In the Creation in the Classroom thread, we recognized that an important issue is to assess whether it is possible to present Creationism as science. We began such a discussion in the Global Flood thread, since the Flood figures into much of the Creationist interpretation of the data that are otherwise used to support evolution. Here, I've tried to tie our discussion together, and present the issues at the beginning of a thread where they will be easier to find and refer to.
The approach is to treat the Flood Model scientifically. It is the Creationist explanation for observations we make today. This makes it, in some sense, a Creationist hypothesis. To treat this hypothesis scientifically, we will apply standard scientific reasoning. First, what is the hypothesis? We will state our understanding clearly. Second, what predictions are made by this hypothesis? We will develop a set of predictions. Third, what tests or new observations can we envision that would assess the accuracy of these predictions? It is my hope that the Creationists among us will investigate these observations and report what they find.
For the non-Creationists, let me say that it is moot what the pre-flood conditions were, and whether the laws of physics were the same then as now. The model builds in the idea that things were, in fact, different. Since this is the model, we must take it at face value as part of the model. However, after the flood, it is said that the laws of physics were stabilized in the state that we can now measure. Thus, our predictions really must address the consequences of the flood, not the conditions prior to it.
The hypothesis, as presented here, derives from conversation primarily with otseng who first suggested working from Walt Brown's hydroplate idea. If it differs from your favorite scenario, it would be good to see what the differences are.
Note that a scientific treatment is to test the hypothesis. It is not adequate to look at existing structures in the world and say 'yeah, that can be explained by this hypothesis,' because this approach misses the fact that other hypotheses may also explain it. The key is to assess whether the clear predictions of our hypothesis are met.
HYPOTHESIS
1. Water welled up from the earth's interior, providing sufficient water to rain like mad and eventually to cover the earth's surface. Living things like Noah were protected from the physical effects that would occur today by supernatural means, or by virtue of the laws of physics being different pre-Flood.
2. The water was ejected through cracks in the earth's crust, with such force as to deform the layer below (in an upward direction) into a series of ocean ridges.
3. The upheaval created vast quantities of sediment, which settled out to form the geological strata that we now observe.
4. Vegetation was all covered by sediments, and subsequently converted to coal and oil. 'Stirring' of the Flood water resulted in non-uniform deposition of different species, and non-uniform sizes and locations of coal and oil deposits.
5. Plants and animals were covered by sediments, and subsequently fossilized.
6. Different kinds of rocks ended up in different strata due to differential rates of sedimentation, and to continued ejection of stuff from the underground chamber.
7. Continued ejection of stuff resulted in some interference with the ordered sedimentation ('stirring'), so that the some kinds of rock may be found in more than one stratum.
8. Different kinds of fossils ended up in different strata due to differential rates of sinking; i.e. the model called 'hydrogical sorting of ecological niches.' Again, there may have been some interference by continued ejection of stuff.
9. The flood covered 100% of the earth's surface, including the mountains, and receded only after complete destruction of all living things that were not on the ark (or could swim, or otherwise survive such a catastrophe).
10. After formation of the sediments, the crust slid downhill from the ocean ridges, causing compaction and stress, and eventually the uplift of the major mountain ranges that now exist.
11. Large canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, were carved by the rapid retreat of the flood waters from the mountains, while the sediments were still soft enough to erode quickly.
Fine. Here's a hypothesis. If it explains the way the world is now, its predictions should all be met. These are the ones we have previously agreed upon, with some clarification based on our prior discussions:
PREDICTIONS
1. Except in those areas that were rapidly eroded when the water went away (to wherever it went), surface rocks should be no older than the flood itself.
2. Basem*nt rocks, that existed prior to the flood, should be older than the sedimentary layers deposited by the flood, but should be no older than their date of creation.
3. Basem*nt rocks, that existed prior to the flood, should show no evidence of different strata.
4. Except for those areas that were rapidly eroded, and except for the vicinity of the ocean ridges, all of the earth's surface should be covered with sediments from the flood. This should be especially true in low-lying areas, where sediments would be more likely to accumulate without danger of being washed to a lower level.
5. The rock strata should vary in a consistent pattern, with more rapidly-sedimenting material at the bottom of the geological column, and more slowly-sedimenting material at the top. The few instances of repeating series of rock types would be dependent on the frequency with which 'burps' (if you will) of the ejection of water from the earth's interior caused stirring, or interference with sedimentation.
6. Fossils should show a consistent pattern in the geological column: heaviest on the bottom, lightest on the top (or some such thing). That is: similar kinds of fossils should not be found in widely separated strata. Again, this would be dependent on the frequency with which ejection of water stirred things up.
7. Because we cannot guess how often ejection of water stirred things up, and because it is likely to have been locally variable depending on local conditions, we cannot easily determine the local frequency of such stirring. However, we can predict that, in regions where little stirring occurred, and in regions where frequent stirring occurred, points 5 and 6 should lead to parallel repetitions of both rock types and fossil types in the strata.
8. No footprints of land animals should be found in strata that were eroded by the receding flood waters, since the land animals had been killed before the water receded.
9. Deep canyons that formed as the Flood water drained away from the uplifting mountains should be found primarily near mountains. Similar deep canyons should be rare in low-lying areas.
10. Canyons should follow the 'easiest line of descent' from the mountains, if they were formed by runoff as the mountains drained away. Water usually flows downhill, and is unlikely to flow uphill to carve a canyon through an impediment.
TESTS
Since the easiest way to test predictions is to see if any of them are not met, here are some tips, listed in order of prediction.
1. Are the ages of surface rocks in different locations consistent? Dating techniques have inherent degrees of error, so exact correspondence isn't to be expected. But we would certainly expect dates within, say, a factor of two (or even 10) of each other.
2. Within the error of measurement, is it possible to divide the ages of various rocks into two discrete categories: relatively old (pre-flood) and relatively new (post-flood)? We would not expect extensive variation in ages--more like 6000 years vs 4000 years.
3. Are the oldest rocks we can find uniform in their appearance, or is there evidence of sedimentary strata? Another way to phrase this is: are all sedimentary strata uniformly young, and all hom*ogeneous rocks uniformly old (except, of course, for rocks formed by recent volcanic activity)? The Vishnu Schist in the Grand Canyon is suggested to be pre-Flood rock with no strata; are other Precambrian rocks of this age or older also without parallel strata?
4. Are there locations in the world, especially low-lying areas, with very different kinds of rocks on the surface? A corollary to this is the question: are there locations in the world in which rocks of the same type can be found on the surface in one location, and closely apposed to the basem*nt (pre-flood) rocks in another location?
5. Are there any examples of repeated sedimentation patterns--like hundreds of repeats of alternating limestone and shale in very deep canyons? The number of repeats would indicate the number of 'stirring events' that occurred during the flood; the more sedimentation that has occurred below these strata, the less likely it is that many repeats should be found (as most of the sediment should have sedimented).
6. Are there any instances of similar fossils in widely separated strata? A good example might be bivalves (brachiopods, oysters, etc) of similar sizes. Again, some repeats might be expected if the flood involved a number of 'stirring events,' but toward the top of the geological column, after most sedimentation has occurred, certainly the heaviest fossils should have sedimented. At least, fossils near the bottom should not be at all similar (with respect to their hydrodymanic properties) to fossils at the top (again, bivalves are good examples: brachiopods, oysters, etc).
7. In regions with repeated series of strata, similar repeats of fossils should be found, since the repeats indicate 'stirring' events, which should apply to all of the suspended sediment, including dead animals that can be fossilized.
8. Are there animal footprints in any rock layers that should have formed only during the flood, and cannot have been exposed until after the flood receded?
9. Where do we find deep canyons (or any canyons) that would indicate large amounts of water flowing through them to carve them? Are they all near mountains, which could provide the source of the runoff?
10. Do canyons or current river valleys follow the easiest path of descent from the mountains that they drain?
If we agree with these statements of hypothesis and predictions, we should be able to look into the published literature, or make our own observations, to address the predictions. What do we find?
