Lloyd wrote: Frozen Mammoth Questions .... But what could have caused the temperature in the Arctic then to suddenly go below -150 F, the temperature needed to flash freeze them and prevent mammoth stomach contents from beginning to digest or rot? Also, what made the Arctic muck and loess and ice pellets that killed some or most of them? The muck contains a lot of smashed tree and animal parts.
First, two questions:
1) Are Mammoths tropical or arctic animals? 2) Where are the trees that the Mammoths were eating from?
- joe
Lloyd
Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
1. I think the mammoths were tropical to subtropical, so it looks like the land moved north. 2. The conifer and plum trees no longer grow where the land is, but many of the former trees that did grow there before are torn up and mixed into the muck, I think.
Do you have reliable info that the mammoths and other animals must have flash froze to -150 F or lower, as indicated by their cells not having burst? The climate must have changed very suddenly. Right? But was it from sudden arrival of upper atmosphere air over a wide area of the Arctic?
webolife
Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
Good questions!! The mammoths were not mostly killed during the main flood event, but from a rapid climate change and establishment of the "new" global wind system; this due to a cascading collapse of the atmosphere that was initiated by the initial flood starter events, namely the "matar", which spread aerosols around the globe, as well as the volcanic eruptions of ash and water into the atmosphere from the "fountains of the deep". Pre-flood local climate/weather variations would be virtually non existent due to the former low topography and "joined" land mass. By the end of the flood events' 5 months of active global destruction, the continents had broken apart, and boundary ["brake"] mountains had formed, and new volcanic ranges were springing up along them and around the Pacific Rim. The developing global wind was part of the transformation from the former global greenhouse climate in which minimal daily weather would have been experienced. As the continent dried and many exposed areas were not yet covered in soil retaining vegetation, the developing westerlies would have then been responsible for carrying and depositing loess into any basins available, including the plains of northern Asia. These plains would also have been covered by alluvial deposits [muck] from the flooding. I do believe the continents moved north in general, as shown by the "shock dynamics" vectors. The developing polar high pressure system subsequently forced the freezing of these muck deposits into the tundra materials of the current era. Because the climate change was brought on relatively suddenly, when all the conditions were in place, the freeze would have been sudden and deep. Gases [methane] from decaying plant and animal matter would be trapped in the soil, and herd animals would have been frozen in place, as has been demonstrated by the presence of undigested [tropical] vegetation in the GI tracts of some recovered mammoths. My reckoning for the timing of the great freeze would be in the later half of the flood event, beginning at about the 5 month mark, continuing as the "ice age" for a couple or more centuries, and dwindling with the restabilization of the atmosphere to the present day. Surviving mammoth herds continued to migrate across the frozen north to the North American continent, where they were widely hunted for meat by the people who migrated along with them!
Ongoing stabilization [global warming] trends have brought about a rapid release of the methane that had been trapped in the tundra by the sudden freezing. On a side note, the amount of greenhouse outgassing of melting tundra methane far outweighs AGW CO2 effects which are minimal and insignificant by comparison.
nick c
Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
Has anyone read Ginenthal's book? The Extinction of the Mammoth It really is must reading for a catastrophist version of what the evidence really shows. It is over 300 pages devoted to the Mammoth problem.
Lloyd
Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
Book. Nick, I'll see if I can order Ginenthal's book from the library. In the mean time, does it say anything about the Great Flood event and whether the mammoths etc survived it?
Flood. Gordon, do you contend that Arctic animals, including mammoths, did survive the Flood, only then to be largely frozen, except for some that migrated east to North America? If the flood tsuinamis reached over a mile high, it's hard to imagine how the Arctic could have escaped the Flood. Jonathan Gray figured that mammoths were on Noah's ark and after that multiplied quickly in Asia for a couple centuries before suddenly getting frozen to death, which seems less probable.
Arctic Strata. Do you know if the rock strata in Siberia contain fossils? If they don't, I guess that means those strata existed before the Great Flood. Right? If those strata were deposited in the Flood, does it mean the climate was still fairly warm during most of the Flood event, and then the muck was deposited after the climate suddenly turned cold?
Methane & Hail. Do you know much about methane causing cooling? Do you think Walter Brown's Hydroplate theory could also apply? I figure that, if there was water trapped under the supercontinent from when it broke off the Moon or another planet long before the Flood, that water may have been located under what is now the Arctic Ocean, and when the continents split apart, much of the trapped water under great pressure could have sprayed high into the upper atmosphere, like Brown thought, and then came down as very small pellets of hail, having the temperature of the upper atmosphere. That would account for the rock ice found encasing mammoths and for the flash freezing of their bodies maybe. I suppose the animals may have been drenched with pouring rain at first, which would have greatly reduced the insulating quality of their hair or fur, so when the rain suddenly turned to hail, they were more prone to flash freezing.
Blender. But there'd still be the question of what tore up so many Arctic trees, plants and animals and mixed them with loess to form the widespread frozen muck. (Later I hope to bring up height of tsunamis, cavitation, and whether all the animals and plants that fossilized could have been alive at the same time.)
webolife
Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
I stand by the biblical record and agree with J Gray's timeline generally. The tundra muck would have been deposited by the flood warm and mucky and would have been generating methane in that decaying state. Methane is a major contributor to global warming... there is no reason to believe it was a factor in the cooling of the tundra. Some of the strata below the mucky tundra have fossil fish... the area is a multiple exposure of strata from various levels of the geologic column, as are the strata of pretty much anywhere else in the world. One of the famous recent fossil finds of the far north is the "tiktaalik" of Ellesmere Island, a "shallow water" fish with bony pectoral fins. I general, I believe that all fossils are of organisms that were contemporaneous, at least within a few generations. There is the biggest slap in the face to macro-evolution that can ever be delivered.
LunarSabbathTruth
Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
webolife wrote: I stand by the biblical record and agree with J Gray's timeline generally. The tundra muck would have been deposited by the flood warm and mucky and would have been generating methane in that decaying state. Methane is a major contributor to global warming... there is no reason to believe it was a factor in the cooling of the tundra. Some of the strata below the mucky tundra have fossil fish... the area is a multiple exposure of strata from various levels of the geologic column, as are the strata of pretty much anywhere else in the world. One of the famous recent fossil finds of the far north is the "tiktaalik" of Ellesmere Island, a "shallow water" fish with bony pectoral fins. I general, I believe that all fossils are of organisms that were contemporaneous, at least within a few generations. There is the biggest slap in the face to macro-evolution that can ever be delivered.
"I stand by the biblical record ..."
The problem is that Bible talks about many catastrophes, not just the Great Flood, but most Biblical Catastrophists only acknowledge the Flood, and try to fit the entire geologic column into that one event.
These other catastrophes are documented by Velikovsky - "Joshua's Long Day", etc.
Most of the evidence that we see today is not due to the Flood, but to these other, more recent events.
- joe
johnm33
Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
Lots of food for thought above, so my 2c The mammoth extinction/flood event, I think the most likely scenario is a world were the northern hemisphere had a single 'Hadley' cell a warm arctic ocean and a more or less permanent spring climate on siberias northern shores. The topography would have been very different to todays, more later. Whatever caused the Earth to slow/stand still lifted the oceans out of their beds and they flowed east and north, accellerating as they went, due to the difference in speed of the earths surface at different lattitudes. Whatever wasn't bowled over by the decelleration was washed away by the flood. The slowdown/stoppage caused rapid heating at an atomic level the rivers grew hot enough to scald but also all layers of strata grew hot too, lets say river temps rose to 50c?, so the lower the specific heat capacity [=more metallic http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/speci ... d_391.html] of any given rock the hotter it would get, plus the closer to the equator [further from the axis of rotation=higher speed] the more pronounced the effect. The torrents flowing north [I'm sticking to the northern hemisphere only] would not get warmer since they have not had to shed their momentum. All the worlds oceans would rapidly end up closer to the poles, and would begin to spread over the lowlands adjacent. Any mammoths caught up in this would start to swim south, with the flow. Then the earth begins to spin again and it accelerates the water south but not all in the same direction it came from, sure it flows from the north-east but spreads and fills eurasia/ north america and gets trapped by mountains and chasms which check it's southern flow. This water never warmed when it flowed north but now trapped and caught up in the spin acceleration it drops in temperature very rapidly, instantly laying down vast areas of permafrost underlied by massive salt deposits, any creatures caught up in it instantly freezes too. Leaving behind a landscape of frozen tsunamis and ushering in an era of an ice covered northen ocean and with a great differential between the pole and equator temps. a 3 cell atmospheric [hadley/ferrel/polar] system. I'm no expert but this scenario is my current model.
Lloyd
Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
John, I'll try to check out your model or links later in more detail.
That article answers almost all of my questions, except for the problem of why the frozen animals' cells didn't burst. I don't know how certain it is that their cells didn't burst, but supposedly when animals' bodies freeze normally, their cells do burst. And it's only by flash freezing them to extremely cold temperatures that can prevent the cells from bursting. And besides unburst cells, there's said to be other evidence of flash freezing, namely the claims that streams were found in Siberia I think with fish frozen in them in medium level depths and, more importantly, one stream with cattle swimming in it with their heads above the ice and their bodies in swimming position.
Oard's Solution The article has a novel but very plausible solution. It agrees that the Arctic animals migrated to the Arctic after the Great Flood. The Arctic Ocean remained warm for a few centuries and the land area around it was also warm in winter and summer, I guess kind of like around the Mediterranean Sea. Glaciation started in eastern Canada and Greenland and gradually spread to central Canada and the Arctic. Many of the animals got trapped there around the Arctic Ocean. Wind-blown loess and ice killed them and buried them, some while still standing or kneeling. Dust storms apparently can bury large objects sometimes. I just found an update of Oard's paper here: https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_74-79.pdf.
Remaining Doubts I'm still not completely satisfied, as there still seems to be a strong possibility that the freezing was extremely sudden and bitter, below -150 F, and it seems questionable that the Arctic could provide enough vegetation in the winters for so many animals, and at least some of the animals in eastern Siberia were hit by shrapnel from meteor air bursts. A bison that was hit by micrometeorites appeared to continue living after being hit, since the bone started to grow back over the punctures.
LunarSabbathTruth, I agree with you on the relevance of numerous biblical catastrophes: the raising of the land in Day 2, the placement of the Moon and sun relative to Earth observers in Day 4, numerous other creation events of Genesis 1, Exodus related plagues over Egypt, Joshua's long day, Hezekiah's "extra time", etc; but in general, the strata must be related to the flood event if the flood was global as recorded (I hold this view), with the attendant continental deformations related to drift and mountain-buildiing. Old Earth Creationists of course disagree with this, twisting the Genesis 1 days into epochs, adding eons of gaps, requiring a local flood in the Persian/Indus region, etc. The flood itself was not a single overwashing but several as recorded in Genesis 6-7, but I see these as related to a single encounter with a passing planetary/cometary object.
LunarSabbathTruth
Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
webolife wrote: ....but in general, the strata must be related to the flood event if the flood was global as recorded (I hold this view), with the attendant continental deformations related to drift and mountain-buildiing.....
The lowest strata would be from the Great Flood, but not everything. The lowest layers are all pulverized.
Most YEC Flood models assume that the fossils were all formed during that event, but they do not have a good model for fossil formation.
The Bible itself gives an example of instant fossilization: Lot's wife during the destruction of Sodom. Have you investigated the relationship of high-energy electrical disturbances to the formation of fossils? Peter Mungo Jupp has a good introduction to this.
Also, the Bible gives a model of mountain formation being witnessed by multiple people, as the Psalms refer to it as an event people were familiar with.
- joe
Lloyd
Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
Gordon, the "sun and moon" on Day 4 in Genesis refers to Saturn and the Sun. Doesn't it? The ancients called Saturn the first sun etc. El was Saturn.
Joe, see my comments below on #4 after the listing.
The Site's Main Points from "When did it happen?" ... major phase of uplift in the Pliocene-Pleistocene occurred over a short time primarily due to compression by Shock Dynamics ca. 9,500 B.C. 1. Before the Flood, Earth's atmosphere was dense, so many creatures grew to gigantic sizes 2. Dinosaurs occupied most of the protocontinent while people and other animals lived in Mesopotamia or East Antarctica 4. There was much sand and mud around the edges of the protocontinent and East Antarctica 3. Then a long swarm of meteorites of all sizes struck the Moon and Earth for forty days, causing rain and loss of much atmosphere 5. During the Flood tsunamis deposited sediment from the continental shelf onto the protocontinent 6. As atmospheric pressure fell much calcium carbonate precipitated from the sea water, forming thick sedimentary rock with fossils 7. "Paleozoic" creatures living near sea shores were buried first. 8. "Mesozoic" creatures that could escape inland were buried second. 10. Survivors of the Flood landed in Mesopotamia and spread out on the flat protocontinent 11. There were only 360 days in a year before the Flood. 9. After the Flood the Chicxulub meteorite hit Mexico, spreading iridium and shocked quartz over the protocontinent 12. A giant meteorite impact north of what is now Madagascar divided the protocontinent into the continents and islands 13. It raised all the mountain chains, and initiated global volcanism 14. "Cenozoic" large mammals & others were buried and fossilized 15. Much of the continental crust moved away from the equator and toward the poles 16. Atmospheric moisture and volcanic and impact dust led to cooling and extensive rain and snow fall, glaciation 17. Civilization was rebuilt such as along the newly formed Nile River 18. Meteor impacts produced the dust on the Moon
My Comments I found Chapman's Glacial Cataclysm at: http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/31204066/glacial-cataclysm-chapmanresearch. Do you know if that's the same? It seemed like it was attributing a lot of evidence for glaciation to the Great Flood or something. Why do you suggest that the cataclysms occurred 11,500 BP and earlier? It seems that the Flood occurred almost 4,400 BP.
In listing your points, I rearranged a couple of items. I put 4 before 3 because 4 refers to the supercontinent situation before 3's meteor swarm arrived. And I put 9 after 10 and 11, because Chixulub occurred after the Great Flood in your model.
1. Regarding #1, it may be worthwhile to explain that a dense atmosphere would have made dinosaurs and other megafauna much more buoyant, so their muscles would have been strong enough to move them around, and pterodachtyls would have been able to stand on their pencil-thin legs. 2. Human footprints and fossils in dinosaur strata in the U.S. Southwest seem to indicate that humans lived among dinosaurs to some extent. 4. I think shale makes up over 50% of sedimentary strata, sandstone 25% and limestone the rest. According to Noah's Flood: The Key to Correct Interpretation of Earth History (by Baumgardner & others) at http://www.socalsem.edu/2015/08/09/noahs-flood-the-key-to-correct-interpretation-of-earth-history/ tsunamis 2,500 m high caused by tidal pulses could have produced enough cavitation along continental margins to produce all of the sediments needed. It suggests that the 5 megasequences of rock strata could have been deposited during monthly tidal pulses between the 6 unconformities bordering the megasequences. Snelling, on the other hand, seems to agree with your idea of sand and mud coming up from the seafloor via smaller tsunamis, I guess. But I presume both processes would have been involved. 3. Gordon says the Hebrew word, "matar", probably meant "meteors" and they occurred during the entire 5 months of the Great Flood. This reminded me of the part of the Saturn Theory that says Earth was a satellite of Saturn and it drifted away from Saturn and then crossed the Asteroid belt before arriving at its present orbit. I thought maybe the 5 month meteor bombardment may have occurred when Earth crossed the Asteroid belt. I thought that might be when the Ice Age occurred, when Earth moved from the Asteroid belt to within the orbit of Mars. Before that its atmosphere may have been thick enough to prevent much cooling. However, it looks like the Ice Age had to occur some time after the Great Flood, as you say. There seems to be something to the Saturn Theory, because the ancients said Saturn was the god at the north pole, the pole star, and that Saturn was the first Sun etc. 5. seems probable re sedimentation; plus my comments on #4. 6. seems probable re lime from seawater; I didn't know that, but Gordon may have been aware of that. 7&8. seem probable re sequence of "Paleozoic" & "Mesozoic" creatures' burials. 10. seems possible re Survivors landing in Mesopotamia. Saturn Theory says a lot of phenomena in ancient myths were celestial events, rather than terrestrial. There were plasma phenomena seen in the sky that looked like people and animals etc. So it's hard to tell if Noah's ark was celestial or also terrestrial. 11. seems possible re 360 days in a year before the Flood. That doesn't seem important as yet, but it could be. 9. seems possible re Chicxulub meteorite hitting after the Flood. I'd like to know more of your evidence for that. 12. seems very probable re SD impact and rapid continental drift. Maybe you need a video to address the issue of why the popular Creationist theory of rapid CD is inferior to the SD model. I guess you might have to suppress your idea of the Great Flood occurring before 11,500 BP in order to get Creationists to consider your model. 13. seems probable re SD causing mountain uplift and volcanism, but I thought that all occurred during the Great Flood, because the sediments would have been soft, so the strata could fold without breaking, as seen in many mountain strata. If the mountain uplift happened long after the Great Flood, would the strata still have been soft? Or do you think the strata were softened by heating during the SD event? If so, do you have much evidence for that? I bet Gordon would know something about that. 14. seems plausible re "Cenozoic" animals fossilized during the SD event in crumbly strata. 15. seems probable re SD pushing some continents toward the poles. 16. seems probable re evaporation & glaciation. Gordon says secondary erosion and sedimentation occurred after mountain uplift. 17. seems probable re civilization rebuilding along the Nile etc, but much later, i.e. ca. 4,300 BP. 18. seems probable re meteor impacts making the dust on the Moon.
Regarding Ice Age Mammals I think you should briefly explain how you differ from Oard. He seems to say that the Arctic Ocean kept the nearby surrounding land warm for a few centuries, during which the animals got trapped there as the climate gradually got colder, whereas you seem to say that all of the lands were warmer until the SD event, which moved some of the land north into freezing conditions, and the animals succumbed right away instead of gradually.
You said, "If we use the elephant life-cycle as a model, a 13 year doubling rate (starting with 2 mammoths) would produce a population at least as large as that which was buried." Did you show the figures anywhere? I think it's worth showing them. 300 years / 13 years/generation = 23 generations. 2^23 > 8 million.
Regarding Tektites You call it the largest strewnfield (covering the Indian Ocean to Australia), but doesn't that refer to the present size of it? When the tektites fell (before India, Southeast Asia, Australia etc moved away from Africa), the field would have been much smaller. Shouldn't you mention that?
The Mechanism of Impacts Here are some of Charles' discussions on impacts etc: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-5079-9454-10997-12982-10607-10753-10962. He says impacts are usually thermonuclear explosions. He did do a paper on meteoric air bursts at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-5653-5660-6031-6199-7662. He and Gordon consider 26 hours way too short a time for the continents to have moved to near their present locations. What convinced you that the continents took only 26 hours to complete their journeys, instead of a longer period of time? It makes sense to me because of the great reduction in friction that you explain. Actually, there may have been even less friction, since the Moho layer is likely plasma, so the movements would have been like maglev with the continents levitating on the Moho. One of Charles' papers explains why the Moho is likely plasma, only about a meter thick.
Your model says the Shock Dynamics meteor came in at about a 30 degree angle (going from west to east over Africa and landing north of Madagascar). Normally, one would think that the momentum would be transferred only in the forward direction to the pieces that became India, southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand. But Charles' model explains why the momentum would be transferred in all horizontal directions. It's because the impact produced a thermonuclear explosion. He explains that all that's needed for such an explosion is extreme heat and extreme pressure, both of which a fast moving meteor provides. So I think readers may be able to understand that better (momentum transferred west toward Africa and the Americas as well as to the north and east) if it's compared to throwing a hand grenade or other kind of bomb.
Supercontinent Breakup I think it would help if your model could explain why the Americas broke away from Africa and Europe, instead of at least Africa moving westward as well. I think Gordon suspects that a tidal force from another large body weakened the supercontinent along that rift line. Charles thinks the supercontinent was possibly torn off of the Moon long ago, because of the similarity in rock composition between the supercontinent and the Moon. So I thought maybe ocean water may have gotten trapped under the supercontinent, which could have weakened the crust in a way similar to Walter Brown's Hydroplate model. I admit, however, that it doesn't seem probable that much water should have gotten trapped, since a ball shape meeting another ball shape should move almost all fluids to the side. Eurasia didn't break apart, so why did Africa and the Americas? What would most likely have weakened the crust there between them?
webolife
Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
So many viewpoints... so many questions... here some general responses:
I'm still not enamored with the Saturn hypothesis [too many claims without hard evidence], so I chum with a moon-earth encounter/capture event. Of the planetary orbits, both Earth and Saturn have among the most circular [ie. least elliptical]. I just don't see how this could be possible from a Saturn capture and attendant Earth release event...
The given biblical timeline for the "matar" is 150 days, 40 days for the steady downpour "geshen" of rain. The intermittent "geshen" is also said to have stopped after 150 days, but then we see the rainbow event after the end of the flood, and the establishment of the weather-based seasons ongoing to today.
I think SD has good points regarding the Madagascar origin of the impact event initiating drift. Beyond that I have difficulty accepting the friction-free mechanism of the SD.
I think timelining the evidences for the catastrophe must be tentative tentative [due to the geologically rapid [and recent] nature of the cataclysm, the un-usefulness of the "geologic column" model, and the weakness of standard relative and absolute dating methodologies], so I hold generally to the plain direct [albeit non-specific] sequence of Genesis 6-8.
I generally hold that the main post-Precambrian strata came from the flood, glacial till and related outwash from glacial retreat came up to a couple centuries later, and that major erosional features throughout the earth [eg. Grand Canyon] happened while sedimentary formations were still not fully cemented.
Subsequently, Gen.10 mentions the "dividing of the land" during the generation of Peleg [whose name means "division"], a completely different phrasing than the separating/dispersing/migrating of the tribal/nation groups being described there. I take this land division to represent some final continental rifting/movement witnessed by migrating groups a couple centuries [based on given genealogical and age info] after the disembarkment from the flood and a few decades after the dispersion from Babel. While this is possibly referring to seismic rifting, I suspect it may also have to do with rising sea level due to melting of the [post flood era] continental glaciation, which could have given some coastal dwellers the sense that shores were moving apart from each other.
Other considerations regarding significantly increasing gravity or mass of the earth, and the expanding earth scenario of Neil Adams are fascinating and would greatly support my overall view of earth history... I simply find there to be a lack of hard evidence, making it difficult for me to promote these hypotheses.
moses
Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
The 40 days of rain thing suggests a very elliptical orbit for Earth. As Earth neared the Sun with the North pole pointing in the Sun's direction then there would have been enormous evaporation and hence a lot of continuous rain but also an enormous deposition of snow in Antarctica. Provided one can see the Earth not in it's present orbit in the past then a very elliptical orbit explains so much that it is irresistible to me.
The geological column indicates deposition followed by a considerable time of creature evolution followed by deposition ... repeated a few times. This is a real challenge to provide orbits that could produce such a repeated effect. But I'm pretty certain that it did not happen whilst Earth was in it's present orbit. Which indicates the high likelihood that Earth was in a very elliptical orbit at some time in the past, so one needs to seriously consider the effects of such an orbit.
I'm easy on a lot of theories but the expanding Earth since Cambrian times does not thrill me at all. Cheers, Mo
