Physics of the Biblical Flood

Hi Farmerman,

I appreciate your elaborated and professional replies. Since you are a geochemist we can conduct a serious discussion about the theory presented in my book as well as additional findings which I intend to present in later books. I understand that the religious justification of evolution and conventional cosmology does not interest you so let's focus on the geology.

First of all, let us put creationism aside. I am not a creationist. I accept the conventional geological timescale and dating mainly because I accept the postulates behind the radiometric dating methods and I haven't yet found any convincing creationist explanation that deals with this issue. The presence of sand dunes within layers millions of years old are therefore irrelevant for our discussion. You wrote "we cannot have it both ways". We will see about that...

Secondary deposit of mantle minerals: I agree with you that there should be some secondary deposits and I am glad to read that you are an expert in this issue. Now let us dive further into the details. According to my theory, there should have been extensive volcanic activity in the beginning of the flood. We should find evidence for this activity in the form of volcanic ash and gas. I did find evidence of this type. But most of the volcanic activity during the flood was different in its characteristics from the normal activity we see today and along history. The tidal heating of the mantle radically decreased the solubility of its volatiles (mainly of water but also other typical volcanic gases). Hence vast portions of the mantle became over-saturated, therefore water and other volatiles nucleated to supercritical liquid bubbles. These bubbles floated upwards and generated a highly diluted magma at the top of the asthenosphere. Volcanic eruptions in these circumstances would be mainly of gaseous form. That is to say without great lava currents pouring out. Now, if you take in account that most of the material ejected from the mantle was in the form of volatiles then what minerals would you expect to find? By the way, the composition of the volcanic gas itself was much more water-enriched than usual volcanic gases under these unique circumstances. Of course you would have to actually read my book (at least chapters 8-11) in order to understand how I reached these conclusions.

Marine and flood sediment: I think that we have agreed that the duration of the flood was too short to generate any marine sediment in the form of Pelagic sediment. We also agreed that riverine flood sediment should be expected. You don't need to convince me about that. Regarding the tsunami sediment. My theory does not explain the flood as a mega-tsunami, although some may have occurred as a side effect. It explains the flood as a massive (but gradual throughout 150 days) addition of water to the hydrosphere. So tsunami deposits are not the issue here. What is relevant is the question of oceanic tidal currents. One of the necessary side effects is intense oceanic tides that may repeatedly sweep over the land. Since we are speaking about tides and not about tsunami, we should expect the currents to be weaker than those of a tsunami. Tell me as an expert, what sedimentation does a rare high tide create?

Farmerman, before I begin to supply you with my specific geological findings I wish to see that we agree about the characteristics of the sediments that should actually be found.

With thanks
Roi Lotan Glazer
The Physics of The Biblical Flood
(Google for more information about my book and theory...)

Hi Sentana,

Your reply and attached pictures was very nice. However I did not claim that there weren't people trying to build airplanes before the 20th century. I simply claimed that most people probably regarded the idea as ridiculous back then. If I had written "before the 19th century" I guess that my claim would have been more precise. But notice that even in 1906, 3 year after the Wright brothers first public flight, the following paragraph was written in the French press:

"The Wrights have flown or they have not flown. They possess a machine or they do not possess one. They are in fact either fliers or liars. It is difficult to fly. It's easy to say, 'We have flown."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#European_skepticism

The great mathematician Simon Newcomb is well known for the following quote (given in 1903 just before the Wright brother's first public flight):
"May not our mechanicians . . . be ultimately forced to admit that aerial flight is one of the great class of problems with which man can never cope, and give up all attempts to grapple with it?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb,_Simon#On_the_impossibility_of_a_flying_machine

Now this discussion is not about aviation. It is about the theory presented in my book "The Physics of The Biblical Flood". This side-discussion merely developed since you claimed that the idea of a global flood is ridiculous and I replied that most revolutionary theories seem ridiculous at the beginning. The airplane example is merely one out of many along our history. As Alfred North Whitehead wrote back in 1925:
"If you have your attention directed to the novelties of thought in your own lifetime, you will have observed that almost all really new ideas have a certain aspect of foolishness when they are first produced."
Science and the Modern World (New York 1925), chapter 3.

Sentana, there are plenty of examples to prove my case. Even if you are not convinced in this case, do you really want to deal with dozens of other examples? Isn't my basic claim obvious?

Roi Lotan Glazer
The Physics of The Biblical Flood
(Google for my book and theory...)

What is obvious is that you are attempting to justify your ridiculous position by analogy. Just as your analogy is flawed, so is your thesis. I think the only reason that you are here is to promote your book, and that you will continue to employ your fallback position which is that one need only read your book and it will all become clear. People who make extraordinary claims have the burden of proof. No one in obliged to disprove your thesis. When you employ flawed analogies, you simply make your own premises more suspect.

Im not sure why that assertion is the case because we should be able to connect a reason with the geological results. For example, we know the reasons for several types of oceanic vents. These being
1. Island Arc deep mantle upwellings (giving us specific ophiolitic and serpentinitic rocks with contact zones of enriched sikica and heavy metal deposists)

2. Mid-Oceanic ridge mechanics where the volcanics are speciic calc-alkaline "lavas' similar to pahoe hoe and aa lavas

3.Hots spots and fumaroles of deep ocean areas where mantle thinning releases sulphitic type lavas with hevy mineral accumulations

5 Acidic (enriched quartz and low Ca Plagioclases) continental volcanic deposist

6. Flood volcanics similar to oceanic mantkle deposits (none of these deposits except those in the Canadian and Australian Shields show chemical partitioning )

7. ANATEKTIC ( remelted continental deposists due to intense tectonic pressures). These are similar to the rocks of the Eastern US Piedmont and Appalachian fronts and the Central pre CambrianMountains of Australia and Russia.



In each case specific minerals that enable us to date these deposits are present. What mineralsoccur in your areas of theory?. In each case of volcanic belts on the planet we know quite well the AGES, THE ENVIRONMENTS, THE MINERALOGY SUITES, and the geological SURROUNDINGS. Im not sure youve provided anything new here but in no case do I see that these volcanic deposits are necessarily precursors to a worldwide flood. In the Perian, for example, we know that the great Deccan volcanics and associated areas occured, but at tha
e same time, we know that is many areas of the planet the entire surfces were bone dry because we have fossils of terrestrial animals in dune deposits, swampy areas, normal dry plain areas where rain had fallen and some sediment infilled for a cyclothemic deposits of many layers of footprints over footprints. In that time we have lots of exampes of anoxic deposits incorporated into coal measures (swamp deposits in terrestrial basins) and vast pyrite deposits associated with ironstones in unique lake waters and palludal deposits


What minerl deposits do you propose and what evidence is there of them?

No we have not agreed on that point. Youve asserted it and Ive denied that you can go for ANY length of time without depositing some kind of sedimentological record. Itss hard to deny that fact. riverine sediments , seasonal deposits in risng seas, seasonal deposits in receeding seas are all traceable by sedimentology and isotope chemistry. I can take you to sediment deposits going on today where water is rising due to ice melting and the infilling of quite "prograding" basins and inlets can trace their sediment loads to only 50 years of seasonal water rise by rising tides. Its not possible I say and the sedimentological record will bear me out on that. I think you have a really hard row to hoe on being convincing.


AS far as a "gradual" water rise over 150 days, I cannot see how this could ever be described as Gentle. Have you considered a water budget to describe the amount of water being generetaed per day. I submit that tidal forces alone would be enough to throw axial traces off by a significant amount.

Ill call it "tidal sloshing" would be horrendous and would generate its own sediment load from soils, ewrosion and submarine flysch depositing and shelf collapse from continental shelves.
AGain, I cant buy what your satying because youve not shown anyplace on earth where your theory even evidences itself.

I dont think I have to read your book to learn that things are different than I know the evidence to show they really are NOT different.
Instead, lets take a place on the planet that you say fits your theory and then lets compare evidence and you tell me where my science understanding is wrong. I am totally willing to debate it out, if you wish to take the time.

A good model for a contemporary "occasional high tide" is the Bay of Fundy as seen from areas like the Minas Basin and Cape Split. These areas are generally vast mud deposits that , according to the mechanics of particle movement, can movea bout 50 tons of sediment peracre PER TIDAL CYCLE.(Hjolstrums law of sediment movement).
Cape split is built up from routine tidal rises each year and , if it wouldnt be mined and scoured by people wanting stone, itd be a long peninsula of gravel just from little Minas basin.

Look at mere beachsand deposits during Sandy . The New Jersey and New York beaches were devastated by a regular seasonal Northeaster. I would say that a flood deposit that would encompass several hundred acre feet (times the number of surface acres on the planet) divided by the number of days you are talking about would in my estimation, be an incredible amount of energy laden water.


OH YEH, When did this flood occur? And how do you know?

And this turns out to be an accurate analysis of the entire body of work presented in his web site (which I wasted my time reviewing).

His entire "scientific" analysis consists of flawed analogies piled on top of flawed assumptions with no actual data or evidence to support anything.

But even more deeply troubling for the claim that "this is a scientific analysis" is that the basic scientific methodology of 'gathering data and then constructing a theory to explain the data' has been corrupted by the attempt to offer analogies and explanations for a mythological story rather than data itself. The entire scientific endeavor is ass-backwards from what it should be, and is therefor, not science at all.

Unfortunately, whether the endeavor is scientific or not (or even just feebly alleged to scientific) this is how so many people proceed. They have an idea they wish to forward, and then they go looking for something with which to underpin it. It usually also involves the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances, which is to say, presenting anything with supports the thesis (or merely seems to support the thesis) and ignoring anything which contradicts it.

Agreed. I do find it encouraging however that so many people go to such lengths to make their arguments (even faith-based arguments) "sound" scientific. I think it underscores the true value that science has to offer in an "information environment" which has become so polluted by irrationality and illogic.

I find it amusing for example to see The Discovery Institute struggling so hard (just look at the name they chose) to appear "scientific" in nature, when the entire premise of their existence is antithetical to science.

That's a good point. We get that "it's only a theory" dodge all the time, but nevertheless, there's a cachet in scientific legitimacy which the lunatic fringe long for.

Exactly. And I think that's the truest test of the value of science. Even the lunatic fringe recognize it's innate value and yearn for the respect ideas gain by following its methodology.

I also think this is why evangelists love to try to convert Atheists, because hell, it's easy to convert another believer, but if you can convert an Atheist who bases his thought on science, then you've really pulled a heavy load.

And people who start their religious argument by first proclaiming, "I used to be an Atheist", those people are just trying to steal a bit of the "I converted an Atheist" gravitas by implying that they converted themselves. Pathetic.

Discovery Institute is pretty much out of the picture as theyve cancelled many of their broad based research plans and symposia on "Intelligence".
I always wonder whether they will reinvent themselves or will they just become a footnote of a time in which they did raise some dust.

Course my opinion is based on good evidence so your just gonna have to read my book to find out about it.

I think they will reinvent themselves. I don't think this battle is going away anytime soon.

I think the new tactic will be to go "under the radar" for a while and to creep into the public education system of elementary schools in the bible belt. I'm sure they are already doing it.

Hi Sentana,

I have been away for a couple of days and so many accusations have been made by you and others. When someone becomes so emotional in a debate that is suppose to be rational that implies that he cannot support his claims by logic.

Of course I want to promote my book and I'm not trying to hide that fact. But did you know that my book is available FOR FREE online in order to enable anyone to read it and test it. The promotion of the book is first of all an attempt to promote the theory that may at last solve the enigma of the Biblical flood. If I have found the right scientific explanation for the flood then it will be gradually reinforced by scientific evidence from many fields. Eventually its acceptance will dramatically alter our understanding of the Biblical flood and the Bible in general. Therefore it may have a profound impact on the faith of many individuals. So I think that we are speaking about an issue that is worth one's while.

You assume automatically that my theory is wrong without reading any portion of it. You regard the negation of a global flood as an axiom. History has shown us again and again how axioms crashed. It is better to always have some doubt and be open minded to new ideas, even if you don't believe in them. What damage can occur to you by doing so?

You wrote: “People who make extraordinary claims have the burden of proof. No one in obliged to disprove your thesis.” I totally agree with you about that. But still there were many theories along the history of science that were published before they were proved. For example, Einstein's relativity was published in 1905 and proved only after 1917. String Theory is very popular among physicists today despite the fact that it cannot be proved yet. In my own theory there are many new postulates that can actually be tested immediately. You need to read the book to understand it and there are no shortcuts here just like you need to spent a lot of time and effort in order to understand most scientific theories. Can you understand relativity or string theory without thoroughly studying it basis?

Sentana, there are test points for my theory. I am trying to reach some of them in my discussion with the geochemist “Farmerman”. Have some patience. Let us see if Farmerman can disprove my theory. If he will manage to do so then I will admit that I am wrong. Otherwise, the debate will still be open. I am a scientist and I accept scientific evidence even if they contradict my personal belief.

Roi Lotan Glazer
The Physics of The Biblical Flood
(Google for my book and theory...)

Hi Farmerman,

I will begin by answering your last question. When did this flood occur? It occurred in the 22th century BC. The findings which I connect to it are well known today under the name “4.2 kiloyear event”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event

This event is one of the most extreme in the holocene, it is very abrupt in its nature. It is well associated today with the collapse of all near eastern civilizations as well as Indian and Chinese civilizations. In addition I personally checked the archeological records in South America and Europe and found that the archeological marks of this events are global. There is evidence that all cultures simultaneously collapsed at any excavation that provided high resolution radiometric dating. The articles usually emphasis this event as a global aridification event. Its cause is not clear yet. Amazingly, it perfectly fits the dating of the Biblical flood (as calculated directly from the Bible).

I claim that the aridification is merely the side effect of the flood. The flood damaged terrestrial vegetation. The ground remained relatively barren for a while. There weren't enough plants to hold the ground. That is why dust began to accumulate everywhere worldwide and we can see the signs of this dust spike globally. It took centuries for the climate to rebalance.

The direct signs of the flood are hidden within the layers marking the beginning of this event and they include volcanic ash, riverine flood deposits, turbulence in deep water samples, destruction of coral reefs, geo-archeological findings that relate an integrated rain and volcanic event to the collapse of the society and the very beginning of the 4.2 kilo year event and there is more... The geologists are still confused and you will find all kind of hypothesis regarding this event. The fact that the accuracy of carbon dating for this era cannot supply a resolution better than a whole century makes it difficult to correlate the evidence properly. In addition many archeologist refuse to accept the carbon dating and insists in holding on to their old interpretation of the history. This only magnifies the confusion.

The whole event which is undoubtedly extreme (even without regarding it as the Biblical flood) was totally unknown 20 years ago! That should teach us something about our geological ability to determine short and abrupt climate events. 20 years ago, geologists knew nothing about what is now considered as the most extreme climate event in human history. What may we find out throughout the next 20 years?

I want to see how you reply to this information. According to the mechanism specified in my book you should not seek for any great magmatic currents. You should merely seek for evidence of riverine deposits, volcanic gases and ash, extreme tides (but not tsunami) and Geo-biological evidence. I did not investigate if any mantle minerals are expected to be found in this case. I would be glad to receive your opinion (after you read chapter 8-11 in my book and understand the mechanism). Write me what you think about this new information and I will be ready to discuss evidence from specific sites in the next reply.

Roi Lotan Glazer
The Physics of The Biblical Flood
(Google for my book and theory...)

Hi Rosborne979,

You wrote that you visited my web site and you made so many accusations against my work. But you didn't supply even one specific example. If your claim is serious choose the best example you can from my web site and let us see if you can really support yourself in a scientific discussion...

Roi Lotan Glazer
The Physics of The Biblical Flood
(Google it for more information...)

All you're doing now is whining about "accusations," and trying more desperately than ever to promote yourself, your crappy web site and your crappy book.

No one here has to prove anything. If your thesis is rejected, it's up to you to prove it, and you've not done so. You're just like the Christians with this "prove me wrong" bullshit.

Hi Roi,

I'm not the one who needs to support myself in a scientific discussion. I have a long history on this board which speaks for itself. You on the other hand haven't even show a scientific basis for your argument(s).

But if you want a specific example to respond to, then please provide empirical evidence to support your conjecture of a "cosmic cloud" interacting with the earth.

You've got the time within a reasonable ballpark. The mistake you're making is thinking that the cause(s) of the flood and the water itself were terrestrial in origin.

The quickest way to dispel that involves the following analysis of the flood story as you see it in the King James Bible.

The flood turns out to have been part and parcel of some larger, solar-system-wide calamity.


In particular, the seven days just prior to the flood are mentioned twice within a short space:



These were seven days of intense light, generated by some major cosmic event within our system. The Old Testament contains one other reference to these seven days, i.e. Isaiah 30:26:



Most interpret this as meaning cramming seven days worth of light into one day. That is wrong; the reference is to the seven days prior to the flood. The reference apparently got translated out of a language which doesn't use articles. It should read "as the light of THE seven days".

It turns out, that the bible claims that Methuselah died in the year of the flood. It may not say so directly, but the ages given in Genesis 5 along with the note that the flood began in the 600'th year of Noah's life (Genesis 7:11) add up that way:



Thus we have Methusaleh dying in the year of the flood and in fact at the start of the week prior to the flood.

Louis Ginzburg's seven-volume "Legends of the Jews", the largest body of Midrashim ever translated into German and English expands upon the laconic tales of the OT.

From Ginzburg's Legends of the Jews, Vol V, page 175:



In other words, there were seven days of intense light prior to the flood. The midrashic reference is, again, to Gen. 7.4:



What the old books are actually telling us is that there was a stellar blowout of some sort either close to or within our own system at the time of the flood. The blowout was followed by seven days of intense light and radiation, and then the flood itself. Moreover, the signs of the impending disaster were obvious enough for at least one guy, Noah, to take extraordinary precautions.

If the flood had some earthly cause, those signs would not have been there and Noah would have drowned.

The ancient (but historical) world knew a number of seven-day light festivals, Hanukkah, the Roman Saturnalia etc. All were ultimately derived from the memory of the seven days prior to the flood.

If this entire deal is a made-up story, then here is a case of the storyteller (Isaiah) making extra work for himself with no possible benefit, i.e. he mentions the seven days and the great light associated with them but does not bother with details since he assumes his listeners are familiar with the story.

Greek and Roman authors, particularly Hesiod and ovid, Chinese authors and others, note that small groups of men and animals survived the flood on high places and on anything which could float for a year. There is no essential contradiction between this and the biblical account. Noah's descendants were probably unaware of anybody else surviving and wrote the story that way.

]Your dates are remarkeably in line with Archbishop Ussher no?
Let me post a segment of your last post as Ive been busy here at work.


You are assuming that there was a 4.2 kiloyear event. We have tree rings , ice cores, varves, C14 from campfires, DNA, and of course, proto fssils that bracket that time. As I recall, none of these seem to show any remarkeable event that could be described as a worldwide flood. There were several high aridity zones that led up to the desertification of most of the hemispheres
Is the 4.2 kiloyear event(associated with a big flood) a popular term like"lay lines" or Atlantis" or "alien runways".? Aridity does not necessarily precede a flood.

Im a field geologist these days and I have lots of colleagues . I dont recall any of them being "confused" about something as obviously noticeable as a worldwide flood in the Holocene. (We do use tree rings to define ranges of climatic events like aridity and flooding and the aridity zone of the uS and canada can be measured in cave deposits) >BUT there were no evidences of any floods that Im aware of
We do have neat evidence of certain rivers like the Delaware, Chesapeake bay and The ST Croix that had flooded their channels and mouths as glacieres receeded but we do have Paleo sols of huge areas in Eastern US that showed the periglacial areas as far south as Noirth Carolina were actually "perma frosts" with polygonal block ground. (these soils demonstrate "fragipans" which are base colluvial soils unigue to glacial areas).
In post glacial times it was quite cold all the way south and there were evidences of civilizations and encampents as well as the last megafaunas that got stuck and drowned in peat bogs. C14 on these animals shows them to be about 5000 yBP when the last of these guys was going.
What Im saying is that weve got bare ground evidence from the times you assert are flood times.
Weve got all kinds of data, pollen, dead animals in cave deposits, cave deposits themselves, varves and palludal lake sediments like the lakes in Canada where there are seasonal deposits that show us a unbroken core back 100000 years in some cases.

ALL I have to do is show you a few places that WERE NOT underwater in this time and I think Ive dismissed your theory No?
We Cant have a universal flood if theres some spots that remained above water.

ALSO, youve got to account for the high mountains of the world, Andes, rockies, Sierras, Causases. Alps and Himalayas.They show no "bathtub rings along their flanks" . And if you say that erosion has cleanbed these off, where are the fossils of sea creatures in the wastage and colluvium.

Hi Farmerman and everyone,

I just popped in to see if there were any responds before people here will start going crazy with irrelevant replies. Please be patient everyone. I also have a life beyond this forum and I suppose that you have one too. I can make the time to properly reply to all of you once in two days. Farmerman, I will supply you with specific data to analyse within a day or two. I agree with most of your determinations regarding the evidence that should be found and I will soon begin to show you where and how it exists.

Roi Lotan Glazer
The Physics of The Biblical Flood

I get it. Gungasnake is an ultra conservative Rabbinical student who gets his jollies with guns and fringie theories about anything.
Id hardly call tales in the OT "laconic". seems theyve said anything and everything the way the true believers see so many things in there.