Do floods leave evidence?

[Sven]

In this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=118612&page=28&pp=25), lee merill posted the following (don't bother reading the whole discussion unless you are a masochist):

[...] [Hugh] Ross mentions a large flood in California that left no traces a few years later ("The Genesis Question," p. 159) [...]

[in a later post after being asked for more details:]

The flood was in the California San Joaquin Valley in the 1970s, where "parts of the valley lay under three to four feet of water for a few months. Ten years later, all geological evidence of the disaster had been erased."

This was in an argument about that Noah's flood (I know, you all cry: Not that again!) would have left evidence for geologists to find, which Lee, if course denied.

Concerning geology, I'm an absolute layman. I have no idea at all what to say about thisl, apart from that I don't take everything from creationists at face value.

Your thoughts?

[Godless Dave]

Without a cite from a reputable source on geology it's not even worth considering.

[Sven]

Without a cite from a reputable source on geology it's not even worth considering.
Yeah, that's what I also said. Especially since google doesn't seem to know much about this flood.

[g-21-lto]

In this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=118612&page=28&pp=25), lee merill posted the following (don't bother reading the whole discussion unless you are a masochist):



This was in an argument about that Noah's flood (I know, you all cry: Not that again!) would have left evidence for geologists to find, which Lee, if course denied.

Concerning geology, I'm an absolute layman. I have no idea at all what to say about thisl, apart from that I don't take everything from creationists at face value.

Your thoughts?
Floods typically leave behind muddy deposits and larger (but less voluminous) debris. Mud-sized particles are deposited in floods because the increased speed of streamwater in most floods allows the water to entrain the the mud particles. When the water jumps its banks it spreads out laterally, eventually slowing down to where it can't hold the mud in suspension any longer, and the mud is deposited.

I'm not sure how a greater volume/faster water in floods has been shown to affect the deposits they leave, but a reasonable guess would be that faster waters would entrain more and/or larger sediment particles. Someone who knows, please correct me.


A flood big/fast/etc. enough to cover the land on every continent? :eek:

[Joe Meert]

In this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=118612&page=28&pp=25), lee merill posted the following (don't bother reading the whole discussion unless you are a masochist):



This was in an argument about that Noah's flood (I know, you all cry: Not that again!) would have left evidence for geologists to find, which Lee, if course denied.

Concerning geology, I'm an absolute layman. I have no idea at all what to say about thisl, apart from that I don't take everything from creationists at face value.

Your thoughts?

JM: This is relatively simple. First, I would love to read the geological literature on this flood. The flood would leave a trace of deposits after the water dried up, but these may have been subsequently eroded. I say 'so what'? Creationists are trying to convince us that the flood DID leave evidence behind even though they can't figure out when the flood started in the geological record (or when it ended or peaked etc). Ross seems to be indicating that this small local flood can be scaled up to a global flood where the evidence vanishes after some time. Ok, what's the difference between a flood that left no evidence and a flood that never happened from a geological perspective? The only assertion is to argue that the Noachian flood account in the bible must be taken on faith. Fine, accept it on faith just don't try to say it's science.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dharma]

Wow. I think most people miss the most basic geological error in the flood story...Mt. Ararat is not the tallest mountain on earth if there was a global flood.

So at most this was a local storyj, perhaps a local flood and there was no "global flood" around 4500 years ago.

[Dhaeron]

Imo discussions about the occurence of the biblical flood are quite silly. If there really was a flood we'd be able to find traces of, oh, friggin' huge amounts of water somwhere. If you accept that god magicked it into existence and out of existence again, what the heck is the point of any discussion about further evidence?

[Berthold]

If evidence (of miscellaneous things) vanishes or is preserved, is a matter of local conditions. But if something is supposed to be global (of real things, e.g. the K/T boundary), it is next to impossible that evidence is not found in quite a few places.

[Sven]

Ross seems to be indicating that this small local flood can be scaled up to a global flood where the evidence vanishes after some time. Ok, what's the difference between a flood that left no evidence and a flood that never happened from a geological perspective? The only assertion is to argue that the Noachian flood account in the bible must be taken on faith.
Good point. :thumbs: Should have thought about this myself.

[anthrosciguy]

Ross seems to be indicating that this small local flood can be scaled up to a global flood where the evidence vanishes after some time. Ok, what's the difference between a flood that left no evidence and a flood that never happened from a geological perspective?

Of course the first thing to think when you see a pseudoscience "fact" (like anything put forward by a Noah's flood fanatic) is to wonder if the statement is true at all.

Of course the first problem is trying to pin these folks down on real accurate info, like what year the San Joaquin flood they're talking about happened. It's a system that floods regularly and I see another guy saying it's the 1970 flood. Now this was apparently not a big flood at all -- when they mention floods on the San Joaquin, I notice, they generally don't mention any of the 1970s floods as big ones. Of course there is no indication that any geological changes have been looked for, which makes not finding them a bit more likely. The San Joaquin also has a pretty extensive flood control system, which seemed to be lacking for Noah.

I see that if we look at another relatively small flood, the 1974 flood in the San Joaquin (apparently about a 20-year flood) -- here's a study on cottonwood trees that has some incidental info on the flood's effects, which include things like this (http://www.sacramentoriverportal.org/plants/cottonwood_pilot.pdf):

"However, 6 channel avulsions did occur elsewhere on the river as a result of
the 1974 flood..."

Changing the course of a river is definitely something that counts as "geological evidence".

Of course it's also nonsense to assume that a local 20-year flood (or even a much worse flood, say a 100-year flood) which leaves standing water to a depth of a few feet for a few months would be expected to leave anything remotely like what would be seen in a global flood, which purportedly covered the entire surface of the earth for a half year, and much of the surface for a year.

I'd love to see these folks have to back up what they say, or at least trace back their claims to the sources they got them from so others can see where the claims are coming from.

[show_no_mercy]

You would think that 1 year of 3 mile high water flooding over land would leave some galactic traces of deposits and sedementary rock...

[jonesg]

In this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=118612&page=28&pp=25), lee merill posted the following (don't bother reading the whole discussion unless you are a masochist):



This was in an argument about that Noah's flood (I know, you all cry: Not that again!) would have left evidence for geologists to find, which Lee, if course denied.

Concerning geology, I'm an absolute layman. I have no idea at all what to say about thisl, apart from that I don't take everything from creationists at face value.

Your thoughts?

There is evidence in the middle east , what was dry land and considered eden is now under the Gulf, between the Tigris and Euphrates.
It lasted a long time , its still flooded.!

[Gooch's dad]

anthrosciguy beat me to it, with an excellent summary of the San Joaquin valley and flooding. I'd just like to add a bit to that--this valley flooded every year during the rainy season, and for months at a time, was effectively a lake 50 miles wide and several hundred miles long.

For an excellent account of what the San Joaquin valley looked like in the 1860's, long before the flood control projects changed the valley completely, read Brewer's Up and Down California in 1860-64. Brewer was a member of the original Whitney geological expedition to map all of California.

So this valley floor consists of the effluvium of yearly floods. Why would a flood in 1970 make the valley floor look substantially different?

Edit to add link to Amazon for William Brewer's excellent book, available in paperback (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520238656/internetinfidels/)

[Monad]

I'd love to know how the flood managed to lay down nearly a mile of sediment in multiple layers, each with their carefully "chronologically ordered" (or so it seems made to appear to us non believers) compliments of fossils, in the area that became the grand canyon, and during the same time gouge a bloody great canyon out of it??