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

ß  back     home     next  à

For a response to any questions about this material, please email any comments to nasamike@nasamike.com