A1d) The alternate view of a Global Flood, from renown Ice Core researcher, Richard Alley (discussions in progress)
1) Richard, Have you seen evidence of a global event around 11,500 years ago, that could account for the warming you mentioned in various dating records? I was wondering if you had any serious position on the possibility of a global >flood around that time?
Nope. There is a record of a
small volcanic eruption near the transition, but no biggie, and not right on
the transition, nor do you consistently see
eruptions on transitions.
Nothing else untoward.
2) Would a global flood account for the last Ice Age? It would seem to explain a number of other observable features around the world.
Can't figure out how it would.
As you probably know, widespread glacial deposits were originally called
"drift" because of the assumption that Noah's
flood had broken up polar caps and
the icebergs drifted around carrying materials with them. This was
abandoned for many good reasons, including that the features associated with
the "drift" (striations, chatter marks, drumlins, etc.) looked
nothing like anything made in floods but exactly like things
made by glaciers, the drift
obviously had been deposited in numerous layers with forests, moss beds, etc.
in between, the distribution pattern of drift
looked like smearing by ice but
not like iceberg drift (icebergs get stirred around by wind and currents so
materials from different places are all mixed
together; mixing occurs under ice
from changing flowlines but the ice typically defines clear, narrow flow bands
without widespread lateral mixing, etc.).
Glaciers have made some big floods
by damming rivers and then having those dams break (channeled scablands of
Washington, for
example), so we know what flood
deposits and flood erosion look like, but the widespread glacial deposits of
the ice age are completely unlike such
flood deposits. Note that in
the ice cores, a melt layer is clearly visible and easy to identify, and such are
lacking from ice older than 11,500 years
ago and only very rarely present
younger in central Greenland.
3) Could a global flood that may or may not have included the high polar latitudes account for:
-The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons
- Mid-Oceanic Ridge
- Continental Shelves and Slopes
- Ocean Trenches
- Seamounts and Tablemounts
- Earthquakes
- Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
- Submarine Canyons
- Coal and Oil Formations
- Methane Hydrates
- Ice Age
- Frozen Mammoths
- Major Mountain Ranges
- Overthrusts
- Volcanoes and Lava
- Geothermal Heat
- Strata and Layered Fossils
- Metamorphic Rock
- Limestone
- Plateaus
- Salt Domes
- Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
- Changing Axis Tilt
- Comets
- Asteroids and Meteoroids
Only by a
miracle. Floods just don't do those things. The biggest
documented floods on Earth were those that made the
Channeled Scablands of
Washington. (Vic Baker's papers are instructive.) A big flood is
good at moving a lot of rocks from here to
there, and sorting those rocks by
size, putting them into dunes or bars, and cleaning out here to get the
material to put there. But water is
pretty wimpy stuff even in a huge
flood--shear stresses are low--so you can't expect it to put enough drag on rocks
to cause major thrusting events
well below the surface of the
Earth, for example. Nor do you get enough heat to do much metamorphism or
coalification or anything similar.
Spectacularly rapid erosion is
possible in huge floods, of course, but typically goes with spectacular
potholing and other features that are not
observed in Grand Canyon or ocean
trenches.
You will find a lot of web sites
and fundamentalist religious TV broadcasts that claim that the geologic record
is best interpreted as indicating a
single worldwide flood. I
have no doubt that the people involved are sincere and well-meaning, but to be
perfectly blunt, the arguments simply do not come even close to making sense.
Science is never sure of an answer, but science can come very close to being
sure of which answers are wrong. The
idea that somehow the world looks
young and attests to a single flood was fervently held by a whole lot of people
who were forced away from it by
wonderful evidence. As a
member in good standing of a Methodist church, I'm no antireligious bigot; I'm
just telling you what the rocks show.--Richard
Richard B. Alley, Evan Pugh Professor, Environment Institute and Department of Geosciences
The Pennsylvania State University
4) Coupled with the Great Flood theory that I like best, is
the part about the "Fountains of the Deep" erupting first.
Subterranean water under tremendous pressure 10 miles under the earth's surface
erupts through a crack in the crust and causes the Great Flood.
Have you heard much about this "Hydroplate Theory" ?
I solicited some opinions from colleagues of mine who share different views about what the Bible calls, “The Fountains of the Deep” erupting and what the observable geological records indicate. I have been trying to identify, if possible, a way to interpret both records to consistently support a single truth.
Following are some of the dialogues that I received via email. Many thanks to Dr Walter Brown, author of the book, “In the Beginning” and to Dr Richard Alley, renown Ice Coring expert. Both are Christians and it’s very interesting how they are dealing with what they observe in their work vs what they read in the Bible.
Dr Alley wrote:
>No, I haven't written about fountains of deep erupting. It is a pretty
>incredible idea, unless you invoke divine intervention.
The Hydroplate Theory does not invoke divine intervention. Only science
is used.
>Consider, that presumably it must be water. To keep that volume of water
>trapped down there is almost incredible to think about--rocks above are
much >denser, any mountains or edges of continents would have created strong
>differential loading that likely would have broken the rock and allowed the
>escape immediately (even little bits of slightly buoyant lava get out of
>the crust; how do you keep incredibly larger amounts of incredibly
>more buoyant material down there for even days, let alone a lot of
>years between Adam and Noah?) So you have to propose either a miracle
>(rocks were different than rocks now, or some such, or that the water
>magically appeared without first being stored), or you have to assume
>some very strange things (no oceans so no continental edges, no mountains,
>perfect rocks with no weaknesses) and then hope.
>
>If the water comes out, how? It won't make a Grand Canyon--there are
>no cracks under it or nearby, even healed ones, and no real reason to
>take huge amounts of upwelling water and turn it into a concentrated
>horizontal flow--no matter what the hopeful types say. Nor will it
>make mid-ocean ridges.
Richard, I suggest you first understand what I have written about how the Grand
Canyon and the Mid-Oceanic Ridges formed. You have erected a "straw
man" in your mind. Yes, that "straw man" is ridiculous.
>Big drainages have been seen in a few places--
>the lava coming out of giant volcanic eruptions, leading to ring dikes
>and caldera collapse, or the drainage of jokulhlaups in Iceland that leave
>ice on lakes that caves in. The sorts of features made by giant
>drainages of fluid from below to above are rare on the surface.
>They don't look like the main features of the Earth.
>
>--Richard
Dr. W. Brown wrote:
Dear Mike and Richard,
As I understand your position, Richard, subterranean water—approximately half
of what is in our oceans today—could not be contained for centuries at depths
of about 16 kilometers. I disagree.
First, some basics. Imagine a perfectly vertical column of a typical rock
8 kilometers (5 miles) high. If the rock were “somewhat confined,” as explained
in the next paragraph, the pressure at the column’s base would be so great that
it would slowly flow—like tar. (In engineering terms, the compressive stress in
the rock would barely exceed its strength, causing the rock to creep.) Stacking
more rock on top would cause even more flow at the bottom. If the column were
16 kilometers (10 miles) high, all the rock in the bottom half would try to
flow. The rock at the bottom would be squeezed like a tall stick of butter
trying to support a 10-ton truck.
If our column were surrounded (pressed in from all sides) by similar columns,
the flow in the central column could go nowhere. The central column would have
lateral support. Furthermore, if all columns were given lateral support by
other columns, we would have the situation that actually exists in the top of
the earth’s crust. At depths of 8 kilometers (5 miles) or greater, the rock
wants to flow but can’t, because the forces on all particles are essentially
balanced in all directions. So below 8 kilometers (5 miles), the rock is sealed
like highly compressed putty. Even with imperfections in the rock, cracks could
not normally open up immediately above the subterranean chamber, which I
estimate was almost 16 kilometers (10 miles) below the earth’s surface. Yes,
there would be plastic deformation in the subterranean water chamber, but
cracks could not open up from below. Therefore, water could have been
contained at these depths. (The fascinating subject of the deformation in
the subterranean chamber will be omitted here.)
Perhaps you are aware, Richard, of the deep drilling on the Kola Peninsula in
Russia. The drill penetrated hot flowing water at 12 kilometers. In
northeastern Bavaria, flowing water was found in cracks at a depth of 9 kilometers.
In both cases the lithostatic pressures would have prevented surface water from
ever reaching those depths.
Since before 1980, I have predicted in writing that large volumes of salt
water, unable to escape at the time of the flood, would be found under some of
earth’s major mountains. In the 27 April 2001 issue of Science is an
announcement of the discovery of a highly conductive, 1.6-kilometer-thick layer
about 16 kilometers beneath the Tibetan Plateau. The authors of that
study believe this layer is salt water, based on its seismic, gravity,
electrical, and electromagnetic characteristics. As they wrote:
“A layer
of aqueous fluids could produce the conductance observed in Tibet with a lower
fluid fraction and/or layer thickness than considered above for partial melt.
For example, a layer only 1.6 km thick containing 10% of 100 S/m brine would be
needed to yield the observed 10,000-S conductance.” Wenbo Wie et al., “Detection of Widespread Fluids in the
Tibetan Crust by Magnetotelluric Studies,” Science, Vol.292, 27 April
2001, p.718.
The
flood is an appropriate subject for a book, not a letter. Trying to
answer one question at a time, a shot gun approach, is too inefficient and
time consuming. I have laid enough out in my book, especially in Part II,
if you are interested. It can be read and printed out on the web (www.creationscience.com)
at no cost. If you do read it and have questions or disagreements, I
would welcome your thoughts and be happy to respond.
Sincerely,
Walt Brown
>From: Richard Alley
>The Lord can do anything.
If the Lord made a world, 6000 years ago,
>that looks older (more tree rings than 6000, more ice-core
layers
>than 6000), that is absolutely consistent with everything we
know
>from science, and no science could ever disprove that
hypothesis.
>
>My only "hard" spot in such discussions is the idea
that the better
>interpretation of our ice cores, and of the tree rings, and of
all of
>geology, is that they look like you would expect from a world
that
>started without trees and without tree rings, without ice and
ice-core
>layers, 6000 or so years ago.
The most direct interpretation of the
>observations is that the world looks older than that. I know that
>very well-meaning and serious people disagree (including Dr.
Brown),
>but a huge number of serious and well-meaning Christians have
been
>driven to the conclusion that the world looks old, despite
beliefs
>to the contrary.
>
>--Richard
Richard,
I
understand your hard spot. The science
we follow attempts to identify and track processes.
This
is great and it allows us to understand what is happening around us now.
But
this science does not deal with motives.
So, we are always left with a big question mark at the beginning of the
processes.
Some
say that God could not do it because that explanation is a
"cop-out". Instead, they say
that "time" did it.
I
say that is another cop-out.
What
I want to do is to resolve that original question mark. Then I can revisit the observable data.
I
say that there must be a first cause which is eternal, ie had no cause.
I
say that the only question is whether or not this first cause is personal or
impersonal.
Some
could suggest that the first cause was the universe itself or primordial
energy. We can see no way to create or
to destroy energy.
We
only see that it can change form. Okay,
so let's say the first cause is the universe itself consisting of some form of
eternal energy.
This
seems like an impersonal first cause, so far.
I
suggest that the first cause must have no outside. Anything that might have been considered to be outside the
universe, would by definition still be part of all there is. There must be a beginning to the progression
of "outsides" just as there is to the progression of causes and
effects. Anything that actually existed
outside our 3D universe, must therefore have more than three dimensions. But then, that multidimensional thing would
be the first cause (with no outside itself) and not our 3D universe.
So
now I ask, "How did thought arrive in this universe?" We know we can think. Even if we do not understand the physics and
chemistry involved, we know thought when we see it. We know that living beings can think and rocks cannot - don't we?
Did
it evolve over time from the primordial stuff?
Where is the evidence that thought can evolve from slim etc?
Perhaps
thought is just another form of energy and it was always in this universe.
Is
thought something that is only possible within living beings, or could there be
some inherent thought pervading the universe all around us?
Either
way, we can see that only a personal first cause could explain what we are
perceiving about thought.
How
so?
If
thought is a fundamental part of the universe, then the universe itself can
think. This First Cause would then be
personal.
Conversely,
if something outside this universe is the First Cause, then It must be able to
think and It would be personal. This
"personal God" would then be creating this universe by thinking of
it.
Either
way, things we perceive in our universe would be explained as being the
thoughts of the First Cause. Everything
is indeed in the mind of God.
This
concept of a personal God, Who can think (at least as well as I can) explains
the Bible and the scientific observations very well, I believe. This God can indeed do anything as easily as
thinking about it.
Consider
how this concept would explain these questions:
1)
Do we believe that a personal God exists and that He created this
universe? Who can then say at what
level of maturity it was created in?
Isn't
it just as difficult for Him to create a seed as a fully grown tree? Isn't a single cell is just as hard to
create from scratch as any primordial electromagnetic fields? Therefore, why would we not believe that God
created all the living things mentioned in Genesis in their already mature
state? Hence, if you sawed down a tree
on the day after it was created, it would still have built into it's trunk a
number of rings These rings would
indicate its "age" (state of maturity), but not its time on the
Earth.
2)
Could we then apply this logic to the Ice Cores as well? I note that God has always shown incredible
attention to detail. If He is building
a universe, I say He will include all the details at both the microscopic and
the macroscopic levels.
3)
A personal God implies a motive to His creations. The only way we can know His motives is if He somehow reveals
them to us. In your opinion, is the
Bible a record of that revelation or not.
Coupling this Bible with scientific observations and human logic, can we
hope to understand God's purposes enough to sort out the critical Truths from
Errors?
4)
How can we be held accountable for making the correct decisions in this life if
the truth is beyond our ability to understand?
5)
Do you think there is indeed one truth which can somehow jive with both the
Bible and the observable facts, if each is interpreted correctly?
Any
thoughts on this? (And you thought ice cores were a deep subject)
Nasa Mike, Sept 5, 2001
12 May 2003
At 06:40 PM
5/11/2003 -0700, a new reader wrote:
Do you believe in
young earth or old earth? (Does Dr. Walt Brown have a stronger argument than
Dr. Richard Alley?)
Greetings:
Here's what I
believe:
- There is a
personal God, Who has a plan for this universe, which has been revealed in the
Bible.
- He therefore
created this Earth and this universe of ours in a short time, ie three
revolutions of this planet, regardless of whether or not there was a Sun.
- He created it to
look like what He already had with the angelic universe, since it's purpose was
to teach them something very important.
- As such, it makes
perfect sense that He created things to look like what was already in that
angelic world, but one dimension lower (eg we do same with movies).
- Whatever He created
has got to have the appearance of age, regardless of what stage it is created
in (even a rock or a single living cell look old).
- What both Walt and
Richard are studying is the evidence of what actually happened in the
observable records.
- Both sets of
observations are open to interpretation.
- There is one
truth, ie the story of what actually happened.
- I say it is not
necessary to begin that story at a point of a singularity that somehow decided
to Bang. It could have begun at any
point prior to recorded history, because God could have created it at any point
He desired.
- Everything beyond
what is recorded by humans is very much open to interpretation, since no one
was actually there to describe it.
- I believe in a
Younger Earth than Richard and an older Earth than Walt. I believe that both of their theories have
tolerances that will enable them to accept a great Flood around 7 000 to 12 000
years ago.
-
Prior to that
I believe there were humans living for about another 6000 years, with a different
set of geophysical conditions worldwide.
-
Richard speaks
of a discontinuity in the ice cores around 11,500 years ago and that may be
foreshortened if the “seasonal variations” he is counting happened in some
cases more frequently than one cycle per year.
His correlation with tree rings is stretching it, since there are no
continuous records here, only fragments that they suggest could overlap. Again, however, who is to prove that every
ring took a year, if growth cycles could have been different during climatic
changes. More definitive data is
required.
-
Walter has a
single story based on a Great Flood, which does match the observable records,
regardless of how long ago it happened.
I suggest that if it happened millions of years ago, there would be no
records at all by this time. Imagine
what will be left a million years from now.
-
I think it is
beyond doubt that a major catastrophic flood event did happen. Scientists in general believe at least in a
number of smaller catastrophic floods and in punctuated equilibrium (ie
stability between major catastrophic events).
One global flood would fit the observable evidence.
-
I believe this
Flood would have laid down changes in the ice caps that now have the appearance
of multiple seasons, when in actuality they happened within one year.
-
Furthermore,
given what I understand is God’s purpose in creating this “temporary” universe
of ours, I can see no reason for Him to take a billion years to create it. IT makes more sense to me that He created it
as a snapshot of what existed at that time in the pre-existing angelic
universe. So, as such, light was already in motion and everything He created
had the appearance of age.
-
We can trace
events back through recorded history to the point where everything was created
and at that point it still has the appearance of age. That point is best identified by the revelations in the Bible,
but again we must interpret them correctly and they must not fly in the face of
the observable and provable records.
12 May 2003
For a response to any questions about this material, please email any comments to nasamike@nasamike.com