so would the animals.

You cannot arugue that evolutionists created the geologic record because this was done before Darwin and Wallace came up with evolution. There was no Old Earth bias. They were doing the scientific method correctly. Observing the evidence, interpreting it, and coming up with a hypothesis. Isn't it interesting that they most likely all had a Biblical view of the world and whatever they saw that day made them question it. The evidence must point away from a global flood if these early scientists were swayed by the evidence. Of course we today speak with bias but they didn't back then since evolution and old Earth wasn't well known.

I don't get this. How could you possibly know that? There is such a mix of animals on the earth now and oit seems to be doing a stella job!

This was one of my main points... We have our assemblage of animals and plants on Earth today that the Earth clearly can handle. But look to the fossil record and there are many times more creatures that are extinct. To make them all fit into a creationist timescale, you would have to squeeze billions of years of species into a timespan of a few thousand years. The Earth could not support many more species than we have today so it is not possible to squeeze more in (in the past) and maintain the biosphere. Plus God told Noah to take a pair of every animal on Earth so you cannot say the Post-Flood animal fauna was drastically different. The same animal diversity should have left the Ark as got on.

Again you assume that there has to be a layer for the global flood but under the global flood notion most layers were created by the flood anyway. Large-scale catastrophic plate tectonics alter the earth and some mass graves will never be found since they are so deeply placed by rock flows or tectonics.

Yes they would but with hydrodynamic sorting. If you assume layers from the Permian to the Cretaceous were "flood deposits" you should see sorting since inorganic particles do not have "differential escape". The catastrophic flooding and fountaining would occurr and the suspended sediment would settle out according to gravity. Evben if they were distrubed multiple times, the sediment would still settle in the same pattern. Plus you would see animals and plants mixed together with no apparent chronological order (as in trilobites with mammals). You don't see a little problem with never seeing that?

There is no evidence for "fast plate tectonics". This is another thing made up to make the flood story work (see the old Vapor Canopy model). All plate movement today is very slow and it all leaves marks in the crust. Wouldn't speedy plates leave some sort of record of this fast movement? Imagine India impacting Asia at 100m/s! That is just humurous, there would be rock through halfway across Asia from the collision and there would be tons of metamorphic deposits from the shock/hea/pressure of the impact. Not to mention that runaway subduction would drastically increase the temperature of the Earth and boil the oceans off. I see slow plate tectonics, so therefore that's what I believe.

In the global flood model the iceage happened after the flood. Plus just because we don't see them die together doesn't mean they didn't live together. Again your assuming that there is a particular layer for when the flood happened and we should therefore find these animals in that one layer cross the world but under a global flood hypothesis we wouldn't expect that.

If the Ice Age happened after the flood (~2000 BC), where is the record of this in human civilization? The rise of the Mesopotamian, Chinese, and Egyptian civilizations was around then and farming was becoming more common. An Ice Age would put a serious damper on the rise of civilization. Not to mention that there were no sabre-tooth cats and mammoths into historical times. The Middle Age "little Ice Age" was not the real Ice Age. And ice cores show us that there were several consectutive Ice Ages interrupted by warm spells. Where is all the time to fit this in a YEC timescale?

I talked about the second half already, even if all the rock strata were layed down in one year you would expect to find creatures mixed together. The ages don't matter... if they lived at the same time in the same habitat, they should have died together.

In reference to 5. large scale plate tectonics would cause lanslides ect at speeds of 50-100m/s.

I touched on this above. You can say anything because no one can go back and prove it. I go on observations taken over recorded history and I see nothing but slow tectonics. I don't see how water, even in huge quantities, can upset tectonics so much that is goes that fast. Again, people can make this stuff up and say it's true but no one can ever test it (therefore it's not science).

In reference to 4. Maybe mot t-rex were placed around what today is north-america on the 'pangea' continent.

Maybe, but it's more likey that T-rex were isolated by being surrounded by water, meaning they were on a different continent. Look at today's megafauna. Species are isolated by some sort of barrier. Unless the humans fenced off T-rex. haha

7. maybe an option would be that there were lanslide events caused by the beginning of the global flood and they didn't have time to get to high ground
6. Maybe the fountains of the deep didn't affect them directly but probably tsunamis would have been created easily spilling on to land affecting land animals.

Yes, both of these are plausible and very likely to occur but these also occurred on a old Earth timescale and these same processes could have killed animals. In order to use this on a YEC Flood timescale you have to eliminate the myriad of other problems going on (see page 1).

[frankbaginski]

The global flood is actually easy to see. The evidence of the flood is everywhere if you know how and where to look. I have found that the flood is a stumbling block for many people. That is so sad that modern geologist have brought these questions to Christians.

One first has to understand the weather of the earth before the flood. It did not rain. The ground had fountains that watered the ground. And indeed there were rivers. We know that mountains allow wind currents to push water rich air into cooler air which makes rain. So the atmosphere was probably different than we have today, I would suspect that the air retained it's warmth even at higher elevations. The mountains were probably lower as well. In looking at ancient geology most movement was vertical not horizontal like today. So this world does not into what we see today. I find this easy to believe. God fashioned nature and made it into His creation. The study of science is the study of God's creation. To use His creation as evidence that His Word is in error does not make sense to me. I first assume that it is I that is making the error of understanding.

The cause of the flood is supernatural so we would not expect to see evidence of the cause but we should see evidence of the event. The biggest events in geology are plate movements. The ancient plate movements are vertical. The plates below the oceans rose as the continents dropped. The ocean water pushed over the land knocking down most small landmasses. The angular momentum of the water made giant circular walls of water around the centers of some continents. Friction slowed the waters so eventually even the centers were covered. With a rising seafloor and dropping continents it is easy to calculate the requirements for a completely submerged earth. When the fountains of the deep shot their water to the surface the weather changed for the world. I do not know the mechanism for this change but I know it did happen. The fossil record shows a cambrian explosion. What we actually see is a world without rain and flood so no fossils would be created. During the flood we would expect to find many fossils from the event. This is the cambrian level. Just look at the same data with different eyes. Aparently the atmosphere changed because it rained for the first time on the earth. After some time the continents rose up and the seafloors sank. The floor of the ocean did not go down as far as it was preflood. We have many water erosion remains under the seas. There is evidence that the Nile ran all the way past Spain preflood. The evidence of the flood is found on all continents as sheared off landscape and a layer of round rock across vast plains. Mountain building started to happen right after the flood. Horizontal movement of the plates account for most of this.

[Gman]

I am new here and I was impressed by the article posted on page one. I am really perplexed how an open-minded Christian can look at that essay and not wonder if the story was just a rough re-telling of a local (yet catastropic) event.

Me too Himantolophus... Unfortunately many Christians fall victim into this literal interpretation of the Bible which turns the Bible into a fairy tale. Idioms, figures of speech or orientalisms are simply glossed over, and instead, what we know of our true observational science is vilified and turned void.. It's no wonder why many turn away from God and the Bible..

I believe in the local flood theory. The timeline and interpretation are close to the actual story and are based on real scientific evidence. I saw a show on the Garden of Eden on the History Channel, and despite the secular bias they were fairly neutral in their approach. They talk about the Black Sea, the Perisan Gulf, and Mesopotamia as the location for the Garden and the Flood. There is alot of evidence, of which is already on this thread, of the flooding of the Black Sea and the Mesopotamian region. They say that 6000+ years ago , as the glaciers retreated, the waters rose around the globe. The water breached narrow sills (like the Bosporus and the mouth of the Persian Gulf) and broke through catastropically and without warning. The event would have been unavoidable for the people in the flood plain and they simply could not run away. They also find evidence that the location of the Garden is at the bottom of the Persian Gulf as there are the remains of two ancient rivers under it's waters. Where these two rivers come together with the Tigris and Euphrates matches the location of the Biblcial Eden. It also makes sense because the figures of Adam and Eve left the Garden and traveled into the Middle East. The flood event later on obliterated the original location and only the Black Sea and Persian Gulf are left over from it. They also touch on the metaphorical nature of Adam and Eve, saying how they may simply represent a change from nomadic hunter-gatherers to sedentary farmers. Notice that this geologic event coincides with the rise of most of Earth's first civilizations. The Bible was written to describe this but it is done in fairly ambiguous language. I think an explanation like this fits both the Scripture and science.

I will hit some other stuff at another time. I think the original post makes some great questions and even the typical "God did it" retort cannot solve alot of them. A global flood as pushed by YEC's is just about impossible to defend!

Agreed... Not only is it impossible to defend but nowhere in the Bible is it ever supported. We maybe led to believe in this global flood in the English translations, but a simple break down of a few Hebrew works exposes these defects. I'll try to explain more later...

[Gman]

Speaking of the History Channel, I wanted to touch base on the work of Dr. Juris Zarins. He, like many, are putting the local flood in the Mesopotamian flood plains. Now I've been a bit undecided on the exact location of Noah's flood, but this article by him has some pretty compelling evidence.

Like William Ryan and Walter Pitman and their interpretation of the breach of ice water into the Black Sea at the Bosphorus, also known as the Istanbul Strait in Turkey, Zarins believes that the strait of Hormuz (at the beginning of the Persian gulf) was breached by the flood waters of the European glacier ice melt.



This large amount of water, along with the rain, would have cascaded into the Mesopotamian flood plains wiping out all the inhabitants. Is the garden of eden and part of the local flood zone currently under the Persian gulf? Perhaps, we just don't have enough information yet.. This is just a little bit of information derived from a History Channel episode I saw the other day on this very subject.



A bit more on the subject here..

Source: http://www.ldolphin.org/eden/

LANDSAT spots a "fossil river"

At this stage in his thesis, Zarins goes back to geography and geology to pinpoint the area of Eden where he believes the collision came to a head. The evidence is beguiling: first, Genesis was written from a Hebrew point of view. It says the Garden was "eastward," i.e., east of Israel. It is quite specific about the rivers. The Tigris and the Euphrates are easy because they still flow. At the time Genesis was written, the Euphrates must have been the major one because it stands identified by name only and without an explanation about what it "compasseth." The Pison can be identified from the Biblical reference to the land of Havilah, which is easily located in the Biblical Table of Nations (Genesis 10:7, 25:18) as relating to localities and people within a Mesopotamian-Arabian framework. Supporting the Biblical evidence of Havilah are geological evidence on the ground and LANDSAT images from space. These images clearly show a "fossil river," that once flowed through northern Arabia and through the now dry beds, which modern Saudis and Kuwaitis know as the Wadi Riniah and the Wadi Batin. Furthermore. as the Bible says, this region was rich in bdellium, an aromatic gum resin that can still be found in north Arabia, and gold, which was still mined in the general area in the 1950s.

[jenna]

In Genesis 6:17 "And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life, everything on the earth shall die." Why is there a question whether the flood was global or local when God plainly states EVERYTHING ON THE EARTH, not "everything your area". Are you questioning what God plainly states?