CPT Q. 048: With which points can you agree in regard to the other Flood models?

Apr 1, 2012 by John Baumgardner · plate tectonics  ·

CPT Q. #48 – 101 Questions and Answers Concerning Catastrophic Plate Tectonics

Q. 48. In the context of the various Flood models being advocated today, please comment on the points with which you as a Flood modeler can agree regarding the other models.

Response

  • Hydroplate Model: In regard to the hydroplate model, I agree with the conclusion that vast amounts of tectonic change accompanied the Flood cataclysm. I agree that major features of the earth’s surface today such at its mountain belts, its canyons and other large-scale erosional features, its fossil-bearing sediment record, the ocean trenches, the mid-ocean ridges, the fracture zones, the volcanic island chains are products of the Flood cataclysm and require of any serious Flood model an adequate explanation. I agree that it is very likely that fountains of water associated with the mid-ocean ridge system were the source of the heavy rainfall of the Flood described in the Genesis text.

  • Vapor canopy model: In regard to the vapor canopy model, I agree that evidence from the fossil record is strong that the pre-Flood climate was dramatically different from that of today. I agree that this evidence suggests strongly there were greenhouse-like conditions pole-to-pole in the pre-Flood world. I also agree that, in terms of the present laws of physics, the amount of liquid water equivalent in a viable vapor canopy appears to be limited to no more than a few feet. I agree that such a small volume of water could have played only a tiny role in the overall hydrodynamics and other geological aspects of the Flood.

  • Solid canopy model: In regard to the solid canopy model, most of the description involves possible physical explanations for how hydrogen and oxygen might have formed a pre-Flood crystalline canopy. Each of these candidate explanations is speculative, so there is little of real substance with which to agree. Each of these candidate explanations seem to imply that the total mass of water in the hypothesized crystalline canopy was small, in most cases, no more than a liquid water equivalent layer a few inches thick. From this I infer that a conversion of a solid crystalline canopy to liquid water would have contributed little to the hydrological aspects of the Flood cataclysm, and with this I agree.

  • Collapse tectonics model: In regard to the collapse tectonics model, I can agree that from the beginning of Creation Week forward, God has used a great deal of genuine physical process to bring the earth to its present state.

  • Impacts / Differential vertical tectonics model: In regard to the impacts/differential vertical tectonics model, I can agree that vertical tectonics played a significant role in the overall tectonics of the Flood, especially in the latter portion of Flood as Flood waters were retreating from the continent interiors. I agree that massive volumes of Flood-deposited sediments, in many areas thicknesses corresponding to many thousands of feet, were stripped away from the continent surfaces by retreating Flood waters. I agree that planation surfaces represent powerful evidence for the runoff stage of the Flood. I agree that the continental shelves, as geomorphologic features, testify eloquently to rapid mass runoff from the Flood, with sediment transport and deposition perpendicular in direction to the coastline. I agree that the uniform depth of the edge of the continental shelves points to the simultaneous end of the Flood for all the continents. I agree that water gaps are powerful evidence for large-scale runoff of water from continent interiors as Flood waters retreated. I agree that the end of the Flood itself must be in the late Cenozoic part of the geological record. I agree with the reality of a post-Flood Ice Age caused primarily by the fact that the oceans were much warmer, pole-to-pole and top-to-bottom at the end of the Flood than they are today.