The Flood: Grandeur of Geology

Good morning to you all. There's a couple people awake. It's amazing you're all here at this time of morning on a Saturday. I appreciate that. Thank you for the opportunity of being able to speak to you. And last night I talked about some biology a little bit. It's really excerpts from a biology course from 42 hours of that kind of thing is what you got last night. Today I want to focus on a different topic which has to do with geology. with the nature of the earth itself. The focus of my biology talk is to give us perhaps a little bit of an insight into who God is, because he created the universe in such a way, it says in Romans chapter 1, to show or illustrate his invisible attributes. So that's what I focused on last night. What I want to do today is to, we're going to see a little bit of his character in the flood, because we see in the flood his judgment, but also what I want to do with this is give you two things, a little bit of insight into the biblical account, so some insight into the history of the earth, and more so an example of what happens if you assume the Bible to be true and develop scientific theories on the basis of that, the increased success of the theories that result. And so that's what I want to talk about today. So, first of all, dealing, starting with our best guest this week about what the nature of the earth was just before the flood, setting the stage for it. We kind of suspect that the continents were arranged, the known continents, the continents we have today, are arranged in this sort of pattern. It is not, in case you're up on that kind of thing, this is not Pangea. This is not the unified continents at all. The continents are somewhat together. But this is called Rodinia. It's a supercontinent that pre-existed Pangea. This continent would break up, smash together again in a different form that we know of as Pangaea. And it is different from anything you would imagine in the present. You can't read these things, but here is part of Africa, Antarctica, India, Australia, China, You've got Laurentia, which is North America, Amazonia, central port, northern central portion of South America, Siberia over here. I mean, it's just a mess. The pieces of things on the present Earth are put together in a very strange manner. My suspicion is there's another continent on the, this is all ocean from here, back to here again, which is a significant part of the earth. My suspicion again this week is that there's another continent actually on the other side of the earth that we cannot see from this perspective and it was completely destroyed in the flood and that's probably the continent where humans live, but that's a different story. We don't have time to talk about that. This was a world with a unique set of environments and communities designed by God for this world rather than the present world that we have. I have postulated, for example, that the This earth had, fringing the continents by the way, this dark area, would be the part that's above water. This is the only real continent. Everything else that you see in this somewhat light blue or within these boundaries is shallow marine areas. So relatively little above water. And off that continent, I believe there was a large reef of stromatolites. We need to bring that down so you can see that. And I somehow ended up higher than, is it just that? Okay, I think though, I probably got stuff at the bottom. So I got a little bit more of it anyway. We'll see as we go along here. Yeah, I can just. This is about the equal amount either way. In this shallow marine area, a unique set of communities of organisms that are largely unknown in the present. They're obliterated in the flood and did not recover following the flood. There's a group of organisms we know from the fossil record known as the diachron organisms, which would make a community looking something like this. The dinosaur gymnosperm community was on the land. The mammal and human community, I suspect, was on the continent on the other side of the Earth. And also, I've postulated a floating forest, something the size of another... comparable to the size of our larger continents in the present. floating on the ocean. A luxurious forest, also known in secular world as the coal forests, in fact grew on top of the ocean before the flood. This is the world that was as it was right up until the flood. And the flood itself, and that's another talk about how I inferred that stuff and so on. But the flood itself, God spoke unto Noah, I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall there be any more a flood to destroy the earth. He promised after the flood that never again would he do this. So we can infer, first of all, that this flood was something that never occurred again. It was never repeated and the rainbow was a certification of that covenant. sign of that covenant and we deduce also the text is very precise about the beginning and the end of the flood in the 600th year of Noah's life in the second month and the 17th day of the month if the all the fountains of the great deep broke and the windows of heaven were opened the beginning of the flood Then we read that in the 601st year, in the second month, in the 27th day of the month, all of the windows of heaven were stopped, the fountains of the great deep were plugged up, and the rain was restrained. The end of the flood. So you can see, it's very easy to see that the flood is one year and ten days long. It is not like any flood that came after, which of course is what the promise was. It also says that during the flood all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered, the mountains were covered. The flood account is very clear, very explicit and repetitive of the fact that it is global. All the high hills, that seems to be enough. But no, it's all the high hills under the whole heaven, in case there is any ambiguity. This is a flood that in fact inundated the entire planet. It is global. It is not universal. Universal means it just is big enough to kill. Everybody's supposed to kill. It is global. It is covering the entire planet. And there's no other way to understand the text than that. Also, it says, all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl and of cattle and of beasts and of every creeping thing. Again, it does seem like all flesh died should take care of it. But no, it is very explicit. It repeats itself because The author knows that people are going to challenge this at some point. And so it's very clear you can't interpret it any other way. All flesh died. Birds, cattle, beasts of every creeping thing, that's the insects too, that creepeth upon the earth. Every man, all in whose, as if twice wasn't enough, all in whose nostrils the breath was the breath of life. As if that wasn't enough, a fourth time of all that was in the dry land died. And if four wasn't enough, five. And every living substance was destroyed. I think the author is getting a point across here. It is global and it killed every land organism on the planet except for those that were on the ark. That's the next phrase there. The only ones were those that were on the ark that survived from the land. Now those on the water fended for themselves, but all the land animals were destroyed. Also we're told, again going back to that verse again, the 600th day of Noah's life in the second month in the 17th day, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up and the windows of heaven were opened. And at the end of it, we have the fountains of the great deep were stopped and the rain from heaven was restrained. The flood involves something called the fountains of the great deep. It involves something called the windows of heaven. And neither one of those things are rain. There's a distinction made between the fountains of the great deep The windows of heaven, secondly, and rain, which is a third phenomenon. Rain is evaporation of water, condensation of water, and a cyclicity cycle of that nature. Whatever was mainly responsible for the flood was not rain. It was not evaporation of water and then the condensation. It was something else. These fountains of the great deep, which existed before the flood, it says, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up. And the Hebrew there, the word fountains in Hebrew is, we don't have an equivalent word in English, thus the translation as it was, It's always hard to choose words to translate from one language to another. And this is an example. The word actually refers to an orifice through which water flows. So a spring would be water coming up through a hole. And the word refers to the rock that makes the hole through which the waters come. It's the rock that was the opening through which springs across the world came that was broken. This is a breaking of the land to open up these sources of springs to allow more water to come through. So there's water from below in the form of the fountains of the great deep. And then the windows of heaven are another phrase. There's water coming from above that is, again, not rain. something different. Now, with that information behind us, it's the biblical information that is most relevant for our discussion. When we turn to geology, we find some curious things about the rocks of the earth. Here's one of my favorites from paleontology, my field is the study of fossils. If you look at the Cambrian rocks of the world, Cambrian would refer to one particular layer of rock in the world, we find trilobite fossils, trilobites are cool fossils, I like them, and there's some trilobite fossils found in North America that are characteristic of Cambrian trilobite faunas throughout North America. At the same time, in Cambrian rocks of Eurasia and Africa, you find a different set of trilobites. Again, trilobites, but they're different species, unique to that particular area at the same time. And then, there are these funny places along the eastern United States, for example, Nahant, Massachusetts. That's sort of an island just offshore in Massachusetts. If you go out there and look at the trilobites, you realize, wait a minute, the trilobites are European trilobite fauna. If you go onto the land there at Nahant and look at the fossils that are on the land, not very many miles away, they are the North American fossils. There are places in easternmost North America where we have the European fossils. And there are places in westernmost Europe where we find the North American trilobite fossils. And in between, in the ocean in between, we find no Cambrian fossils at all. We find no Cambrian rocks at all. It's just completely, there's nothing there for the trilobites. This suggests, just this evidence alone, suggests that at the time the Cambrian trilobites were deposited, buried, North America was separate from Europe and Asia, Europe and Africa, so that you could end up with different trilobites in those different areas. But between that time and now, these two things apparently came together and then separated again along a slightly different line than they came together, leaving pieces of Europe on North America, leaving pieces of North America on Europe. So this is one of many evidences that the continents have moved in the past. And they moved a lot. They moved hundreds of miles in this process. And in particular, in the North Atlantic, they have actually moved in two directions. Moved together and apart. Then there's the other evidence on the earth that this crust of the earth is composed of plates. Now all I've done here, this is the outline, these are the outlines of course of the continents that you would be familiar with. Australia, South America, North America, Asia, Africa. If I superimpose upon that earthquakes, take a year's worth of earthquakes, which you can do yourself by the way, you can go to the National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration website and you can download all the earthquakes that occurred in a year or a month or whatever and put them on a map and this is what you get. There's a lot of them. It's thousands and thousands of earthquakes. Notice, though, that they're not uniformly distributed across the planet. They're focused in certain areas, certain lines, and based on this and other evidence, we'd suggest that the Earth's crust is broken up into pieces. Crustal plates that move around floating on the mantle Interacting with other plates and it's the edge of the plates where plates grind up against one another and you get faults Earthquakes occur at those so if I back up again, this is the earthquakes we then infer from this where the crust Crustal plates are there's about a dozen of them on the surface of the earth and to combine that evidence of these continents have moved with respect to one another with the fact that the continents are sitting in plates. These plates have apparently moved on the surface of the earth in the past. And that has led to an astonishing an astonishingly successful theory called plate tectonics in the 1960s. My professors were graduate students at the time this was accepted, which in the US, the US is the latest, the last country to accept plate tectonics by decades. They resisted for a long time until a paper came out in 1964, making a prediction that if plate tectonics was true, it made a prediction about the seafloor. Within a very short period of time, the entire geologic community accepted the theory. My professor said they were in graduate school, that if they entered graduate school or if they left graduate school at that time before 1964, claiming they believed in plate tectonics, they wouldn't be able to get a job. If they claim they didn't believe in plate tectonics following 1964, they wouldn't get a job. So it was a huge change in geology in the U.S. The problem in the U.S. were the Rocky Mountains, which were very difficult to explain in plate tectonics. The rest of the world, Japan and everything else, had accepted it long before that because it explains 98% of the geology of the world, so beautifully, so elegantly, that other people had already accepted it. The idea is that the mantle of the Earth is circulating, and the crustal plates then get carried along in that circulation. They get moved, so a continent gets moved across until it crashes into another continent. The stuff that pulled it over gets pulled into the center of the Earth. And it turns out plate tectonics explains an awful lot of scripture, a lot of data. But it doesn't fit scripture. It's very slow. The process of plate tectonics is thought to occur centimeters per year. It takes hundreds of millions of years to move the continents the necessary distance that we infer from the data. So it just does not fit the chronology of scripture. The response of us as creationists was then, okay, take the data of scripture as our starting point, where we have a short chronology of the earth, it's only thousands of years, not millions, but when we turn to the creation we have evidence that the continents moved. So perhaps we can create a theory that uses the plate tectonics theory, more or less accelerates it, Ultimately, we did. We took the plate tectonics theory and accelerated it three billion times, and we moved the continents very rapidly, and determined whether that, in fact, can explain both the data of Scripture and the data of the physical world. It turns out that someone else had that idea long before we did. Anthony Snyder was a person in the United States trying to get his idea published. He couldn't find a publisher in the United States. 1859 is a bad year for creationists. That's the year of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. And so ultimately he could only find a publisher in France. So he published his La Création et ses Mystères des Voliers, or The Creation and Its Unveiled Mysteries. And his proposal was that before the flood, all the continents were stuck together. South America stuck up against Africa. And that during the flood, the continents moved apart to their present locations. And so he suggested that continents move very rapidly. This was long before plate tectonics ideas came into being. In fact, the first suggestion of modern continental motion was 1916, so it would be 57 years after Snyder's publication. So, several of us creationists got together to put this information together, the data from scripture and the data from the physical world, Three physicists and three geologists. John Baumgardner is basically studying the mantle of the Earth. Russ Humphreys is, for our purposes in this, he's studying the core of the Earth. Larry Vardaman, atmospheric physicist working in the atmosphere of the Earth. You add a bunch of physicists, you don't have reality. So we need to pull the physicists in out of the clouds, out of the theoretical clouds. And so we need some geologists to connect these ideas to reality, to real rocks. And so Steve Austin works on soft rocks, the sedimentary rocks. Andrew Stelling works on the hard rocks. And I work on the critters. There's a lot of things that are possible with hard rocks, with high temperature rocks that just blow away all the fossils. I was continually saying, wait a minute, I can't do that. You're going to boil all the fossils away or whatever. This is the entire team that was really needed to develop this particular hypothesis. Part of the core of the hypothesis is the work by John Baumgardner, who created a model of the motion in the mantle of the Earth. We're looking at the Earth, cut into the Earth. I said that plate tectonics is driven by circulation in the mantle, so that's the key to driving these plates. We didn't have, before his work, The only modeling that people had done of plate tectonics was two-dimensional modeling. that's what they could handle with their computers. What John did was he made those two-dimensional models into three-dimensional models. He could model the entire mantle of the earth by dividing it into little boxes and in each one of the little boxes he could solve several simple differential equations. These really are simple. Why do people always laugh at that? I don't understand. They're basically, they're things like the amount of, it really is simple. The amount of stuff coming into a box has to equal the amount of stuff that goes out of the box. The rotation that's given to the box has to equal the counter rotation that's in other boxes and so on and so forth. I mean, there's very, very simple physics involved here. Which would be okay, except that he divided his initial division, he divided this up into 110,000 boxes. And you've got to solve these simple equations in 110,000 boxes simultaneously, or very close to simultaneously. And just humans couldn't do that. At least within human lifetimes, but as as computers were developed especially supercomputers, and he started with craze Early in the 80s when he was doing this he could get the computer to go fast enough to solve these things and and simulate He'd have to do this every Every time unit like every few minutes and try to simulate as much time as he could now it turns out that The complexity of this thing, it eventually isn't able to continue the calculations indefinitely. The thing kind of explodes in complexity. And so he's never able to model more than 60 days of time. So ultimately he's modeling, and this isn't reality, this is a computer model simulating the nature of the earth at the time of the flood, but it's only modeling at best 60 days of time. Now a bunch of time has elapsed since the 80s when he did this. He's improved the model. Computers have been improved. Computers have been significantly improved. But as is typical of people that develop software for computers, They develop software faster than the computers grow in power. And so he still crashes the computers in 30 minutes and can't solve more than 60 days of time. So we have never been able... and he's even using the largest computers in the world. You think that it used to be that computers took up a room and they don't do that anymore. Yes, they do. There are super computers, super, super computers like this one in in Japan that he has used and he crashes the world's most powerful computers in 30 minutes. But what he has done in days of simulation, this is days into his simulation, he started with an earth in the Pangea configuration, all the continents stuck together the way Anthony Snyder thought that they were connected together and then he runs his simulation to see what happens. The first thing you need to do when you do a simulation is before you can make predictions or do something cool, you've got to make sure it does what it's supposed to do on what you already know. And we already knew what direction the continents moved from Pangaea. So the first test of his hypothesis is to see that his continents move in the right direction. First of all, that they do move. And in fact, they do. This is 15 days into the simulation. He's already got a separation between, this is Africa here, North America here. You probably cannot see all the different things here. There's a dark outline for North America and there's a light outline for North America. The present position of North America is over here. The original position is here. The original position of South America is here. The final position of South America is here. Africa is pretty much in the same position. This is the initial position of Antarctica. Final position is down here. This is the initial position of Australia. Final position is over here. This is the initial position of India. Final position is up here. So we know that the continents moved in the directions from where they started to where they are now. So the first question is whether his model moves them in the right direction. And they do. These little arrows, which you again probably can't see from your disc, shows us the direction of motion of the respective continents. North America is moving this way. Directly in the direction of the present position of North America. Antarctica is moving straight south. Good sign. Australia is moving in the direction towards its present location. India is moving in the correct direction. Asia is swinging down as it's supposed to. The only one that's a little odd is South America. South America is moving almost straight south. and not towards its present location. But we know from geology that the last motion of South America is straight north. So it changed direction at one point, and so we know that actually the direction indicated here is exactly what we see from geology. In fact, that little kink makes it even more exciting, because this is a weird thing that South America does, and this model starts it in the correct direction. So that suggests that his model corresponds with reality fairly well and very excitingly. After 25 days, it's significantly separated. We've already got hundreds of miles of separation. It turns out in his model that the plates move at meters per second. Again, three billion times faster than the present plates move. Okay, now another verification of the model is what happens inside the Earth. I showed plate tectonics illustration that the crust on the surface dives into the mantle. As it does so, it goes underneath the continent. The crust from the ocean goes underneath the continent. In the present world, we've developed methods of seeing those plates in the center of the earth as they're hanging down, as they're falling down towards the center of the earth. So at about 700 kilometers beneath the surface, There is a plate, indicated in blue, this is North America, South America, 700 kilometers beneath the surface there's a plate diving into the mandel, going straight down here. This was crust over here in the Pacific that is diving underneath North America and is at this depth. at or this position at 700 kilometers beneath the surface. That's what we know is true of the present. Baumgardner's prediction about where that crust would be geographically at 700 kilometers depth is right here. Notice the incredible similarity. So not just the surface motion is correct, but the present deep orientation of the crusts are correct. So this is very exciting. What was most exciting, though, is where you depart from what we knew at the time and start making predictions. If his model is correct, then there should be some other things that are true. One thing that was very surprising right away was his model predicts mantle-wide subduction. When I was in school, I was taught that plate tectonics involved only the circulation of the upper mantle, the upper 670 kilometers of the mantle. The reason for that is quite apparent because the current plates, as they dive down into the mantle, if they're hanging down only about 100 kilometers, the earthquakes inside the plate indicate the plate's being stretched, as if it's being pulled into the earth. And that's true as long as it's hanging 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 kilometers, it's still being stretched. But there are a few plates that reach down to 670 kilometers, and those that hit that boundary have earthquakes that indicate they're being compressed. It's like they're hitting a wall. They can't go any deeper than that. And we also know from experiments on the surface of the earth that the pressures of 670 kilometers of rock above you would produce are such as to change the crystal of olivine into a different form that is denser. Thus what's happened is as you go down in the earth you increase in density at the 670 mark and apparently that density won't let plates go below it. So it was obvious then to everyone that the circulation must stay above that 670, and you can't get through that. But John Baumgartner's simulation, actually the plates are moving fast enough that they actually puncture through the 670 barrier and go all the way to the core mantle boundary, so that the circulation goes 4,000 kilometers into the earth rather than 670. That's a radical departure from the prediction of any slow plate tectonics model. Putting it more straightforwardly, if the plates go slow, they can't go through that boundary. If, however, the plates move quickly, they go right through the boundary without hardly a hesitation in that process. It really then becomes a test of whether the plates move slowly, as the conventional model would say, or quickly, if we could demonstrate that the circulation did go all the way to the core mantle boundary, such as John Baumgardner predicted. So he predicts that, he makes that claim in the early 80s, but we didn't have the technology in the 80s to test it. We couldn't see inside the earth that well. We started to take sonograms of the earth, like you would take a sonogram of a pregnant woman to see the child. We use earthquake waves as our sonogram and we reconstruct the pictures of the inside of the earth. But we didn't have the technology in the 80s to see inside the earth that well. That was began to be developed something called seismic tomography, where we took information from all the seismometers, or at least a large number of them in the world, connected them to one computer, so that we could create those images. And as we use more and more earthquakes, we got better and better images of the earth, and we could see deeper and deeper into the earth. And it was very exciting. Initially, they were seeing these plates dropping down 100 kilometers, 200 kilometers. And it was really cool to see things that we had only seen by earthquakes before, the actual position of earthquakes. Now we could actually see the plates. And there was rejoicing and celebration as we got deeper and deeper. And we got to the 670. Everyone's expecting that that's going to be the end of it. There's going to be no plates down below 670. But alas, the plates go right on through the 670 barrier. And ultimately, by the late 1990s, it was established that this goes all the way to the core mantle boundary, which is exactly what John Baumgartner predicted. In fact, at these high rates, the crust at the surface of the Earth would be called cold, because it's about 0 degrees centigrade. The average temperature at the bottom of the ocean is 5 degrees centigrade. So these rocks are cold compared to the rocks at the bottom of the mantle, which are about 4,000 degrees centigrade. That's hot. And so we have a very big difference in temperature between the things at the surface and the things down below. If John Baumgartner's model is correct, they're going to make it to the core mantle boundary in a few weeks time. They're going to make that 4,000-kilometer trip in just a few weeks. Meanwhile, they're going through hot stuff, so they're going to begin to melt. But they're very thick, minimally 5 kilometers thick. They're averaging 5 to 8 kilometers in thickness. It's estimated that at 3,000 degrees, it would take 100 million years to melt them out of existence. So they only drop to the mantle in a few weeks. It's only been 4,500 years since the flood. They should still be there. It's melting, but not very much melted. There should be a pile of cold crust on the top of the core, because the core is very much denser. So it won't go any deeper than the core. It'll just go to the base of the mantle. And it should contrast with the normal mantle stuff at 3,000 degrees, 4,000 degrees. So there should be a huge difference in temperature. You should be able to see it. And in fact, this is a photograph 1997 is when we had the technology to see down to within 240 kilometers of the base of the mantle and what we see is piles of cold stuff that's basically 0 degrees centigrade by their estimate compared to 4000 degree temperature material in the remainder of the base of the core. Extraordinary confirmation of a prediction made by a creationist theory. Of course, completely ignored by the secular world. But anyway, the theory then also provides, perhaps we suggest, an explanation of what these fountains of the deep were and the windows of heaven. Because what's happening is, as this thing circulates, it takes the cold, old rock of the oceans and drops it to the bottom of the mantle. What comes up in its place is hot mantle material that begins to cool and produces a new crust in its place. And as it comes up, it contacts ocean water, especially in a global flood, it contacts ocean water and vaporizes that water and shoots it straight up hyper-ballistically up into the atmosphere, where it would then spread in all directions and cool by radiation into space. The propelled, the vaporized water would entrain a bunch of unvaporized water into it as it came up. It would spread out. The water that wasn't vaporized would come straight back down as intense global rain. The vapor that cooled off into space would, in fact, eventually condense and come down as rain as well. So we think that the fountains of the great deep are actually these geyser along a crack which is a total of 50,000 miles long. It's kind of like the stitching on a baseball, how it goes around the baseball. And very much like that, there's a stitching around the earth, around these plates, that totals about 50,000 miles in length. And along that entire length, you've got hot material coming up, producing geysers. And so you have a 50,000 mile long geyser that shoots 60,000 feet up into the atmosphere and drops water down on the world with intense global rain. So that's what we think the fountains of the great deep are, were, and the windows of heaven. But it doesn't explain the flood. Because if all you do is throw water up in the air and go around like that, you're not going to increase sea level at all. You're going to have a lot of rainfall and it's going to do nasty things, but you're not going to be able to cover the highest mountains. So what's the mechanism of the flood itself? And this model actually provides that as well. We're going to replace the cold crust at the bottom of the oceans before the flood with hot crust, hot magma that comes up in its place as continents move away. And this hot material occupies, because it's warmer, it occupies more volume. In the current ocean, the hot crust is sitting 1.5 kilometers, basically a mile, higher than the cold crust. So what we're doing is, if the oceans were full before the flood, we're going to raise the bottom of the oceans by a mile. That's going to flood the continents. When you add the fact that 5% of this magma is water by volume, and it releases a bunch of that new water that wasn't on the Earth before, we think that the sea level was probably raised in excess of one mile above the pre-flood levels. That's enough to cover the mountains, considering also that all the modern mountains that are taller than one mile are actually produced in the flutter after. the floods. So it's very reasonable to assume that it in fact buried all of the mountains of the world. It also, when we're talking about that, we're talking about an enormous amount of rainfall from above, water coming in over a mile on the planet. In addition, the moon itself is going to have a significant role to play here, because it's going to grab up by its gravity, it's going to hold the water underneath it, which it does now, When the Earth rotates underneath it, the Moon pulls up the water underneath it and in the position directly opposite it. And then the Earth rotates under it. When the raised water meets the shoreline, it shows up as a tide. So the tidal effect of the Moon is because the Moon is holding water. It has to drop the water out, though, every time a continent comes along. If, in fact, the world is flooded completely, it does not drop the water out when it hits a continent, because it's going over the continent, and so it'll continue to raise the water, and probably during the flood we have significant tides, maybe thousands of feet of tidal action, and it's holding the water and the earth spinning underneath it. At the equator a thousand miles an hour at our latitude 700 miles an hour underneath the water So it's effectively like the water moving across the land at hundreds of miles an hour That's going to do some nasty things And what we see in the fossil record in this in the rock record and North America And it's true of all the continents is we have sediments that are laid across the entire continent from one end of the continent to the other and And the direction of current is east to west, across the entire continent, which is the direction the Earth rotates underneath that water. These deposits are extraordinary. You've got some really nice caves in the Shenandoah Valley that are in a limestone unit that's the same limestone unit that I did caving in in Tennessee, which is also the same limestone unit that the Madison limestone where the cave of the winds in South Dakota is located, and the Madison limestone caves of Montana, and the Redwall limestone caves of the Grand Canyon. That deposit of sediment is found across the entire continent of North America, averaging 800 to 1,000 feet above sea level, even where it's not pushed up into mountains. That's its normal position above sea level, full of marine fossils. I like to describe it, it's very easy to locate, it's a cross-bedded oolitic pentramites containing dolomite. This area is kind of messed up because of the collision of continents that occurred here, and it's really hard to reconstruct the original form of the sediments, but go a little bit to the west of here. You've got about 40,000 feet of sediment, and in that 40,000 feet, there's only one layer. that is a cross-bedded oolitic pentramites containing dolomite. You don't even have to know what all that stuff means. It's just a very characteristic rock. It has a very characteristic set of fossils that are marine fossils, and that cross-bedded oolitic pentramites containing dolomite is found across the entire North American continent. from one shore to the other. It's sitting at hundreds of feet above sea level. All the critters in it have been ripped from their original location and dumped in a lime mud across the entire continent. They couldn't have lived there. So those critters have been carried for thousands of miles and deposited in their current location. This model explains that kind of thing. It's impossible to explain it in a conventional model with slow deposition and so on. Extraordinary catastrophism. This is just cool rock right here. This is really cool rock. We have a dinosaur site out in Wyoming, and this rock is in that dinosaur site. These are fluid evulsion structures that are five feet in size. Yeah, I know. It's not fun when people just don't know some certain thing. This is really cool. To explain a little bit what this is, if you go to the shore, And there's that zone right above the water where it's really soaked, it's really wet sand. And you go and stand there, and I know I'm about to sound silly because I do this kind of thing, but if you stand there in that wet zone and vibrate, Okay? Create an earthquake. What you're doing is simulating an earthquake. See, us geologists like doing things like that. We like destroying things and creating earthquakes. And you do that, and you'll notice that the water starts coming out of the sand. and cover, and then the water will flow down, and some of the critters come out too, they get really upset when you start doing that. But if you then pay attention to the water as it comes up, you'll see places where the water kind of erupts up in little springs. And if then you get down, this is where you get really weird, and you dig carefully in the sand into one of those places where the water came up, and you cut through the sand, you'll notice that the sand which is deposited in layers at 0.7 degrees from the horizontal, typically, right at the place where the water bubbles up, the sand will slope up because the water has been, what you're doing is vibrating the sand to occupy less volume, forcing the water out of the sand. The water escapes and pushes the sand up in little water volcanoes. Now, you can simulate an earthquake to create one quarter inch fluid evulsion structures. That's a fluid evulsion structure. And you, with your incredible power, can produce something a quarter of an inch in size. A big earthquake, a decent size earthquake that you can feel, can produce three quarter inch structures. The biggest earthquakes in recorded historical history can reach up to 12 inch. fluid evulsion structures. These are fluid evulsion structures five feet high, indicating an earthquake of extraordinary power, far, far greater than any power that we know of in the present, in the midst of the sediments that dinosaurs are being buried in. indicating a level of catastrophism that is unthinkable, and this is what's happening during the flood. But we're talking about plates that are moving at meters per second, continents that are flowing through across the surface of the earth at meters per second. Earthquakes would be phenomenal in power during this period, consistent with what we're seeing, and able to bury critters long distance and create those sediments across entire continents. Then we have associated with John Baumgartner's model with circulation in the mantle. We have Russ Humphreys that comes in and he's going to focus on things that are happening in the core, the outer core in particular, while this other stuff is happening. When the cold crust drops down to the core-mantle boundary, we now have hot stuff and cold stuff sitting right on the outside of the outer core. And there's 3,000 degrees centigrade difference between these things, so there's quite a bit of temperature difference here. The outer core is iron nickel, but liquid. It's got the consistency. It's got the runniness of water. And so this is a fluid outer core where you put really big temperature differences up there. So it's kind of like you've got a big pan of water you put on your stove that maybe covers two burners. and the area in between. Turn on the burners. You've got really hot sources of heat there, and then you've got a cold place in between. If you do that, you'll notice that the water very quickly assumes a convection. It starts moving the water around, evening out the heat. And so the idea is that with this cold and hot stuff on the outer core, it's going to stimulate convection in the outer core of the Earth. And the result of that is, since the outer core is the source of the Earth's magnetic field, it's going to have an effect on the Earth's magnetic field. According to D. Russell Humphrey's model in 1986, he suggested that during the flood, if you perceived it from the surface, the Earth's magnetic field would decrease once the circulation began, it would decrease in intensity apparent intensity to 10% what it was before, and it would begin to flip. North pole becomes a south pole, south pole becomes a north pole, every two weeks, during the duration of the period that the circulation is extremely intense. So when you run out of crust up here and things start heating up, the cold stuff starts heating up sufficiently here, this circulation will reduce and the Earth's magnetic field will go back to normal. It will go back to its 100% apparent strength and stop its reversals. And so that was his prediction in 1986. He didn't stop there. He said, well, if that's my prediction, then I need to be able to test it, somehow test it. The other model, the model for the Earth's magnetic field that's believed by most geologists, is one that allows the Earth's magnetic field to persist for billions of years. Because the oldest rocks on the Earth have evidence of having been formed in the presence of an Earth of a magnetic field. And since we know that the Earth is billions of years old, so the argument goes, it must be that the magnetic field can persist for billions of years. Even though the earliest models of the Earth's magnetic field won't allow that. The Earth's magnetic field, if it's just a bunch of electrons that are spinning in the outer core, they're eventually going to slow down by friction, and the Earth's magnetic field is going to get weaker and weaker, which is consistent with what we actually observe. Since 1832, when we could first measure the magnitude of the Earth's magnetic field, it's been decreasing in intensity, with a half-life of about 1,400 years. Every 1,400 years, it's half the strength it was before. At the time of Christ, it's about two and a half times the current strength of the magnetic field. Well, you can't keep that going on forever. That would suggest if that's been the entire history of the Earth's magnetic field, then the Earth's magnetic field must be very young, less than 10,000 years. And if that's the case, then the oldest rocks in the Earth, which have evidence of the magnetic field being there, would be less than 10,000 years old, which would mean the whole Earth is less than 10,000 years old, which is great for someone like me, but it's not so good for people who think it's billions of years old. They create an alternate magnetic field source, and they're called dynamo theories. There's a whole bunch of them, but they're all based on the spinning of the Earth. You can generate a magnetic field due to that. The big difference between those two models, Humphreys took a model by Horace Lamb and modified it to create his model. And the Lamb-Humphreys model says that the magnetic field of the Earth is very young, that when it reverses, it reverses every two weeks. The other model, the dynamo model, says the Earth's magnetic field is billions of years old. And if it reverses, which it can, it takes a long time. For the same reason that it can persist for a long time, it can reverse, but it takes a long time to do so. It takes a minimum of 1,000 years to make a reversal. So here we have two different theories for the Earth's magnetic field. One says the reversals take something in excess of 1,000 years. The other one, two weeks. If we could figure out how to differentiate between the two, we got it made. And so, let's see, there we go. If we look at a lava flow that flows across the earth, it's all hot to start with, and at that point in time when it's magma, when it's fluid, if you've got any minerals in there that are magnetic, and there are a bunch of them, depending on the type of magma, but there's always a fair number of them, they will orient themselves in the direction of the Earth's magnetic field. If they're free to do so because it's a liquid, they will line up with it. Now if then, as it flows across the surface of the Earth, everybody lines up with that field, And then it begins to cool. It cools from the top and the bottom, cold ground, cold air. And as it does so, it's going to prevent, once this becomes solid rock, it's going to prevent these things on the top and the bottom from flipping, from changing direction. They're going to preserve the direction of the magnetic field at the time the lava flow first occurred. But let's say before it cooled completely, when it's still hot in the middle, that the Earth's magnetic field flipped. Then the little guys in the middle will flip because they still can. The ones in the top and the bottom cannot. And when the thing finally cools completely, you're going to get this weird situation where the magnetic minerals on the top and bottom point one direction and the minerals in between point the opposite direction. And the only way this could happen is if the field reverses during the time period that it takes to cool this lava flow. And so Russ Humphreys said that if you had a foot and a half thick basalt lava flow, basalt is a very common lava in the rock record, so you should be able to find a bunch of foot and a half thick lava flows of basalt. And that's a typical thickness of basalt lava flows besides. That the amount of time it takes, several weeks to cool, is just right that if the reversal occurred when the lava was still warm, it could do this kind of thing. But if it takes a thousand years, it'll never show this. It'll never preserve this. Everything's going to go the same direction in here. You will never get this phenomenon. Well, Russ Humphreys, as I said, made his prediction in 1986. In 1988, two geologists who weren't creationists, didn't know anything about Russ Humphreys' model at all, weren't checking for it, weren't looking for it. Probably if they knew about it, they would have gone to a different profession. They found a lava flow out in Scenes Mountain, Oregon, where it had this characteristic. It had a direction on top and bottom in one direction and an orthogonal, well actually an antithetical direction in the middle. And they tried to get it published, they're field geologists, and they tried to get it published and it was rejected because the editors of the journal said you can't flip the Earth's magnetic field in less than a thousand years, so this can't be. Well, now these are field geologists. You just have to understand those kind of people really don't like theoreticians telling them that what you actually saw isn't what you actually saw. You know, I mean, the field geologists say, but that's what I saw. I mean, what it was. So they get mad and they go out and they look for another one and they find another lava flow, different level in Steens Mountain, another one that's a foot and a half thick that shows the same thing. They couldn't get it published until 1992. They finally were able to publish it. They had to put a little caveat in there that said, we don't understand how it is that the Earth's magnetic field could flip so rapidly. But the conclusions of the paper were that the Earth's magnetic field in the past has taken 14 days to reverse. That's a little bit close to weeks. The prediction of of Humphrey. So this is really extraordinary, cool stuff. Let's see. I'm going to skip that. Well, maybe I should. Oh, the the. One thing that this model says is that at the beginning of the flood, when the plates first broke from the continents and began to dive, that break must have been an amazing earthquake. Because we're talking about along 50,000 miles, the rock broke and started diving into the mantle. That would have been quite a hit. The Sumatran earthquake of 2004 that caused the tsunami that killed a quarter million people, or nearly a quarter million people, that was a break along only 1,000 miles of this, and it only moved 60 meters. It moved the rock 60 meters over 1,000 miles. that had devastating consequences. A quarter million people died from the wave that it generated. Imagine over 50,000 miles Rocks would move at meters per second, and it would be ultimately hundreds of miles of motion along that. This has got to be a phenomenal earthquake. Most earthquakes last for a few seconds. Really big ones, 20 seconds. If you were shaking for 20 seconds, this is a really, really bad earthquake. This would have taken, at the speed of sound, cracking at the speed of sound, it would have taken four to five hours. for this earthquake to complete its break. Okay? And so, this would have been a phenomenal earthquake, which I would expect that since it's happening at the edge of many of the continents, and it's a big, big hit, that it's going to actually crack, it's going to collapse the edge of many of the continents of the planet. And this is consistent with some work that I've done out in Death Valley, which at the time of the beginning of the flood would have been just off the edge of the North American continent. All of the state of California didn't exist before the flood. That's a bunch of debris that was ripped off the continents and dumped there, somewhat appropriate. So the California-Arizona border was about where the edge of the continent was before the flood. And what I find just off of that continent are some astonishing stuff. I see some boulders. It took me a long time to recognize it because they're so big. There are three of them here. The best way to take a photograph was in a plane. We're in a plane to look at them. These are boulders that are a mile in diameter. They're dinner plate-shaped sized things that are a mile in diameter and a couple hundred meters thick. And they're imbricated. There are three of them here. If you've got a flowing stream and you've got some flat rocks that have eroded kind of round and flat in the stream, they will tend to lay down with the sloping downstream. Obviously, if they're this way, the stream is going to kick them over. And so if you have them close together, they'll stack like shingles, and that's called imbrication. So there's imbrication of boulders that we see or pebbles in streams. These are one-mile diameter pebbles that are imbricated, suggesting a flow. First of all, you've got to break mile diameter rocks off of wherever they came from and then they get laid against one another in a shingle fashion. That's just phenomenal power. I had to stop research in this area because they killed off all my research assistants, but literally I couldn't go out there anymore because no one would go with me. What I was beginning to realize is these are still the small guys. There are bigger ones. There are bigger ones that are in excess of three, five miles in diameter, rolling off the edge of the continent. Phenomenal earthquake would be required to actually dislodge these things. When you plot the little puppies, and mine's right there. And Laurentia, if you plot the similar deposits around the world at this age, at this event, the beginning of the flood, this is where they plot. And interestingly, coincidentally, they plot at the edge of the continents. And this would be the crack would occur along these edges, just exactly where I would expect these deposits to be. So we have a way to explain the megaclastites, megabig, clast is the object in there, they're big boulder deposits. And what's cool about them is the current explanation is that they're due to, how do you move big boulders like that? They're classically described as moved by glaciers. There's two problems, there's at least two problems with that hypothesis. When you get a boulder that's in excess of one mile, a glacier cannot move it, the glacier's mass will actually melt the glacier underneath it. Because water, of course, expands when it freezes, and if you put enough pressure on it, it'll melt. And you get too big of a boulder, and it'll melt the thing. It might be able to roll it in front of the ice, but it can't move this size boulders. So that's one problem. Another problem is that all of these things, especially these here, are sitting at low latitudes. We can determine by the magnetic field orientation in the rocks. that they're formed within just 10-15 degrees of the equator of the Earth. And they're formed at sea level or below. So we're talking about, if they're glaciers, we're talking about glaciers entering the ocean at the equator, and all around the world. So that would suggest, if you've got the equatorial ocean frozen, With glaciers, the whole world is frozen. So you know what? Just about 10 years ago or so, we added a geologic period to the geologic column called the cryogene. The period, the snowball earth hypothesis, is what it's called. Because we have these low latitude megaclastites, it must mean that there's glaciers going all the way down to the ocean sea level at at the equator, therefore the entire earth was in a frozen snowball state. Now I have a further problem with that. If everything is frozen, glaciers can't move. Glaciers have got to move downhill into a place where there ain't no glaciers for the glaciers to move. If you've got the ocean frozen, the glaciers can't move into the ocean. And if you can't move the glaciers, you can't move the rocks, you can't deposit these megaclastites, you can't move the things to move the rocks. So the evidence that you have for the glaciers can't be produced by the glaciers if in fact it's the cryogen. So it's the stupidest hypothesis I think geologists have ever come up with. And it's almost universally accepted in geology right now because of these incredible megaclastites around the world at low latitudes. But our model actually explains them much more readily as collapse features in the edge of the continent at the beginning of the flood. We don't have a problem with moving them, and we can move boulders that size and bigger without getting the problems they have. Another issue is that moving at meters per second, we have an enormous momentum that continents have. It's colliding one against another. Momentum is the mass of an object times its velocity. If you have two little tiny cars, subcompact cars, going at 60 miles an hour towards each other, they do a fair amount of damage to each other. They have a certain amount of momentum that they have. But at the same speed, two semi-trailer trucks loaded do an awful lot more damage because of the greater momentum. In classical plate tectonics, these incredibly massive continents are moving at the incredible speed of 10 centimeters per year. That's the rate at which your fingernails grow. And they're slamming in at the rate your fingernails grow against one another. India is actually coming up pretty fast on probably the fastest of the moving of the continents. And it came in, we think, 20 centimeters per year, or twice as fast as your fingernails grow, smashing into the Asian continent. And of course, it explains why you have mountains that are 26,000 feet in height. As opposed to another model that has India moving at six meters per second, twice as fast as you can run, sprinting into Asia, smashing into Asia, squeezing out a portion of Asia known as China, and it actually hits Asia, creates a fault that cracks the southeastern portion of Asia off of the rest of Asia. and squeezes Asia out into the bulge that's known as China, creates mountains that are 26,000 feet in height, and takes 500 kilometers of crust and pushes it underneath the crust that is already there, which then rises to produce the Tibetan Plateau. And it's an astonishing impact. It makes no sense at 20 centimeters per year. It just doesn't have the necessary momentum to produce that awesome feature known as the Himalayan Mountains. But catastrophic plate tectonics, rapid plate tectonics, our creationist model does. We have relative ease in describing the folding of old rocks. This picture from the Grand Canyon area is of the Tapeats sandstone. The layers of the Tapeats can be seen here. They extend out for many, many miles, hundreds of miles in this direction, just as flat as could be. Very beautiful sandstone deposit. And then they hit here and do some funny folding. And for scale, by the way, here's a human being. They're sitting down there, hard to see, but it's a big thing. There's a fault right over here, and right up against that fault, these things get folded. The real problem for the conventional world is these deposits here, by conventional dating, are at 500 million years old, and the fault is about 65 million years old. So there's 450 million years between the deposit of this sandstone and the sand, and it's folding. In that period of time it should, and by this point it would have been buried about four kilometers under rock. So it should be solid, it should be firm, it should not be bendable. However, in the flood model, this was deposited within the first day or two of the flood, and it was deformed at the end of the flood one year later. In one year, it still could be quite plastic. This is fascinating, and it's not just folded. It's recumbently folded here. It's quite spectacular. We have a way to explain the folding of rocks that should not be foldable if they are in fact very old. The other thing is that in his model, this is John Baumgartner's model of the circulation, you've got the cold stuff represented by the blue coming down, the hot stuff represented by the red coming up. Move forward in time, you see that, that's quick. But this is true in both the conventional plate tectonics and the catastrophic plate tectonics model, but obviously this is much faster. This is moving very rapidly and it explains some things that we see on the surface of the Earth that would be very difficult to explain if this is moving at centimeters per year. For example, diamonds on the Earth We know the conditions under which diamonds must form, because we form them artificially in the laboratory. We know the pressure necessary. You have to take carbon, and you have to put it at the proper pressure, which is equivalent to the amount of about 10 kilometers of rock above you. That's the weight or the pressure that you have to put on it. And you have to have a certain temperature. But once you do that, that isn't everything you need. Because if you reproduce those kind of conditions in the laboratory, you still don't have diamonds. You have diamonds only if you can quench it properly, meaning you have to cool it now. We've got to cool it to room temperatures, but you can't cool it too quickly. If you cool it too quickly, it's like taking hot glass and throwing it in the water. It breaks into billions of pieces and too small to sell for diamonds and see that's no good. And if you take it too slowly, it will change to graphite and not diamonds. It turns out there's a very narrow range of time that you've got to quench it. It's about five hours of time, anywhere from about three to seven hours of time. If you're in that range, cooling from extremely high pressure temperature to atmospheric pressure and temperature, That's the range you've got. If you're outside that range, it just ain't going to happen. Well, we have diamonds on the surface. How does that explain? Well, we've got to form diamonds 10 kilometers beneath the surface and then get them up to the surface in three to seven hours. That's moving at a clip. Okay, that's not centimeters per year. It ain't going to work. We've got to move it fast. In fact, there's a hole in Canada, a 35-foot diameter hole, out of which it's very evident that the kimberlite, which is the rock the diamonds are found in, shot out of that hole actually didn't just come up towards the surface and get stuck somewhere, which usually happens. Not enough force to get all the way through the Earth. This actually broke through the surface of the Earth, shot up in the atmosphere, and then blew up and rained diamonds over an area 35 miles around that particular hole. And it's easy, you can go into the literature, you can see the paper, and you can calculate it yourself. I took out a piece of a napkin and calculated the amount of, from the evidence they had in the paper, it would require if you, the amount of rock moving and the rate at which it's moving, be like having a railroad that's going vertically. And let's say it's a coal train. Coal train has 88 cars with 88 tons per car. And so if that's the amount that was in each car, going upward would require that train to be moving at 60 miles an hour to explain the data that we have. That puppy is moving, OK? I mean, it's got to go shoot up into the atmosphere and blow up up there and shoot things 35 miles away. So it's got to be way up there before it blows up. And that means it's got to be moving pretty fast. And there's no explanation for that in the conventional model. Catastrophic plate tectonics gives evidence. So what we have is catastrophic plate tectonics is an amazing scientific model. It takes the evidence for plate tectonics. There's a lot of evidence for plate tectonics. There really is. There's a pile of these things. This is really cool. Very exciting theory. Plate tectonics, a slow one. Catastrophic plate tectonics take the same model and speed it up three billion times, and it explains all those things and a bunch of other things. So it turns out to be a better model. So it is a model of models for creationism. This is, I would suggest, how you ought to do it. You start with the data of scripture, then you take the data of the world, and you develop models using both of those, and I would suggest you're going to get better scientific models. It isn't that the models that exist are wholly wrong. They just ain't good enough. Okay? Put the biblical data in, modify the models accordingly, and you get a better model than the conventional model has. Now, a little comment here at the end of this discussion of the Flood. At about the same time that we have all this happening on the Earth, we have some features in the solar system that are happening at about the same time. They date from almost exactly the same period of time. 70% of the Earth's crust, the ocean crust, dove into the mantle and was completely destroyed in the flood. At the same time, we know that Venus's surface, 100% of the crust, sunk into the mantle of Venus. The rocks are dated by conventional dating on the Earth at 500 to 65 million years. And this event on Venus supposedly occurred at 300 to 600 million years, the same period of time. So I know their dates are wrong, you just have to change, you just have to accordionize them to the proper dates, and they come up to the same thing. And Mars, about 15% of the surface of Mars sunk into the mantle of Mars at about the same time. We have 12 Maria on the moon, those big black things on the moon, the things that make the man on the moon and so on and so forth. Those puppies are interesting. They're circular in shape. They appear to be big impactors, big craters that crack the surface of the moon and release molten rock from the inside of the moon that filled the crater. And that rock was black, it's basalt. And so it's dark in color and that gives you your dark maria on the moon. There are 12 of them on the moon. 11 of them are visible on this side of the moon. There's only one little guy on the other side of the moon. The other 11 are in one quadrant of the moon. And that's really weird. Because the moon is going around the Earth with one face stuck towards looking at the Earth. So as it moves around the Earth, if you're somewhere in the solar system outside the Earth, you would see, if the moon is here, you would see the back side of the moon. As the moon moves around the earth, represented by me, I can't do that more than once or fall off the stage, you're going to see different, if you were throwing meteors at this thing, you would hit a different part of the moon from day to day to day, all the way around here. What's the likelihood that you could hit one quadrant of the moon 11 out of 12 times with the biggest hitters in recent history in the moon. It's basically impossible. So they can't be independent. They must be 11 hitters that came in at the same time. And they're probably big pieces that maybe came from a larger piece that broke up. But in order to hit this side of the moon, they would have to come closer to the earth than the moon is to the earth. And they would have had to come right by us to hit the moon. And it's dating from about the time of the flood that this happened. And if that happened, it's undoubtedly true that that there are other hitters that hit the earth while that stuff was hitting the moon. So we have we have a catastrophe occurring on the earth. at the same time a catastrophe is occurring on Venus and Mars and something outside of those things are throwing meteors at the Earth and the Moon. It appears that this is a solar system level catastrophe. It isn't just, you know, as a kid I sort of thought the flood was, the rains came down and the floods came up. Yeah, kind of a simple little thing. That's not what we're seeing. This is an awesome horrendously destructive events that obliterated, I believe, an entire continent. shaved a mile of rock off of all the continents that were before the flood, and then mixed that up and dumped that material on top of the continents, moved continents hundreds of miles around the surface of the earth, smashing against one another, producing mountain chains. It is completely destructive. In fact, the more we realize about the flood, the more we realize that The center verse in the chiasm of the flood is very significant. If you know anything about Hebrew, you know that Hebrew is often written in a chiastic structure. It's as if the author of scripture wanted people to memorize scripture. He actually writes the account in such a way that the first verse and the last verse of the account are very similar to each other. And then the second verse is very similar to the next to the last verse. And so it goes, if you can memorize the first half of the account, it's not too hard to memorize the second half. It's called a chiastic structure. And we saw it already, the beginning verse in the 600th year of Noah's life, in the second month, the 17th day. The end we have at the 601st year of Noah's life, in the second month, 27th day. Real simple modifications, you can get the second half. But the chiastic structure always points to one central verse. It obviously is symmetric about one verse that turns out to be typically theologically significant. And you know what that verse is in the flood account? God remembered Noah. Whoa. The only way this ark could have survived this awesome destruction was if it was supernaturally preserved by God. That is the only way. It is such an awesomely destructive event. But we it's not just true that it is awesomely destructive on the earth It appears to be to have impacted literally the entire solar system My suspicion is that if as we learn more we're going to find it's a cosmic event Why? Because the flood itself is God's response to man's sin on this earth. Man as the king of the creation. God created the entire creation and set man up as the king over that creation. When man sinned, God cursed the entire creation. When man sinned again globally as a community, he destroyed the entire earth. I believe he actually catastrophically impacted the entire creation because the king of creation had sinned. And so he impacts the entire creation that way. This always impresses me that I'm looking at sin differently than God does. If God's response to our sin is the destruction of his incredible universe, the shattering of the perfection of his universe with the curse, and then impacting his entire universe with catastrophes, then his response to our sin is a whole lot more serious than my response is to my sin. It impresses me with the fact that sin is horrible to God. There is no such thing as a minor sin. There is no such thing as a small thing that is a mistake or we err or something like this. The holiness of God is perfection and sin falls infinitely short. Thus, human beings, with even the thought of sin, have broken the very nature of God to such an extent that there's an uncrossable barrier between man and God because of man's sin. It's impossible for man to come anywhere close to the perfection of God. It would be impossible for him to get anywhere with that. You can't solve the problem. And that's why God, because He loved us, did the unthinkable, the only thing that would cross that is something that could do the impossible, which would be God himself. God himself had to take upon human form and take upon himself our sin to bridge that gap between man and God. And as awful, as horrible as sin is to God, Jesus Christ took that sin and bore God's judgment upon him for the sin that we committed so that we could gain access to God. And that's why there's nothing you can do for salvation except accept what Jesus Christ did because of the horror of sin. the impossibility of that gap, it could only be crossed. The bridge could only be built by Jesus Christ himself. And he's already done it and he did it once. And God has called us all to accept what Jesus Christ has done and accept that gift. But it's an awesome gift. I very often underestimate, undervalue The gift, both the horror of my own sin and the awesomeness of the gift that God has given. Scripture says, as it was in the days of Noah, the earth will be destroyed again. This time, not by flood, because he promised that would never happen again, but he will do it again by fire. It's guaranteed that that is going to happen. Question is, are you ready? Are you ready for that event? Are you ready to meet your Maker? Have you shared the impending disaster if you are ready to meet Him? Have you shared that with those about you? Are you warning others of what is about to come? Because as I read Scripture, as horrendous as the flood was, the judgment to come is even more catastrophic, even more destructive. Now, I wondered if I could continue. I'm going to go I'm going to try going through this this here and then take a break and do the second talk. So I'm going to try pulling this off. I'm amazed that I got this done in an hour. This is about six hour presentation. I just got done in an hour. So we'll try this additional three hours and 20 minutes. OK. The awesomeness of the flood makes it somewhat amazing that we're sitting not so long after the flood in an earth that is habitable. In fact, God made sure that the earth was habitable immediately after the flood, which is just, it's mind-blowing to think what must have occurred for God to heal the destruction that was brought about in the course of the flood. And so the restoration of the earth is, for me, one of the most fascinating periods in earth history. And I call that period the Arphaxadian Epoch. First of all, I think that's a cool word. Arphaxadian, you know. But it's named after Arphaxad, who was born two years after the flood, we're told in scripture, and lived for 400 years. So he lives during most of the recovery period of the flood. And that's just a cool, I think on so many different levels, it's an awesome, amazing period of time. It's not the entire recovery period because in fact we're still in the recovery period of the flood. But here's sort of a summary graph that describes for all sorts of things the history of the earth following the flood. The flood in time and then moving forward to the present. So that's a timeline. But just about anything you would measure in geology or climatology or whatever is very intense at the time of the flood. Very intense. The flood is like whatever you're thinking of. If you're thinking earthquakes, big earthquakes. If you're thinking volcanoes, big volcanoes. If you're thinking climate, really bad climate. It's just about everything you can measure. Rainfall, obviously high rainfall rate. That it's extreme at the time of the flood and then the earth recovers with less and less intense examples of this material all the way to the present. But given the nature of the earth, and it's only been 4,500 years since the flood, we're actually still in this decline. It's way down there, and it's much less than it ever was, but we're still there, and the earth is still recovering. Geologically, we're still in the flood as a consequence of the flood. What happened during the flood, as I've already said, is that catastrophic plate tectonics is moving things horizontally on the earth. It's moving continents back and forth and moving things around a lot like that. It's smashing continents together. Most of the geology during the flood is what I call horizontal. It's moving things back and forth. At the end of the flood, we had a messed up earth. We had things out of place. Things happened so quickly during the flood, in a year-long flood, that we ended up with places that were too high to be supported by the material underneath. This is a principle of isostasy. You already know the principle, have seen it in various ways, but if you take an ice cube and put it into water, the ice cube will bob up and down until it stops. with about 33 percent of its volume showing above the surface. Because it displaces the mass of water equal to the mass of the ice cube, but that leaves part of the ice cube above the water. A ship is built the same way. You try to create a keel of the ship that can displace enough water to support the mass of the ship in such a way that there's enough of the ship above water that people don't drown. Okay, so things are held up that way. In order to hold something up above the surface, you've got to have a bunch of stuff beneath the surface. So if we have a pile of stuff on the continent, there had better be an equivalent pile of stuff down here to hold it up, or it's going to sink by isostasy. If you have a mountain, you'd better have roots to the mountains that hold the mountains up or the mountains are going to sink. If you've got a hole there, you'd better have a hole underneath or the hole is going to fill up. The thing is going to rise upward. So what happened at the end of the flood is we have a whole bunch of things out of place, out of isostatic equilibrium. Things are stuffed on the surface without roots. There are holes on the surface without corresponding holes underneath. And so things are going to move vertically to equilibrate. Now, in the case of an ice cube, throw an ice cube in there, it goes up and down and pretty quickly settles. And that's because water is really thin and not very viscous. Now, you did that for honey. And it takes longer, doesn't it? And you might get bored waiting for the thing to finally equilibrate. So the thicker, the more viscous the material is, the longer it takes for isostatic equilibrium to bring things to equilibrium. The mantle of the earth acts as a fluid. It's a solid rock, but it acts as a fluid. It's kind of like those windows are fluid. They haven't been in there terribly long, but I can guarantee you the top of the glass is going to be thicker than the bottom of the glass because it's flowing down by gravity. That's the nature of a fluid. But it flows very slowly. It's a solid that is a fluid by definition because it can flow that way, but it's very viscous. The center of the earth, the mantle of the earth is like that. It is solid, but it is a fluid. Very long periods of time, it can deform. But that means that this isostatic equilibrium is very slow on the mantle. It takes a long time. We estimate 15,000 to 30,000 years it takes to come to full equilibrium. Well, it's only been 4,500 years since the Flood. And if you watch an ice cube, when you first put it in, it moves very fast. And then it slows down. So most of the motion occurs initially. And it slows down with time before it finally stops. So most of the motion is going to occur within a few hundred years of the flood, during that Arphaxadian Epoch. But even today, the Earth is still equilibrating from the flood. That's why we're still geologically in the flood. So we have things like the beautiful Teton Mountains are moving upwards with respect to the Jackson Hole area at one and a half inches per year. That's still occurring, which is a little bit difficult to explain if the mountains were formed millions of years ago. But it is very easy to explain if, in fact, they were only formed thousands of years ago, and there's still an isostatic equilibrium. And the Appalachians are moving. They're supposed to be 300 million years old. They shouldn't be moving at all. Yet Cleveland, Tennessee is the geologically most active location east of the Rockies, they have three to four earthquakes a day. in Cleveland, Tennessee. They shouldn't have any earthquakes at all, or actually at the erosion rate of the Appalachians, maybe one earthquake a year. They have three to four per day, that's a thousand a year, in excess of a thousand a year. So the Appalachians are much more active than they should be if they're really 300 million years old. They are as active as you might expect them to be, if in fact they're only thousands of years old. Looking at volcanoes, again, This idea here, the volcanoes we have today, little tiny critters compared to the monsters that would have been occurring in the course of the flood. We see evidence of this in places like the Painted Desert. The Painted Desert has thousands of feet of volcanic ash. thousands of feet, miles of volcanic ash. That's incomprehensible. The stuff blown up by volcanoes and pulverized into ash and come down and then gets compacted is, after compaction, thousands of feet deep. Imagine the volcanoes that were required to produce something like that. Nothing like today. And then if we look at the more recent volcanoes, and we look at them going back in time, we have this little red. that you can barely see, this little bit red box here, represents the amount of rock that Mount St. Helens pulverized in the explosion of Mount St. Helens. One cubic kilometer of rock was pulverized into ash, sent 60,000 feet up into the atmosphere, where it was then blown over this area of the western United States, Washington, Idaho, Montana, into Utah. A very small amount of ash. a half inch less in most areas, but that's due to one cubic kilometer of rock. You go back in time to a volcano that's a little older than Mount St. Helens, the one that produced Crater Lake, it pulverized 75 cubic kilometers. of ash. So it's 75 times the volume of the pulverization at Mount St. Helens. And Crater Lake volcano dropped ash over this area, over a bigger area. Go back further in time, you have an eruption in California known as the Bishop eruption and produced the Bishop Tuff, which close to this location is scores of feet thick of tuff. 600 cubic kilometers of rock was pulverized into ash, microscopic pieces, and tossed up into the atmosphere and covered this kind of an area with ash. Going back further, We have the eruptions at Yellowstone. Perhaps you're familiar with the fact that people have been scared about Yellowstone blowing up or something like that. It ain't going to happen. These things are in the past. There's a unidirectional history to this. The Earth is recovering. The volcanoes are getting smaller. They're getting more distant from each other in time. But there was a time when Yellowstone about the time of Babel or so, that Yellowstone blew its top, it's a very different kind of crater, pulverizing 1,000 cubic kilometers of rock. That's, wow, that's 10 kilometers by 10, it's a piece of rock six miles by six miles by six miles, pulverizing it into ash, and covering almost the entire western United States in an area. The one before that, also in Yellowstone, 2,500 cubic kilometers of ash. As we go back in time, we get bigger volcanoes. By the way, if this was to happen today, from this point west, it's 100% kill. It's every human, every mammal, everything is dead. Anything greater than when you got at primary deposition, if it's exceeding three quarters of an inch, it kills everything. This would be all of these states gone, complete destruction. This is unlike any volcano that we have seen in the recent past. Earthquakes, same idea. Humongous earthquake. I talked about the earthquake at the beginning of the flood that I believe formed those humongous boulders that rolled off into the ocean. After the flood, we don't have something that big, but we have some pretty big earthquakes. This is a picture of the Kingston Range in California where I did a bunch of work. This is, you're talking about 10, 10-12 miles across this mountain chain. This entire mountain chain is without roots. In the center of this we have the high peak here is made of a granite which has a very characteristic chemistry. We can identify that chemistry and when we look for that chemistry there's only one other place on the planet where that chemistry exists and it's 60 miles away There is the same granite. Turns out to be the roots of this mountain chain. Sometime in the past, the mountain sitting over here broke off and then was vibrated across the landscape 60 miles to this location. Okay, that's a pretty, I'd suggest it's a pretty big earthquake. breaking a mountain chain. It's not a mountain. It's a mountain chain off of its root and then vibrating across the landscape 60 miles. This ain't the only one. It's every single mountain in this area. In fact, looking at it from aerial photography, satellite photography, you've got the San Andreas Fault. On each side of the San Andreas Fault, all the mountains, as near as we can tell, every single mountain on either side of the fault has been broken off of its base and vibrated away from the fault. The Catalina Islands off the shore are actually mountains that belong on the shore that got broken off and vibrated into the water. The mountains that you see in Las Vegas that actually Las Vegas builds around are mountains that are broken off of their foundation and move 40 kilometers to their current location. This is extraordinary power talking about a time closer to the Flood. Not anything like the Flood. We're still talking small stuff compared to the Flood. This is after the Flood. Enormous recovery. Climate's doing the same thing. We think that we don't like the nasty weather we have today and hurricanes and tornadoes. Just take those puppies up to big size. And again, we're not talking about the flood itself, which is the worst storm in history. But following the flood, we have things called hypercanes. And now it's become popular even in the secular literature to argue for these things. Basically, they're big hurricanes. Now, this is a picture of a real hurricane. But if you imagine this hurricane such that over here we have England, and over here we have Greenland, and over here we have North America, that's a hypercane, okay? It's a monster hurricane the size of a continent or a subcontinent area. And it has the capacity to move like hurricanes do, the smaller ones, the smaller hypercanes will actually move onto land. And it is a current hypothesis that the reason the Appalachians are so heavily eroded is because of hundreds of hypercanes that came in from the ocean in the immediate post-flood era and just eroded those mountains down. But the bigger hypercanes that came before that would be continent-sized and actually sit themselves in one position. pulling up water from the Atlantic, in this particular case, and then dumping it in huge volumes along the edge. You know what happens when a hurricane gets stuck right on the edge, right at the point it's landing. It takes huge amounts of water and then just drowns people for long periods of time until the crazy thing finally moves out of position. We think that the bigger hypercanes, there are probably two of them, one on the north Atlantic over Greenland, and another on the South Pacific over Antarctica, that actually sat there for centuries, evaporating water off the ocean, which is going to cool the ocean, and then dropping the precipitation over the land. Eventually, it would cool the ocean sufficiently to drop that precipitation as snow and the snow is coming down much too fast to melt and it would develop great ice sheets underneath these two locations until the water became too cold. You know what happens when the surface water is warm, that's when you get the hurricanes. When the surface water gets cool enough, the hurricanes break up and don't form. So eventually, the hypercanes would evaporate. By the way, we've watched these hypercanes on other planets. The great red spot on Jupiter is a hypercane the size of the planet Earth that we've been watching for 300 years. It's a big storm. The size of the planet Earth that's been going on for centuries. That's an example of a hypercane we've been observing. There's a little spot and there's several more on other planets that we've been observing. Also, if we consider rainfall rates, partly because of the hypercanes, humongous rainfall rates, but as I said last night, I believe the wettest period in earth history, profound statement, is actually the flood. And rainfall rates would have been decreasing from that point forward. Early modeling suggests that rainfall rates soon after the flood are hundreds or hundreds of times greater than they are today. So rather than tens of inches per year, it's in the hundreds of inches per year or thousands of inches per year. Huge rainfall rates and then that would decrease towards the present. And during that period, we would accumulate very large lakes, such as this set of lakes in western United States. Another one is a huge Lake Bonneville up here that has shrunk, that has evaporated down to what is now the Great Salt Lake. Others along all the continents of the world, humongous lakes were created during this time. would build up, in this case, behind a warping of the continent and be dammed up by that warp and would eventually find their way through that to cut canyons. We've seen examples of this sort of thing in the more recent past. Mount St. Helens, for example, in the midst of the debris that was deposited in the avalanche at May 18th, 1980, a mudflow in 1982, June of 1982, cut its way down through that material, producing a 100 foot deep canyon. now called the Little Grand Canyon off the work of Steve Austin, even by the National Park Service, not park, what do you call that? Anyway. What we have here is a big canyon. This is 100 feet deep. It's hard to see scale here. I wanted somebody to go out there, but they didn't want to go out there for scale. What we have are several features that are interesting here. The canyons When I was taught geology, I was taught that rivers that go very slowly kind of meander and back and forth like this. And I didn't really say what happens when rivers cut fast, but the implication was that they take a direct route when it's going fast, and they kind of meander when they're not going fast. But what we found from this, which formed in a matter of a few hours, we don't know exactly how long, because it was heavily clouded at the time. We know what it looked like before and a few hours later, but we don't know exactly how long it took this. And if anyone was there, they'd be dead anyway, so they wouldn't be able to tell us. But it's just a few hours. And this, if you look at it from an aerial view, it zigzags back and forth. It's not a rounded meander, it's a zigzag meander. So that was interesting. We didn't realize that that would be the case until we saw it in this particular situation. And since then, of course, I've seen it in my backyard and I recognize that people should have known this for a long time. It's just that they didn't think that that would really happen on a big scale. Also, it turns out that since all these sediments were full of water, once you erode this canyon out very quickly, the sides of the canyon collapse in as the water is running through them, producing side canyons that are perpendicular to the main canyon, as opposed to rivers typically join at an acute angle, and we don't think of them as coming in at 90 degrees. But characteristic of the very rapidly formed canyons, all of the side canyons come in at a 90 degree angle, or very close to it, and it can be done in both soft rock and hard rock. Here's an example from Lewitt Canyon, also on Mount St. Helens slope. It's cutting through several hundred feet of solid basalt. This is really hard rock. The stuff underneath it is softer, but this stuff erodes. It is able to erode through either soft or hard rock, and it leaves, characteristically, what we call underfit rivers. You can't hardly see it. I can't hardly see it, but in the middle of this canyon there's a little creek. A little creek going down the middle of this thing. The canyon's rather wide, several hundred yards wide or so, and in the middle of this is a creek that wanders through that you can step over. Did that creek erode that canyon? Well, we know it didn't. But the creek, because the canyon's there, now the creek goes down through the middle of that canyon. Does it look like that creek could erode that canyon? Probably not. It's a weird shape. It's a very wide canyon. And it's a little tiny creek. It just doesn't look right. And here, look at this creek. Creek down the side of this canyon. Did that creek cut this canyon? Again, it doesn't quite look like it. The creek is under fit. It doesn't fill the canyon. And that's characteristic of these rapidly formed canyons. So our theory is on the Grand Canyon that the warp in the crust that backed up the water was cut through by a lake. It cut through the material as it drained the lake. Then that weakened this area to the next lake, and the next lake cut through, and then the next lake, and so on, leaving us with the Grand Canyon. When you look at the Grand Canyon, Realize that the side canyons come in typically perpendicular to the main canyon. The Grand Canyon zigzags its way through the plateau. There's 900 cubic kilometers of rock missing from the canyon and 100 cubic kilometers of rock missing from upstream. And downstream is a place where there's a thousand cubic kilometers of sediment that is a rhythmite, it's a rhythmically bedded, which we've learned is the kind of bedding that occurs when, let's say you've got a steep mountain stream, And there's a big flood that comes down through that thing, dumping material out. When it gets to the bottom of that narrow canyon, and it's able to spread out. It dumps its material, but it does so in a pulsing fashion. Really interesting. There's one flood, but it pulses when it gets down to the bottom. So water shoots out, drops its material, first the heavy stuff, then the smaller stuff, then the smaller stuff, and then the next pulse. And then we repeat this course, finer, finer. coarse, finer, finer, coarse, finer, finer. These are rhythmites, rhythmically repeated sediments. And that's characteristic of these rapid flood events, catastrophic flood events. Downstream, we have a thousand cubic kilometers estimated sediments that are rhythmically bedded. Just exactly what we'd expect if this was actually done, cut catastrophically. So we think that these enormous rainfall rates created very extensive lakes that would eventually cut through their dams and catastrophically cut the canyons of the world. We figure that most of the biggest canyons of the world are formed at this time. Now eventually the rainfall rate is actually going to get so low that in some places we create deserts. And so there's a period after the flood where we enter a period of desertification. We're creating deserts around the world. At 30 degrees north and south latitude, the air comes down. After having been wrung of its water at the equator, it drops to the surface at 30 degrees north and south latitude, very dry. And it creates deserts. in the present Earth. But early after the flood, it was too warm an ocean, too much precipitation to allow deserts. They would form later. And we have evidence of the desertification event in places like Egypt. We have, for example, the Sphinx, which you can see immediately in front of you in the picture, and then the pyramids behind them. The Sphinx and the Pyramids are built very differently at very different times. The Sphinx is much older than the Pyramids. As a matter of fact, you probably can't see it from your perspective, but these feet up here have been repaired. There are bricks here that somebody, a Pharaoh, namely the Pharaoh that built the first Pyramid, repaired the Sphinx. So the Sphinx is much older than the Pyramids. The Sphinx is made differently. The pyramids are made by cutting blocks of stone and piling them up. The Sphinx is cut into solid sandstone. They've cut down on either side a big quarry and then carved the sandstone to produce the sphinx. So it's made out of a different material. The pyramids are made of limestone, the sphinx of sandstone is made earlier, and then you see these layers. These are the original layers of the sandstone. They wouldn't have been evident the time they were first cut. This comes from erosion that has occurred since the Sphinx was carved. And this is the kind of erosion you get by water, by rainwater. That same kind of erosion has not been experienced by the pyramids. The pyramids are eroded by wind. Not by rain. There hasn't been sufficient rain on the pyramids to erode them with water. But the Sphinx, which is older, is eroded by rain. And so there was a period before the building of the pyramids when Egypt was well watered. And then the desertification occurred. In fact, the Sahara, the entire Sahara, is underlain throughout its extent by many rivers and buried forests of a period when it was much wetter. And then there was a sudden transformation. that I believe happened at the time that God saved the people of Canaan from the drought, the desertification that was coming to that area, and saved Egypt. by building, I believe he's part of the architect of the Great Pyramids and the granaries of Egypt and so on. He's coming in. God knows that desertification is coming. He brings Joseph into Egypt seven years before the first major drought that leads to that desertification and saves the Egyptians and most importantly the people of God. You also see this a little later. We see, I'm sorry, a little earlier than this, we have Abraham and Lot, their herds have gotten so large that they can no longer be supported by the vegetation there. So Abraham takes Lot up to a high point and says, go ahead, take your choice, go wherever you wish. And Lot looks down on the plain of the Jordan, which the Bible has a little parenthetical note there, it was well watered in those days. to emphasize the fact that's not the case now, okay? It was well watered in those days and he thought, woo, good stuff, I'm gonna go down there. So he moves into the Dead Sea. Okay, at the time of Abraham and Lot, which would have been before Joseph, that area was well watered. Now it is one of the driest places on the planet because after the desertification occurred in the days of Joshua, Joseph, sorry, this area from then on would be a very, very dry place. Also, temperature is doing the same thing. The warmest period of Earth history is at the end of the flood. During the flood, we had hot material coming up from the mantle, heating the oceans, warming the Earth's surface. We got hot stuff from the bottom coming up to the surface, so we got a warmer Earth. And then it's cooled off ever since. We see this in actual fossils. Tiny microfossils build their shells from calcium carbonate from the water itself and the oxygen isotope ratios in that indicate relative temperature and there's a decrease in temperature from the time of the flood to the present, about 20 degrees centigrade. So we think that during the flood, the flood water was heated up, the oceans were heated up 20 degrees centigrade from about 5 degrees centigrade, 38 degrees Fahrenheit, to room temperature, 75, 76 degrees Fahrenheit. And then after the flood, it warms, it cools off. And the cooling is done by evaporation to produce those very high rainfall rates. It's done by the hypercanes that are pulling that water out of the ocean by evaporation as well. And eventually, of course, it cools sufficiently that the rainfall comes down as snow that is coming down so fast that it cannot actually melt and producing the ice sheets over those specified areas of the earth where we know the ice events occurred. It's interesting that people have struggled for years trying to figure out what causes the ice age. It was long thought, I mean it seems reasonable most of us would have thought that, that it's because the earth was cooler that this would happen. And that was usually how people thought about it until they developed global climate models, and you've seen the effects of those in the recent years. They now have them on the weather channel and so on. They talk about the European global climate model and the American global climate model and where they think this hurricane is going to go. That's really cool stuff we're having now. Those are models, sophisticated models that require the kind of computers that John Baumgartner used for his motion of continents. They're awesome models. They're obviously not really good yet, but they're really astonishing what they can do. Once people started developing those kind of models, they realized they could possibly model the Ice Age. And there's a lot of things weird about the Ice Age. There's a lot of ice in North America, Greenland and that sort of thing. But through the middle of Canada, it's just as ice-free as could possibly be. And Siberia never had any ice. So Northern Asia has no ice age. I was like, wow, that's weird. It's covering Antarctica. So it's got a very odd distribution where the ice ended up. So when they develop models, it could actually potentially tell us how the ice age occurred. Neat thing about models are you can just change things in the computer. make the earth weird, make it hot, make it cold, you change, you move the continents, whatever you do, you can just play with it until it does what you want it to do and hopefully that then tells you what actually caused it. And ironically, what they began to realize is they could create an ice age if they warmed up the oceans. It was like really contradictory. It's like backwards. What? But it turns out when you warm up the oceans that evaporation will then bring a lot of water into the atmosphere. The warm, wet air over the oceans moves over the continents because when the continents turn away from the sun, they radiate energy out into space and they cool very rapidly at night. And that will cause the warm, wet air to move in from the oceans and drown the continents in water. And that cools the oceans. But eventually it will cool them sufficiently to drop snow. And it turns out in these models, believe it or not, it dumps it centered in the Hudson Bay and Antarctica and in the mountainous regions. It dumps it in just the right place. Now, very early on, people were excited about this in one sense, but didn't like it in several others. There was two problems with these models. One was that it didn't have any mechanism to heat up the oceans. In the conventional model, you've got to warm up the ocean. They figured they needed to warm it up like 20 degrees centigrade or something like that. And that's a lot of heat. Where's all the heat coming from to heat up the ocean so that you can create an ice age? I mean, it's backwards of what everybody's been searching for, something to cool everything off. Now you've got to figure out how to warm it. The second problem was that once they made the oceans warm, it produced an ice age in only centuries, not thousands of years, not over two million years is the period of the last ice age supposedly in their dating. So that doesn't work. So they literally early on threw the models away because they didn't fit the conventional model. Creationists picked that up out of the garbage and thought, I like the time issue, but how do we warm up the oceans? There was an interesting period in the history of creationism where in the same building on the same day there were some people in that flood model group that I'm talking about. We were sitting in there with a problem And that is that we figured that during the flood, the hot material from the mantle was going to be warming the oceans quite a bit. We figured it would probably be tens of degrees, and we even had evidence that that was the case. But we didn't have a mechanism to cool off the oceans to the present, and we were troubled by that. It seemed like no matter what we did, we couldn't We could heat it up so fast that it would boil the oceans. They didn't let that happen. But if we made it reasonable, we still had to cool off the oceans and we couldn't figure out how to do that. In the same building, at the same time, there were some creationists working on these discarded climate models that had a problem. They couldn't figure out how to heat up the oceans to create the ice age. Guess what? If we could just marry those two puppies, it turns out that our problem was their solution, their problem was our solution. When we put the two things together, which Larry Vardaman did, then our model actually flowed beautifully into the Ice Age model. We have then the only functioning model to explain the Ice Age. Because we have a mechanism to heat up the ocean, And it happens on the time scale that we think things happen, and it can't be used by the conventional geologists. So we've got a beautiful model for the ice age that doesn't work in the conventional model. Then when we melt the oceans, the ice, we do so very rapidly because our time scale is more. And that's what happens in the models. It melts back very fast, producing huge floods, producing even more canyons in that period right after the floods. I talked a little bit last night about what's happening biologically, and I'll just say something about that. At the same time that the Earth is recovering geologically, critters are recovering because God, at the beginning of the flood, chose representatives from each of the biblical kinds. The only a few species out of the many, probably one in every thousand species or so, was actually represented on the Ark. And hidden within those organisms, and you heard a little bit about hidden yesterday if you attended that talk, hidden within those organisms was the information for recovering all of that biological diversity. So when those critters got off the ark and spread across the planet, they had hidden within them the information to rebuild the number of species that existed before the flood. So within a few hundred years, within the Arphaxadian Epoch, we actually increased the number of species a thousand fold. While all this other stuff was happening geologically, recovering, the biology was recovering too. Thus, the initial camels didn't look like camels like today and they weren't designed for deserts because deserts weren't there initially, not until they would come about after the flood. When the time was right, that information was then revealed and desert camels were generated and so it goes. Two things are happening. Biology and geology are happening at the same time. Recovery is happening remarkably rapidly following the flood. Just to give you a little bit of a picture of what was going on in that period during and after the flood. So I did do that. Well, it took me much longer than I said it would. Not a surprise. Let's take a