>AR: The erosion of continents and deposition would only occurr on the
>continents, because the tsunami pass over the deep ocean with out much
>effect. It is only when the waves "feel" bottom that they build up into
>monsters that crash ashore stripping the shallow sea and coastal low lands.
Because tsunamis are so big, they feel the bottom a lot sooner than other
waves. Bolide impacts in the deep ocean will also stir up local bottom
sediments.
>AR: The ocean was covered by at least an inch of fresh water. In the
>breaking surf zone the water was mixed fairly quickly because the layer was
>so thin. If we postulate that the rains put 1 inch of water on the oceans
>every 20 minutes that would mean up to 6 feet of fresh water every 24 hours
>and a total of 900 feet of fresh water after 150 days. This much deeper and
>continually fed layer of fresh water would be harder to mix into ocean and
>the mixing that takes place would still leave the water close to the surface
>with a very low salt content. The surface wate would not be affected much
>by the impact-tsunami because they pass over deep water with little effect.
>In the deep ocean, wind waves would be the primary mixing factor. In fact,
>only those breakers which are within a few feet in hight related to the
>depth of the fresh water would have a mixing effect. The small waves would
>not reach deep enough, and the large waves would simply raise and lower the
>whole close surface water. So, the fresh water layer could be kept largely
>intact in the deep ocean reagions of the planet during the Flood.
Intact layers of fresher water (or other layers of significantly different
density) produce anoxia in the deeper water, killing all oxygen-dependent
organisms in those layers. See the Black Sea, many lakes, etc.
>> AR: We need to remember that the story we have was edited together by Moses
>>from Shem, Ham and Japeth's accounts. They were not omnipresent, the best
>>they could do is look out their window. So the first mountains they could see
>>is those near by. What was happening elsewhere they could not know.
> DC: How do they know that the Flood was global, then?
> AR: There two reason for them to believe that the flood was global --
>experiential and communication from God.
But why do they know that part was global but do not know about the other
part?
>> AR: What Woodmorappe provides are feasibility studies which show that things
>>are not impossible.
> What I provided are flaws with his claims. Repeating them does not make
>them > better.
> AR: Your calling them flaws does not make them flaws. Just because you find
>>a quote or two which contradict some of the quotes which Woodmorappe uses,
>that >does not invalidate his basic premise. You have barely made a dent in
>>understanding the scope of possibilities provided by him.
Coral reefs do not occur near river mouths, due to the combination of fresh
water and higher sediment levels. Hermatypic coral reefs submerged too
deep die, as the algae do not get enough light. Only if submergence
happens slowly enough for the corals to keep up through growth can a reef
survive. I do not see evidence that he has made a dent in the scope of
problems posed by the need for survival of invertebrates.
> AR: The problem is whether you want to be pessimistic or optimistic. All
>you need is for a single pair to survive. And as I pointed out in the
>previous if it very possible for fresh water or nearly fresh water to exist on
>the top of the deep ocean. The problem with you, Glenn and others is you look
>for the absolute worst possibilities and claim that that was how the flood
>was. This is because of your pre-conceived notion that the Flood is
>impossible. You therefore set out to present the worst possible scenario. I
>recognize that there were many catastrophic events which would have killed
>life all around, but this does not mean the special circumstance could have
>happened whereby some survived, and that is all you need.
I am trying to take the models you cite and see what consequences they
should have. They make me pessimistic about young-earth creationism, but
that is a consequence rather than a prior assumption. Conventional geology
explains the present appearance of the earth well; young-earth
catastrophism resorts to invoking unexplained special circumstances.
Survival of just a single pair in the recent past should show measurable
genetic effects.
David C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 07 2000 - 12:20:37 EDT