Okay, we're going to look
at the geophysics of the Flood. We're assuming that we've already identified
the Flood rocks. What is it that we can learn about
the geophysics of the Flood? And the first thing
I want to say is that geophysics is a science. “Geo” is referring to the earth. So we’re looking at the motion
and activity of the earth, things that are in
contradistinction to something like the fossils of the Flood, or the sediments
of the Flood, the rocks of the Flood. This is going to look
at the dynamics of the Flood. It is a science. As a science, we ought to begin
with scripture to determine what we can learn
about that particular subject. Similar to other things that we have encountered
in the Flood, the Flood account gives us
very little to deal with. Although, it's better
than fossils, and better than rocks. There are some comments that may actually
have geophysical significance. For example in Genesis 7:11, it tells us that on the same
day were all the Fountains of the Great Deep broken up. Following that, the passage talks
about the Windows of Heaven. It's possible that the breakup
of the Fountains of the Great Deep has
reference to the breakup of the crust of the earth. And that would be geophysics. There's actually a comment that may have great
geophysical significance. You need to consider that. The consequence, apparently, according to that verse,
is that whatever that was, it resulted in a Flood or a rising of sea level
relative to the land. Such that it went so far as to cover all
the mountains of the Earth for a sustained period of time. The whole Flood event
was something in excess of a year of time, and the effect of it,
the purpose of it in context, was actually to kill all humans and all land animals that were
on the earth at the time, except those saved on the Ark. And it's that particular account of the Flood that we’re
interested in considering. Again, there's a little bit
that we can possibly deduce from that passage. But most of what we're going
to have to learn from Flood geophysics is going
to have to be from the world and looking at the rocks we
think are formed in the Flood so we can infer the nature
of things from those rocks. There’s a lot of different
places I could begin. I’m going to begin with
what I call megaquakes. Big earthquakes. Once we define the rocks we
believe to be the Flood rocks, which are what the conventional
world would call the Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks,
we have evidence of megaquakes. Big earthquakes. I mean BIG earthquakes! So I wanted to address
a little bit of how I even know there are
such things as big earthquakes. Let's say you've got
some water carrying sand, and it drops out the sand
into a layer of sand. If you looked
carefully, microscopically, at the sand, you recognize the sand grains
are deposited in what you might call a random fashion. There's often pockets
in between the sand grains that still contain water. The sand isn't as close-packed
as the sand could possibly be. Under almost no circumstances
do you actually drop sand down in water
in a close-packed fashion? So there's extra space in here with water
in between the grains. If that particular
sediment is hit with a significant shock wave
of some sort, jostled, is shaken, the individual
sand particles will in fact go into a close-packed pattern, or at least approach it
by moving in that direction. In order to do so, though, it’s got to push the water out
from in between the sand grains. And typically, then, the water would go upwards
into the sediment above if there's already, for example, layering
in that sediment that water that's rising in
the sand will deform. The deformation of these
what were formerly, let's say, horizontal structures results in what we call
fluid avulsion structures. It exhibits itself
after earthquakes. One example of a shock wave
running through sediment would be an earthquake wave. Here's an example
from the Loma Prieta Earthquake, 6.9 on the Richter scale. In the midst of a field, it's shaken up the sand in
the soil underneath the surface. It's caused water to rise
up to the surface. That water carries with it sand grains from beneath
and creates the sand volcanoes, depositing sand on the surface. It’s really strange. If you're involved
in an earthquake and see this, it’s pretty cool. Well, geologists think
it’s pretty cool. It's really fun to watch. You might like this guy
who was standing on a sidewalk in New Zealand
who took these pictures. He’s on a sidewalk,
and it’s a little jiggly, but you can actually see these sand volcanoes produced
right beside the sidewalk, pile over the sidewalk
as the person is watching this. If there's a very
significant earthquake, releasing a tremendous amount of
water into sediments above that which has been settled down, and if there's enough water
mixed with the sand, you create a
quicksand situation. You liquefy, what we call the liquefaction
of the sand in geology. If anything's on top
of that sand, like a car, sitting
on top of that sand, all of a sudden the car sinks
like it's sinking into water. This is because there's so
much water relative to the sand being avulsed from the material
underneath into sand that it causes the car
to collapse beneath the surface. It can also take out the foundations of houses or
buildings, even large buildings, that have been built
upon the sand. Bad idea! We get that idea
from the scripture, don't we? You aren't supposed
to do that, but people still do it. It's much cheaper than digging
all the way down to bedrock. But if you do set
your foundation upon sand, and an earthquake comes
along which liquefies that sand from material underneath, the building just dips in just
like the car does. You end up with
buildings falling over. Very strange,
but amazing stuff. Now, the other thing is that you can see these kinds
of things in sediments. What I was talking about seeing
you can see at the surface, but let's say after the earthquake
has come along, you would cut down through the sediment and look at
those formally horizontal lines that are now avulsed. You will see
that in cross-section. Here's an example
in some Dead Sea muds. They’re normally flat-lying, alternating light and dark muds
that an earthquake has hit at this particular point up. Well, it's actually
throughout this. This is a 3-inch section of the muds before
the earthquake disrupted them. It's probably looking
very much like this, but water is avulsed
from these sediments, deforming them and creating some
really interesting structures. These are things observed
by Steve Austin in his study of muds around the Dead Sea. In this particular situation, he identified that particular
layer as this one here and identifies it
with the 31 BC eruption that we're familiar with. There's another layer here
that was only three inches thick and can't really be seen
in this photograph. The deformation can't be
seen at the scale. But here's one here where the deformation
actually shows up, and it's about six inches
of deformation in mud. So rather than three inches
you’ve got six inches. You've just about
doubled your deformation. We know that this earthquake is associated with
an earthquake at 750 BC. We have a rough estimate
of the Richter power of each earthquake based on what we can infer
from a variety of sources. We obviously don’t have
a direct measure of this. The bigger one,
the one with bigger deformation, is in fact a more
powerful earthquake. It's about 16 times the power
of the smaller earthquake, and it results in just
doubling the height, or the amplitude,
of the deformation. So we can look at sediments
based upon this kind of information from earthquakes
we’re familiar with. The biggest earthquakes
that we've seen in the present, the 1964 earthquake
is the largest one in North America
in recorded history since we've had seismometers, produced 11 inches
of deformation. It was a big earthquake. 8.4 on the Richter scale. It’s probably 16 times more
powerful than this earthquake and it doubled
the approximate deformation. We can look
at ancient sediments, and we can see deformation that
matches the kind of deformation we see in modern earthquakes. That deformation is what
we would assign a name called a seismite. A seismite is
a sedimentary structure produced by seismic activity
by an earthquake. So that's a
seismite right there. This is another
seismite right here. We should be able to identify
seismites in the record. Plus, if we know
from the present what kind of power is necessary to produce
a given size of deformation, we can use that to estimate the power
of ancient earthquakes. So when you find
deformation structures that are of this size...and
my scale here is sitting in the back of the room. Jeff is nearly six foot. What are you, 6’1 ”? Okay, 6 feet and 1 inch tall. Here's a deformation of a sandstone unit
that is one, two, three, four times his size. It’s 24 feet thick. Okay, if the biggest earthquake
in recent history since we've had seismometers
produces 11 inches, and to double this puppy, you've got to increase
the earthquake power 16 times, what kind of power
is involved in this? This is a monster earthquake. And there are bigger ones. Okay, we encountered 35-feet, 40-feet of layers
of deformation. These are monster earthquakes, but they’re the smaller
earthquakes at the end of the Flood. There are bigger ones
in the Flood itself. If you look at this aerial photo of a portion
of the Grand Canyon, you can see a structure along here which is actually
an earthquake fault. If you look into this canyon, and take a look at the wall
of the canyon there, with the fault being off just
out of view in this image, we’re looking at layers
of rock sitting over here that are doing certain things
before they get to the fault. They’ve been deformed
by the fault. Now for scale,
there’s some humans here. You can't see them hardly;
this is a pretty big structure. If you follow
this particular unit, which is Tapeat Sandstone, for hundreds of miles, it's
pretty much as flat as can be. It's normally a flat lying unit. It's only deformed here
in response to movement along the fault. We know that this deposit was deposited probably very soon
at the beginning of the Flood, probably on the first day
of the Flood or so. It's deformed at the end
of the Flood. So one year later,
it's deformed. And it isn't just bent upwards. If you actually trace the rocks, you’ll see it’s recumbent
folded at least three times. It’s hard to trace some of these
particular layers sometimes. We have an incredible
deformation that is occuring. And the motion along the fault is indicative
of at least one mile of motion. So, probably, it may have been
from a single earthquake that actually had a mile
of motion along this fault. If it wasn't a single
earthquake, it was a series of earthquakes over a very
short period of time, certainly within months, but probably within
days at the most. This is, again,
just mind-boggling to think of. The 2004 tsunami that killed a quarter billion people
was caused by an earthquake that moved rocks along
a thousand mile-long fault. That’s 60 meters. You just moved it 200 feet. That's it. This is in excess of a mile, and the fault is
much longer than a mile. This is a very
big fault as well. So this is a monster earthquake. There are bigger ones than that, because again, that earthquake
is at the end of the Flood. It was probably at the low end
of the power of the Flood. Everything I've shown you is the little stuff
at the end of the Flood. Here we’re getting further
down in the Flood. This is a cross-section
of a carbonate. It’s hard to see, I understand, but here the carbonate has
been broken apart into pieces. It's been what
we call “brecciated. ” So carbonate
is something that, once it forms,
starts out as lime mud, which is really gooey. But it sets into
an extremely brittle rock that’s very difficult to bend. Basically impossible to bend. It tends to fracture
if it's forced to bend, and if there's sufficient
power given to it, it fractures into a breccia. It breaks into sharp pieces. This is an example of a carbonate unit
in the United States that has been brecciated. In fact, there's a series
of these carbonate units moving from the
southeastern United States, across towards the south of
the northwestern United States. There's a series
of individual limestone units that are brecciated. If you look at them
in that geographic sequence, they don't all date
at the same time. They have different
radiometric dates that indicate that
the brecciation of dolomites and limestones in that sequence
started in the southeastern United States and moved
across the continent. If you follow the evolutionary,
old age scenario, it crossed the continent
in 100 million years. There was some sort
of deformational wave that went across the continent from the southeastern US
to the northwestern US, that deformed shale
fairly easily. Shale can be bent
and bent back with no trouble. When it hit the limestone units,
it brecciated them. But it took 100 million years
in radiometric time for this wave to
cross the continent. That's the conventional
explanation for this. I would say that's absurd. We know of no such deformation
that can move so slowly. Anything with an impulse
and a relative motion of that magnitude is going
to move through rock at about the speed of sound. It's going to move
at 534 feet per second, or whatever it is,
through that rock. We know of nothing
that can deform rocks so slowly, but powerfully! What is that? So if you actually connect
these rocks as they do in the conventional literature, and put a proper speed
on this puppy, this is a seismic wave that crossed the continent
of such magnitude that it took one-foot and two-foot thick limestone
units and just scrambled them as it went through. I suspect if you
were standing on the ground, it would break every bone
in your body. It would move things
up so quickly that you would be hitting the ground, and the ground
would be hitting you, and it would just smash
all the bones in your body. It would be a horrible mess. This is a monster earthquake. It's not just bigger than
anything we have in the present, it's not even conceivable. Now, here's another one that is a little older than that
at the beginning of the Flood that I think is the biggest
earthquake in earth history. We go out to the Kingston
range in California. Kingston Peak is
the highest peak in that range, and there is a formation
of rock named after Kingston Peak found in the Kingston range called
the Kingston Peak Formation. That rock is a diamictite. It’s a rock made of two
different-sized rock particles. Mostly sand. But mixed in the sand
are these rock fragments. Some of them round, some of them
angular, thus breccia. That particular unit has
some pretty big boulders in it. This is a boulder that is
a quarter-mile in diameter. It's hard to see these,
no matter how I did this. We took photographs
from the plane. It's impossible to see
from the ground. There's not much of a difference
in color contrast between the matrix
and these boulders. Here's a boulder here. Here's a boulder here. Here's a boulder here. Another one. There's another one. There's another one here. Each of these boulders is approximately one
mile in diameter. They’re kind of
dinner plate-shaped things, 200 meters in thickness, and several of them
are actually imbricated. They’re stacked on top of one
another in this diamictite. These are monster boulders. I worked in this particular unit
for ten field seasons before I had to
abandon the project. Towards the end of the project,
I was beginning to believe that there's actually
much bigger boulders. I had only seen things
that were a mile in size, but I believe there's three-
to five-mile diameter boulders in the same unit that I started out
thinking were the bedrock that hadn't been moving. I began to realize,
“ Wait a minute. These aren't actually
bedrock pieces. These are boulders
inside this deposit. ” The evidence indicates that this is
an avalanche deposit. It's in excess of a mile thick, probably closer to
3 to 5 miles thick. It’s a two and a half mile
thick avalanche deposit. The evidence is that it fell more
than one kilometer because it exploded boulders
that you can only do if you drop the rock that far. So we have to have something
that could take that much rock and drop it down at
least one-quarter mile. There's evidence it
was formed underwater. We believe that it's
actually due to an earthquake that collapsed the edge
of the continent. This is an avalanche
that came off the continent. You've got the difference
between the continental height and the ocean depth, which is currently
about four kilometers. So you've got plenty of vertical
distance to explain that. On this map, which is our best reconstruction
of what the continents looked like at the time this particular rock was formed
is located right here. It turns out that in the same aged rocks
all around the world, we find the same
avalanche deposits. We find them not only right
through Laurentia, which is North America, but right through
the middle of Australia, and even right through
the middle of South China. When you put
the pieces back together, you find them at the edge of the continent all
around the world at the time that this was made. Radiometrically, they are dating
at identical ages. They are the same age, so this is all occurring
at the same time. So we're collapsing
the continental margins of the entire world
by an earthquake. It's probably an earthquake
that cracked along a fault, probably along the edge
of the continent, at the speed of sound. There's probably an earthquake that took four to five hours
to actually occur. It cracks along the fault kind
of like zipping and unzipping a zipper
or something like that, just as the 2004 earthquake was that 60-meter motion
along 1,000 miles. It actually moved
along the fault, cracking the fault
along the way. Rather than a really
big earthquake taking about 20 seconds, this
would have been an earthquake that took four to five hours. In the process, it broke the continental edges
around all the continents of the world. That's a monster earthquake, I think the biggest earthquake
of earth history. Those are all parts
of the Flood. That's part of the geophysics
of the Flood. What's the cause? These are monster earthquakes. What causes those things? That's geophysics. But what is it that gives the power
to the earthquakes? That's what I want to address. We've looked at megaseismites, those big, big things
where Jeff is the scale for. That's the end of the Flood. The little guys. Brecciating crustal waves moving
through North America; brecciating the rocks
of the continent. That's earlier in the Flood. The global collapse of the continental margins
at the beginning of the Flood. We’re looking at a pattern of decreasing power
through the Flood, but awesome, unbelievable power throughout. What is causing it? My suspicion is that plate tectonics is
the cause of this. Now conventional plate tectonics
is an amazing theory in geology that explains an awful lot of
features on the present world. It explains the shapes
of the continents. It explains geology on opposite sides of the ocean
without that matching geology in the oceans. It explains the
position of volcanoes, and the chemistry of volcanoes. The location of earthquakes,
and the nature of earthquakes. There is a wealth of things that are explained
by plate tectonics. It's a very powerful theory
to explain a lot, but it does have a few problems. Biblically, it's moving continents
at centimeters per year, which is the rate at which
your fingernails grow. Much too slow to be accommodated
in the midst of a global Flood. But there’s other problems. We can actually measure current continental
motion with satellites. Satellites can look
at North America and Europe at the same time and can measure the relative
motion between the two. And although the motion is
very often within that range of centimeters per year, in many cases the motion is
going in the opposite direction of where it is supposed to go. In some cases,
it's not moving at all. It's a really weird mixture. The direction
doesn't make sense. The magnitude average
is about right, but something's wrong
with the motions. Also the trenches, which are places
where subduction is occurring. Where that occurs, if there's debris in between the continent and
where the plates are going down, it's going to mess
that stuff up. But all the modern trenches
are full of sediment that's undeformed as if there is no subduction
in those areas. That's just bizarre. We've also got some other things
that are interesting. We've got some minerals
inside mountain chains that are the result
of collision between continents. But the minerals in those mountain chains
include high pressure, low temperature minerals. These are minerals that are formed
under extremely high pressure, which makes sense. If you bury these
things very deeply, they would be buried
under a lot of rock and thus be in a high pressure. But if you do that slowly,
the way plate tectonics suggest, they'll also heat up
to the temperature of the earth at that depth. So you can't have high pressure,
low temperature minerals. You would have high pressure,
high temperature minerals. So how do you
explain high pressure, low temperature minerals? And then there's
things like diamonds. We all love diamonds, right? Diamonds are found
in a variety called kimberlite. Kimberlite, is this wild rock. That's the best way
to describe it. I mean, it's a wild rock! Let's back up a little bit. We know from making diamonds in the industry exactly
how diamonds are formed. We can make them! We know precisely the composition, we
know the temperatures, and the pressures. You got to have
a certain high temperature. It's sort of equivalent
to about 10-kilometers of rock piled on top of you. That's how much pressure
you have to have. You have to have
the right chemistry. It was pure
basically pure carbon. And once you've done that, now there's one other
ingredient to the recipe of making a diamond. You've gotta quench
it just right. The issue is you've got to take
it out of that environment. It's under all of that pressure
at those high temperatures, and you've got to bring it
to atmospheric pressure and temperature in
between 5 and 10 hours after you put it at the right temperature
and pressure to start with. If you take too long, it simply converts
into graphite. You have nothing
worth a diamond. If you do it too fast, it's like throwing
hot glass into water. It shatters! You have tiny, tiny pieces that you
can't do anything with. So there's a very
precise range here. You got to take it
from 10 kilometers beneath the surface
to the surface in five to ten hours. You can't do it slower,
you can't do it faster, or you don't get diamonds. So, how do we get diamonds? In conventional plate tectonics, things move much too
slowly to get things up to the surface in such times. These and several
other things suggest that as amazing as
plate tectonics is, something's not quite right. The bottom line is: speed up plate tectonics
about three billion times and you got it! Okay, that turns out to be
the answer, we think. We got a group of scientists
together back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I heard a talk by Russ Humphreys
and a talk by John Baumgardner, and I thought, “Whoa! These puppies can
be put together! ” So I was with Steve Austin
at that conference. I sat down with Steve and I said, “We got to talk
with John and Russ, and we ought to be able
to put together a Flood model. ” We got together. In time we added Andrew Snelling
and Larry Vardiman. The reason we did this is because John Baumgardner
is a physicist. Russell Humphreys
is a physicist. These guys have
their heads in the clouds. They know nothing about reality. John was creating
imaginary models. You got to make sure that it corresponds
with real rocks. You need to combine
these with people who are rockheads. You know, people
that got rocks in their heads. Steve is a softrock geologist. Andrew is a hardrock geologist. And I'm a paleontologist. So the idea is, let's bring these physicists
out of the clouds. Let's connect them
with the real world. There were times when John would say,
“This is what's going to happen. ” And I go, “ NO! You just evaporated all
the critters on the planet. ” You can't do that. You won't have any fossils. So you gotta ease it
back a little bit. And there were times
when Andrew would say, “ Oh, wait a minute. That isn't what the volcanic
sediments would indicate and so on. ” We added Larry
Vardiman who worked on the atmospheric physics
and surface of the earth. John basically worked
on the mantle of the earth. Russ was modeling
the outer core of the earth. So when you put the six
of us together, it isn't everything. It doesn’t cover
the whole spectrum. But it covers most of the fields
of geology and physics that would be necessary
to put together a Flood model. It wasn't just a random group. It wasn't just a group
interested in the project. We specifically put together
people who could potentially at least be capable
of creating such a model. And ultimately, the model looks very similar
to a proposal made in the 19th century
by Antonio Snider, a person who had an idea
about the origin of the Earth, but couldn't get his publication
published in the United States. He ultimately only got
it published in France. “ La Création et ses mystères
dévoilés,” or “Creation and it’s Unveiled Mysteries, ” was the title
of his publication. Amazingly, he
actually draws out, in 1859, the continents
in a position that might be familiar to all of you: the Pangaea
reconstruction of continents, with South America
tucked into Africa, and North America into Europe,
and so on. But this is unheard
of in the 19th century. This is crazy. In the course of his book, he says that these things
separated in the Flood. So he's suggesting that somehow,
in a single year, the continents moved apart from
the pre-Flood configuration, which was what he suggests was
the case over here, to the modern formation. Basically, this kind of
summarizes our model. We're moving plates
around on the surface of the earth about
three billion times faster than the conventional model
says it actually did occur. In our model, we start with an earth
that is very much like, in large part,
like the way it is now. The current earth has
a core mantle and crust. The inner core of the earth is presumed to be
a solid iron nickel core. We know the composition because
of the total mass of the earth, which we can calculate because of its gravitational
effects on other things. We know it's total mass. We know the type of material that's out here in the outer
portion of the Earth. But if you project that material
all the way to the center, the earth ain't heavy enough. So you've got to put stuff
in the center of the earth that is much more dense. Based upon meteorites that have
one set of compositions that is iron nickel, another set of compositions that is similar
to the mantle of the earth, and another set that's similar to the composition
of the crust of the earth. Approximately 80% of the meteorites have
a mantle composition, approximately 20% have
an iron nickel composition, and a very, very small,
almost insignificant, percentage of them have a composition similar
to the crust of the earth. After getting the size
of this from seismic waves, we then project that iron nickel composition
onto the center of the earth, and it gives us the right
mass total for the earth. So we presume that there's an iron nickel
inner core and outer core. We separate these two because certain types
of earthquake waves go through both cores
without any trouble whatsoever. Compressional waves, waves that move move
the material forward and back can go right
through the outer and inner core with no difficulty. But transverse waves, waves
that move material laterally, and thus rely on shear forces, do not go through
the outer core. This suggests that the outer
core is in fact liquid. We estimate its viscosity
to be the viscosity of water. It's a very thin liquid,
but it's iron nickel. Then there are
compressional waves that go through the outer core, get transferred into transverse
waves through the inner core and back to compressional waves
through the outer course. It's complicated because
each time it deflects the pattern a little bit. We know from the shadow
of waves on the other side that there's an inner core that's actually solid in
the midst of that liquid core. That's about half
of the radius of the earth, but collectively only 20% of the total volume of the earth
is occupied by the core. 80% of the volume of the earth is mantle
with a different composition. It's a silicate mineral
that dominates in the mantle. It is a mineral that
at the pressures and temperatures that
would be indicated here. The mantle can behave
somewhat plastically. It's not exact. It's not brittle. It can be deformed in ways
that the crust cannot be. I don't even show
the crust on here because it wouldn’t even show up
compared to the rest of the earth. It’s so thin. The crust is just a scum
on the outside of the earth that we are
very thankful exists. Because if the
scum weren't there, we would be boiled alive
and all that sort of thing. At this scale,
it's something you could ignore. That crust is in two types
on the surface of the earth. There is something we
call continental crust because it underlies
most of the continents that we have today. There’s another type
of crust known as oceanic crust because it underlies
most of the oceans. The oceanic crust is
five to eight kilometers thick. The continental crust is about
35 kilometers thick in places. Underneath the Himalayas it
gets up to 370 kilometers thick, but usually on the average
it's about 35 kilometers thick. It’s much thicker
than the oceanic crust, but the difference between these two is
in the composition. The oceanic crust has
a density greater than that of the continental crust. Because of the greater
density, it sinks. It floats lower on the mantle, like a denser wood
would float deeper in water than a lighter wood
would float in the water. Because the density
of continental crust is less than the density
of the oceanic crust, if you ignored the water
on the earth, you would have these deep basins
where the oceanic crust was. There would be highlands
where the continents are. We have oceans that fill
most of the basins, and that's why we have oceans
where we have them. It's caused by this relative
density of continental and oceanic crust. Here you can see
this is in polar view. These shallow areas of ocean, shown by light blue,
are all part of the continental crust. Geologists look at continents
as being a little bigger than the shoreline. You follow them out
to a break, an edge, which is only 135 meters
below sea level. At that break it then
drops off into an ocean that is four-and-a-half
kilometers deep on the average. So there's quite a drop
off there into deep ocean. In our model, what in fact
initiates the Flood? We've got this verse that says “the same day were all
the FOUNTAINS OF THE GREAT DEEP broken up and the windows
of heaven were opened. ” It suggests, perhaps, that the crust of the surface
of the Earth was broken in some way. This is what we think
was the case just before the Flood began. Not only was
the oceanic crust denser than the continental crust, but we believe the oceanic
crust was a little different than the present oceanic crust
in that it was colder. Let's say it was
normal temperature. A lot of our current oceanic
crust is actually kind of warm, having been actually
recently produced. It is still warm
from having been made from the hot material
of the mantle. But we presume that just
as the Flood began, all the ocean crust was cold. Now, what's interesting
about the present oceanic crust, where it is cold, the oceanic crust
is actually denser than the mantle underneath it. So if we presume that that was the case
for the pre-Flood condition, that would mean the entire
ocean crust was actually denser than the material underneath it. That's an unstable condition. We suspect that wasn't the
condition from the beginning. We suspect that probably
something happened at the Fall that created that
inversion of density. The upper mantle was stronger
in the pre-Fall world, and maybe it was the buildup of heat from radioactive decay
between the Fall and the Flood. We don't know, but we suspect
that in the original creation of the world, there was
not this unstable condition. But at the beginning
of the Flood, we basically had perhaps 70%
of the Earth's surface that was floating on top
of stuff less dense. There's denser material floating
atop less dense material. You can take a sheet
of aluminum and put it on water, if you're really careful. Now as soon as you let the edge of that aluminum slide
under the water, man, that puppy goes down! But you can maintain
that condition for some time, and we suspect that that was the condition just
at the beginning of the Flood. What then dipped the tip
of the crust into the Earth? What started it all? We don't know. The answer is unknown. Could it be a terrestrial cause? Again, could it be buildup
of radiometric heat energy that kept increasing
that difference in density to where it just couldn't handle
it anymore and just collapsed? Could it be that something came
in from the outside and pushed the edge down someplace, or pushed the
middle down someplace? Could it be a meteor
or comet that hit it? These are things
that we don't know. John Baumgardner made
an interesting suggestion that we all thought was
kind of funny. It was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Actually, I think
he was serious. I don’t know. We weren’t sure if he was
tongue-in-cheek or not, but he said he thought it was
so close to breaking on its own, that it was God slamming
the door of the Ark that was the last straw that caused the whole
thing to occur. It's aesthetically pleasing. I kind of like that idea. It may not be true in the end. It could just be
the finger of God. He just said,
“ Okay, that's enough. ” Boom! And that's all she wrote. I don't know. We just don't know about that. We still don't know about that. But what happened
in our model is that three things
occurred simultaneously. I can't hardly talk
about one thing at a time, so I can't talk about
three things at a time. But these three things: subduction, mantle wide flow
and the rising all have to happen at the same time. I'm going to speak of them
in sequence of three, but you have to keep in mind
that they're all simultaneous. The first one I'm going to talk
about is subduction. Subduction is the idea that the ocean crust began
diving into that mantle. The ocean crust, which is denser the mantle,
had that opportunity to dive in. Once it did, it did! That's called subduction. The model at this point is based
upon John Baumgardeners modeling of the interior of the earth. What John did for
his PhD dissertation, is he modeled the mantle
of the earth with what is basically a finite
element analysis modeling. You know, you can only do so
many experiments with materials. But you can
create computer models that simulate those materials, at least if you describe
the materials properly and put the proper information
into the computer and build a bridge with it. You can put stresses on the bridge (in
the computer program) and see if the bridge holds
up rather than build an experimental bridge
and then see if it holds up. If you did this right, you could actually
design a bridge, before you built it,
that would actually stand up. That's the idea
of finite element analysis in material science. He was wanting to do
that same sort of thing to the mantle of the earth. Now, here’s what
he's going to do here. Plate tectonics had
already proposed that what was happening was that plates sank
into the mantle, and that the mantle
moved out of the way in a circular fashion. This created a circular
motion in the mantle, or a flattened circle motion
in the mantle. This sort of simple
motion can be seen if you put a pan
of water on the stove and turn on the heat. You can begin to see
the water circulate in that pan. That's what we're talking about. The mantle is circulating
in that fashion. That has been
modeled two-dimensionally. You can take a two
dimensional cross section, and the mathematics for modeling
that is fairly easy. But John was wanting to model
this three-dimensionally on a spherical earth. That hadn’t been done. That was a lot of mathematics, and in fact it couldn’t be done
without supercomputers. He was kind of early on
in the revolution of supercomputers that he could model the mantle of
the earth three-dimensionally. So the idea was to divide
the mantle into a bunch of little boxes. Here he divides the mantle
first into these shapes, and then smaller, and smaller, and
smaller, and smaller. He gets to a point where ultimately he has divided
the mantle into what’s, at this point,
an early version of his model. Something in excess
of 100,000 little boxes. Once that’s done,
in later versions, you could make your pixels
smaller by making more boxes. But of course,
it’s harder on the computer. It takes longer on the computer. It crashes your computer. But his early model was approximately
a hundred thousand boxes. In each box, he has the computer solve
a few simple initial partial differential equations. These three equations are
real simple equations, as you can see. The basic idea is very simple. Here's your box. What comes in
has got to come out. And that means what temperature, what heat comes in,
has got to go out. What linear momentum comes
in has got to come out. What rotational momentum hit
comes in has got to come out. It's more or less
as simple as that. It's basically saying
that once you've divided your whole mantle
into all these pieces, you're studying the motions
in the mantle, and you just can't keep packing
matter into this little box. The matter going in has got
to come out somewhere. So he's got to do this
in each box, simultaneously, over the entire mantle and a hundred thousand
boxes all at the same time. This is where it becomes, you know, impossible
for the human mind or simple mathematics. It's where you need the
supercomputer to do the project. Here's an example
of a supercomputer that he used
relatively early on. He first had Cray computers
as they were being developed. Then he got to where he used this particular
computer in Japan. I mean, this isn't a day
when, you know, we're making computers
out of our watches and that sort of thing. We still have computers
on this planet that fill rooms! They are monstrously
fast computers, of course, you could imagine. These are the kinds
of things he was using. Now keep in mind, and this is
important to understand, his computer model is
so complex and so difficult that it crashed the world's
fastest computers. He could only simulate
60 days of real time. He crashes the computers
in a half hour in every case. Now, it's been a long time since he started
this in the 80’s. We've gotten faster computers. But he’s creating software. He wants things to get better
and better, right? So about the time they come up
with a faster computer, he's put more boxes in there. Over time, he continues to crash
the world's fastest computers in a half hour, and he's never broken
the 60-day boundary. He can't simulate
more than 60 days of time. Out of a 360-day year isn't bad. 16% or 17%. It’s not the whole Flood. This is just the beginning
of the story, or maybe the middle
of the story. It's just a little
part of the story. But it gives us hints as to what
might actually have occurred in the course of the Flood. Here is basically
what happens in the model. This is a two-dimensional
picture of a cross section of the mantle. He's doing it
in three dimensions, but you can't see that. So we're just going to take
a two dimensional cut through the mantle. This is the base of the mantle. The core would be down here. The crust is up
there at the top. The red represents the initial temperature
of the mantle at various places. The red down here is
not the same temperature as the red up there. The red down here is
the temperature of the base of the mantle normally, at the beginning
of the simulation. The red up there
is the temperature of the mantle at the beginning
of the simulation. In other words, here it's close
to zero degrees centigrade. Down here about 1,400
degrees centigrade. Here it's about
3,000 degrees centigrade. The red represents
the initial temperature. And now what he does
is he has a slab on the surface dipped
down into the mantle. He is going to see
what happens to the slab. Here's a slab being represented. It's cold relative
to the temperature of the mantle. As it goes down
into the mantle, it's got to displace the mantle. You have you have
arrows indicating how the mantle is moving in order for the stuff
to go down into the mantle. As it does so, the mantle moves
along the side, or the plate slides
through the mantle. There is frictional heat that is built up
along the sides of the plate. This is a pretty big resolution. It is about 200 kilometers, which is much bigger
than the plate really is, but that's the resolution
he had initially. It’s going to move
the mantle material away as it dips down. It deforms the mantle. If you take a rubber ball
and squeeze it and deform it, it'll warm up. So deformation of the mantle
also heats the mantle. It heats both the mantle
and the dropping slab. The key here though is that
the material of the mantle, and the material of the slab, the viscosity of the mantle
is inversely proportional to the temperature
to the fourth power. That's really cool! What that means is
if you double the temperature, it drops the viscosity to 1/16th
the viscosity it had before. So the more you heat it up, the more the more
runny the the mantle gets. As the slab goes into the mantle and heats
up the mantle around it, and deforms the mantle,
thus also heating the mantle, the mantle immediately
around the slab gets runnier. This causes the slab
to increase its speed. Increasing its speed
heats it up even more. It accelerates. In his model, the slab accelerates
up to about a meter per second or several
meters per second. Unlike conventional
plate tectonics suggested, where it's only moving
at centimeters per year, his slabs are sinking
at meters per second. So rather than continents moving at the rate
your fingernails grow, they’re moving about
as fast as you can run. This is not continental drift. This is continental sprint. Attached to the other end
of that slab that's being pulled into the mantle by
its own buoyancy is a continent that's pulled along the surface
as fast as the other end of the slab is being pulled
into the mantle. It stretches and heats up. You can see the heating
on the colors here. Looking now at a cross section
across the entire mantle, this is some 20 or 30 days
into a simulation. When making these
various illustrations, John kept changing colors. It's really confusing. In this particular case, green
is the original temperature. It's kind of nice because green
is in the middle, right? Anything that is going towards the red is
increasing the temperature. Anything that goes
towards the blue is decreasing the temperature. In other words,
some time after the simulation, it went from green to blue. This area cooled. This area heated up. Here we got arrows
to indicate motion. Here is a slab. It's moving along the surface
and diving into the mantle. Because the slab is cooler, it is showing up as
a cooling of the mantle. This is where the
subduction is occuring. And it's occurring over here on
the opposite side of the world. Subduction is cooling
the mantle. There it is showing
up on a simulation, in two places on opposite
sides of the world. After playing around
with a number of continental configurations, John settled on this continental
configuration to start with. I know this is confusing. There is a thin dark line around the current positions
of the continents. So right here is
South America, North America, current positions. Africa, current position. Asia, current position. Australia, Antarctica. But we know from
the geologic column that there was a time when
the continents were together, called the Pangea configuration. He's starting with
a Pangaea configuration. So he's got South America tucked
up against Africa. India is tucked in there
with Antarctica here, and Australia here. North America is tucked
against Africa and Europe. That's the
Pangaea configuration. What John did is
had subduction go along the blue here. This is where subduction
is occurring in his model. When he allows
subduction to occur in those particular places, what happens is that in time, the continents move apart
from one another as we think they did based
upon geological data. This is really cool, okay? No one had ever created
any sort of model that moved the continents
in the right direction. Let’s take a look at this. Here we have 15 days into the Flood since
the beginning of the simulation. North America has split
away from Africa and it is heating up
there between the two because hot material
from the mantle is coming up. That's another part
of the story. It's occurring at the same time. Here are the direction arrows
for North America. Here's the current position
of North America. Here's the position
in the simulation. The arrows are heading
in the right direction! You're heading right straight towards the current position
of North America, and it's cool! Okay? Here's Australia over here
in its current position, here it is in the simulation. Here's the direction
the arrows are going: right straight towards the
current position of Australia. This is cool! Here is Antarctica. I mean this was
so exciting to everyone! This was just mind-blowing. Here's Antarctica. Here's the present
position of Antarctica. Arrows are going straight south. That's where
Antarctica is, right? This is cool! Everything is going just exactly the right direction...except for
one little interesting thing. Here's the current position
of South America. The arrows are going this way. That seems to be the one thing that's not going
in the right direction. But alas, if you know geology
you get really excited, because we know from geology that the last motion
of South America was straight to the north to slam
into North America and close the Panama Canal. So the real direction South
America took was to go south and then swing to the north. Here we have
the southern motion. John was excited about it. Everybody was excited about it. But what I got
really excited about is as the simulation progresses, the length of the arrow
indicates the speed. So little arrows indicate things
that are moving slowly. Long arrows indicate things
that are moving more rapidly. As this progresses,
India gets really long arrows. It almost doubles
all the other arrows. I looked at that and said,
“That's incredible! ” We know that India moved faster
than every other continent, and it slams into southern Asia,
raising the Himalayan Mountains. I mean, it's spectacular stuff! It didn't just
move the continents in the right direction. It moved in with
the right relative velocities. Mind-bogglingly amazing! This is cool! Okay, this is 15 days
into the Flood. 20 days into the Flood,
it’s moved this far apart. Now what's also cool
about this period of time when John is actually publishing
this in the secular literature, is he would publish these
diagrams in black and white (they weren't as pretty as this)
in the technical publications. Off to the side over here, and I blocked it out
because it's all messy, you've got all sorts
of information there. Lots of numbers. And included there was the time: it would be,
in this case, 2.5 times 10 to the first days
into the simulation. It’s right there,
and it's in the publication. It tells you how long it's been since the beginning
of the simulation. It would be published in the article with
this caption underneath it, with this stuff all here. It says, “Here's the position of
the continents 25 million years after the separation began. ” I mean, if you look carefully
at the publication, it's right there. You can't do this slowly. It doesn't work slowly. It stops completely. It don't go nowhere! I mean, it accelerates at this speed or it
doesn't do anything. This was exciting to the world, but they had to modify
it just a little bit. They slowed it down a lot, about three billion times
to make it work. The opening of the Atlantic is
seen here in the Arctic Ocean. Here you see Australia moving
away from Antarctica. Antarctica is swinging into
the current southern position. Amazing cool stuff. But that wasn't the only part
that was cool. Here is his simulation. What he's doing here is
he's looking at a sphere inside the mantle at. I believe this was 250
kilometers beneath the surface. Something like that. There's an ocean slab which is diving
underneath North America. So he's looking at where in his simulation that slab
is located on that sphere. So basically it has dived
underneath North America, and here's where the slab
is located in his simulation. Seismic tomography
was developed later. It was developed about a decade
after he began this work. Seismic tomography was
this amazing process where scientists at one location with a computer take
seismic information from seismometers all
around the world, collect the information and watch how seismic waves went
through the mantle. In that process,
they begin to get an idea where in the mantle
where the waves slow down, for example, where it's cooler. And they began to get a picture
of the inside of the mantle, places which are cool. Seismic tomography, which came out years later,
located the actual position of the Farallon plate. The plate that is diving
underneath North America in the simulation here. The actual position
of the plate is here and the simulation put it here. Whoa! Not only does he have
the horizontal motion, but he's got the right vertical
position for these slabs. That's awesome! Okay? Cool stuff. Maybe even right? You know? It almost might be. That having been said, when I first saw
his subduction zones, like in North America, he's putting a subduction zone
along western North America. There ain't no evidence
for that, put it that way, in the conventional wisdom. If you have subduction, there is geological evidence
of that subduction. But there's no such evidence
of that subduction in western North America. So my first response to this crazy idea of having
subduction over there is, “You’ve gotta be kidding! That can't be true! ” But Steve Austin and I spent a decade looking
at the rocks out there. And we came to conclude that the best way to understand
those rocks is that a continent that had an edge out there. What is now California
wasn’t there at the time. California is nothing
but a bunch of debris that was torn off the continent
and dumped out there. So yeah, California is
just a bunch of junk. More or less, along the eastern
border of California, was the old edge
of the continent. Our understanding
of the rocks leads us to a reconstruction
of the edge of the continent, such as this, and then a collapse
of the continental margin there. This is very consistent
with the idea of subduction breaking the plate
that was sitting there. It broke off of the continent
and began subducting. That would explain the rocks
we see in this area. So I came in here
believing there's no evidence for subduction. I'm going to go show them wrong. And alas, we find amazing evidence
of an astonishing earthquake that in fact cracked
the entire surface of the earth, along 50,000 miles, and collapsed the margins of all
of the continents of the earth. So there's actually
physical evidence for him putting this subduction where
people wouldn't have expected. And as a consequence, well,
I'm going to skip through this. These are the rocks
that formed as a result of that collapse of the margin, including humongous boulders
that ended up in that avalanche deposit off the edge
of the continent. This is the study
area we were at. We find the collapse evidences
all around the world on the edge of the continent as it would be constructed
at the time of the beginning of the Flood. There seems to be
good reason to believe that, in fact, the edges
of the continent of the world collapsed at the beginning of the Flood
caused by an earthquake that is very reasonably
explained by the the ocean crust of the world beginning to subduct
underneath the continents, or suddenly beginning
the subduction underneath the continents. Amazing. Astonishing. A global collapse
of continental margins that actually make sense
in the light of this model. That also brings
to mind the possibility that the evidence we had for the global collapse
here was a diamictite of a particular kind
of a rock known as diamictite. That’s not the only place
where we find diamictite. We find two other
times, big scale, in the Flood sediments. So this suggests that this accelerated plate
tectonics might not only explain diamictites here, but also explain the diamictites
in these other positions. We have sufficient power
in this mechanism with continents moving
at such an incredible rate that earthquakes are generated
of unimaginable magnitude that it would
explain whole scale, worldwide collapses
of geologic structures and the production
of diamictites worldwide. It would also have
sufficient power to, in fact, create deformational waves
that go through continents. Sufficient to brecciate
dolomites and carbonates. There is no other mechanism
we know of that has enough power to actually
make breccias of carbonate, but this has sufficient
power to do so. In addition, we
have the megaseismites that we know of at the top
of the column. They're probably
throughout the column. We've only begun to look
for them and find them. But again, we have in this
accelerated plate tectonics, which is three billion times
faster than present tectonics, we have sufficient power
in earthquakes to explain the features that we find
in the geologic column. In addition, we have
some other observations in the geologic column that become explainable for the first time
with this kind of a mechanism. We have something called
low-angle detachment faults. By these we mean faults
that are almost horizontal. I mean, they're less
than two degrees. A two-degree slope. We've got huge rock piles moving
along these faults. How do you get something to go
down such a low angle when you're talking
about a rock? Not just a rock, a mountain. Hundreds to thousands of feet of rock moving
down such a mild slope. It's not going to be doing it by any mechanism we
have in the present. But the earthquakes generated
by this process would create a continuous vibration which has sufficient energy to actually vibrate
rocks down low slopes. And in fact, we've got
evidence of detachments that occur very quickly. They're hit by major impulses, and then the rocks hydroplane
down these surfaces. It's astonishing stuff not explainable with
conventional motion of rocks, but is fully explainable with this mechanism
we're talking about here. So the subduction that is hypothesized
in Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, what we came to call CPT
catastrophic plate tectonics (I wanted to call
it catastro-tectonics) in fact involves the first of three things that
are happening simultaneously. The first is rapid subduction
that results in, as we've seen,
at least via computer models, continental motion in exactly
the right direction and exactly the right
relative velocity. And there's further
advantages to this. In those plates that are moving
across the surface, pulled by the subducting plates, we have continents
now moving horizontally across the surface of the earth. Those continents can, and do, collide
with other continents. They collide with
a certain momentum, which is a function, of course, of the velocity
of the continent times the mass of the continent. Let's consider, for example, India which left
behind Africa on the one side, Australia on another, and Antarctica on another, scrammed to the north
and slammed into the southern portion of Asia. It took 500 kilometers of Asia,
broke it off, and pushed it underneath
the Asian continent. And then it continued smashing into the continent to raise
the highest mountain chain in the world, crumpling that continent
at the impact. What kind of momentum
is necessary to break off 500 kilometers
by thousand kilometers by 50... What is that? 500,000 square
kilometers of rock. 35 kilometers deep. Break off a piece like that and shove it underneath
the continent in front of it. And then continue smashing
into the continent to raise mountains 26,000 feet
above sea level. Now I know India weighs a lot, but moving at a whopping
10 centimeters per year. It doesn't seem to have
enough momentum to do what I just described. However, moving at
10 meters per second, the mass of India has sufficient momentum to in fact
raise those kind of mountains. The mountains, the fold belts, we see in the record are formed
by massive collisions that, simply put, at conventional rates, there is no way
the continents have sufficient momentum to raise
the mountains like that. But this particular model gives them sufficient
momentum to do that. In addition, that collision is now producing
lateral compressional forces that are amazing. It is not burying these rocks
to great depth over time, and thus they have
time to heat up. It is simply compressing
the rocks and putting them under extremely high pressure before they have time to respond
with increased heat. Under those circumstances,
we’re creating high pressure, low temperature minerals that cannot be explained
in the conventional model, but are automatically a result
of this particular model. We have horizontal compressive forces sufficient to
explain high pressure, low temperature minerals, which are only found
in the fold belts of the earth. That's pretty amazing stuff. That is just cool stuff. You don't look
like you're amazed. But anyway, you
ought to be, okay? This probably would be best if I had some sort of visual
that shows this. You can see a car colliding
with another car in slow motion. Go to those, you know, the test dummy things and watch
all of that sort of thing. Watch what happens to the metal of the car
at the point of collision. Very interesting. Different regimes in the
collision behave differently. Part of the metal bends
in a recumbent fold setting. Other portions of
the metal break catastrophically and are run over the top in what we would call
a thrust fault in geology. And in fact, if you look at a collision
between two cars, you have regimes
of different types of deformation that reflect
the kind of deformation that we see in mountain belts. You don't just have rocks that are folded
at the collision of mountains. You have rocks that are folded, and then on the far side of them
you have rocks that break and are thrust over the top of other rocks
on the forward end of this collision in exactly
the same way we see in collisions now. The thing is,
collisions are our high impulse. They're very high energy
over short periods of time, and they produce
that kind of a response. And when we do this in the lab, we can reproduce features
that we see in the field by taking rocks
and smashing them together, pushing them together. Here's a problem: when you move them when you collide these rocks
at that massive speed of 10 centimeters per year
they don't behave that way. They don't break in the way, they don't bend in the way
that is actually seen in the field. But if you do it
at high velocity, or high momentum especially, the rocks deform
in the proper way, including the thrust faulting that occurs on the
on the forward side of the collision. We have thrusting where rocks are pushed
over the top of other rocks at extremely low angles. REALLY low angles. Basically, if you
do this slowly, it breaks and turns
at a high angle. The faster you go, the more the two things slide
over the top of each other at a lower angle. We’re almost in one
of those low angle thrusts we see in front of fold belts
in this location in Tennessee. We’re a little bit west
of the forward end of the collision belt
for the Appalachians. The last fault is... I'd say it's probably 50 miles
to the east of us. The last thrust fault. So we have evidence
of this stuff here in Tennessee. The low angle thrust
faulting found in the Alps, and found in
the Himalayan mountains, and here in the Appalachians is explained by rapid motion
provided in this model, but not by conventional model. Okay. That's the first thing
that's happening. Simultaneously with subduction, we also have something
we call mantle wide flow, which is to say that as the crustal plates
are subducting there's material having to move
in the mantle to take its place. It's got to move out of the way
so that the crust can come in. It moves throughout the mantle
and arises at another location. According to John’s model, this subduction goes all the way
to the core-mantle boundary. Now, this is really important as a distinction from
the conventional understanding. In conventional understanding, when I learned plate tectonics, for example, it was thought that plate tectonics was
restricted to the upper seven hundred and sixty-kilometers
of the earth's mantle. The reason for that
was very obvious. Very clear. Earthquakes are places where rocks move
against other rocks. We can determine the position of earthquakes not just
laterally on the surface, but we can actually
determine their depth. If we have enough seismometers we're getting
seismic waves from, we can determine the position, or triangulate, the position of the earthquake
even vertically in the earth. We can actually
watch the earthquakes under the subducting slab. We can see the earthquakes
in the earth get deeper, and deeper, and deeper as the slab gets deeper,
and deeper, and deeper. Not only that, but we have the ability to differentiate
between an earthquake that's caused by compressional motion to rocks
moving against one another, towards each other, or rocks that are
being stretched apart, or rocks that are
being moved side-by-side. These are called
earthquake mechanisms. Again, with multiple
seismometers, determining what of several types of waves are shot out by
the earthquake simultaneously. Some are compressional waves,
some are lateral waves, some are surface waves. The multiple waves run
at different speeds and will arrive at the seismometers
at different times. And when you have enough
of these you can determine, “ Ah, that's
a compressional earthquake. ” You cannot only locate
its position geographically, as in its latitude
and longitude, but its depth and whether it's
compressional or extensional. So we can tell that these are all compressional
earthquakes in the slab as it's moving down. And that's fine as
long as the earthquakes are less than 670 kilometers
beneath the earth's surface. But something happens at 670. We have no earthquakes
beneath 670 kilometers, number one. Number two, the slabs that have earthquakes at 670
kilometers are compressional... I’m sorry, I said that wrong. The earthquakes that we
find inside the slab are extensional earthquakes. The slab is being pulled. It’s being stretched
into the mantle. And that is true to 100,
200, 300, 400, 500, or 670 kilometers. All the earthquakes in the entire plate
become compressional. We don't have any earthquakes
deeper than that. So what it appears is that plates are being pulled
down and pulled down, and there's a wall at 670. They hit the wall and it compresses
the entire plate. They can't go any further. And that's true of all
the modern plates. So it was generally assumed that there's a barrier beyond
which subduction cannot occur. It was thought that the mantle only circulated
in that upper 670 kilometers, and that's what I was taught when I went through school
because, I mean, the evidence is obvious. But when John ran his model that moved the continents
in the right direction up here, the plates were moving
with sufficient momentum that they actually punctured
whatever that boundary is. We know that there is
a boundary at 670. That's a place where the density
of the earth is such that the major mineral in the mantle, which is olivine, actually assumes a
different configuration and becomes more dense. So the density of the mantle
has a step up at 670 kilometers. So there is sort of a wall. It's a thicker place, if you wish,
at that point in the mantle. But in John's simulation, the plates are moving apparently
with sufficient velocity or momentum that they
actually puncture right through the 670 barrier. Mantle wide flow is initiated. Now when his model was done
and this was proposed, this was out of this atmosphere
kind of craziness because it’s clear that subduction doesn’t go
below that point. But his model had
mantle wide flow, and you can see it here again in
the same diagram I had before. The arrows indicate that not only do we have the
cooling in the subduction zones, but you've got arrows
in the entire mantle. Its motion in the entire mantle. The whole mantle is actually
overturning too in this process. And here you see
what's happening. This is really cool stuff. I'll back that up in case
you didn't catch that. You start with cool
stuff at the top, hot stuff at the bottom. And then what happens in… Wait, I’ll back it up
one more time... There we go. Okay. See you've got material sinking
into the mantle, hitting the base of the mantle,
then moving laterally, and then rising. We haven't got to that. That's the third thing that's
happening at the same time. But this is flow
in the entire mantle that's occurring as
a consequence of his model. Now at the time he
made this initial... I'm going to say prediction
because this model said that there should be mantle
wide flow, but everyone said, “ No, it can’t be. It can’t be, ” and we had no way
to test this idea. It was just a crazy idea that seemed to be counter
to the evidence that we had. John began developing this stuff and made his prediction
in the 1980’s. By 1990, they had developed a
method called seismic tomography which allowed them
to look into the mantle, sort of like a sonogram. It’s like if you would take
a sonogram to look at a child in the womb
or something like that. It's the same kind of idea. It's using earthquake
waves to bounce off of things and get a picture. Pictures of babies have gotten
a lot better with technology. I remember when we got them
when I was younger, when my kids were like, “ What? That don't look like nothing. That looks like nothing at all. Are you kidding me? ” Now, we got
these crazy things. “ My word, there's the kid’s arm
and they're sucking their thumb. Oh my word, that's amazing! ” The same thing
happened in looking at the interior of the earth. Initially, we're getting very fuzzy pictures of just the very
shallow portion of the mantle. But as time went
on the technique improved and we began to see more
clearly, more deeply. And it was really fun to watch
it during the early 1990s, because they were reaching
further and further in. 100 or 200 kilometers
into the earth. It was very exciting because they could see
the cold material underneath the subduction zones, just where they're
supposed to be. Very exciting. They go 200 kilometers. It's still there. Good. This is perfect. 300, 400, 500, 600, they're going
all the way down and it's beautiful. The cold stuff goes right down
beneath the subduction zones. They go to 700 kilometers,
800 kilometers, and it keeps on going. And all of a sudden
the party kind of settles down a little bit. It's like, well,
what's going on? Let's adjust, you know,
something must be wrong. But alas, the cold zones went right through
the increased viscosity zone and kept on going. Now it took until late in the 1990s to get all the way
to the core mantle boundary, but it was traceable
all the way down. Mind-blowing. Okay now, another thought. If, in fact, John's model is correct
and reflects something about reality that occurred
during the Flood, and if these cold slabs are
dropping at meters per second, they've got 3,000 kilometers to go to get
to the core/mantle boundary. It's going to take
a while, Okay? Meanwhile, the mantle
is really hot. It's going to be melting them. How long is it going to take? Well, a five to eight
kilometer-thick slab will take approximately 10 million years, maybe even as much as 100
million years to melt away. So in a Flood model, where it's dropping at meters
per second and getting there in a few weeks or months,
it hasn't melted away. In fact, it's only
4500 years ago. So they should still be there. Right? So in this model, these cold plates are starting
out at the temperature of ocean water. Let's say it's close enough
to zero degrees centigrade. They're dropping into the mantle
all the way down to the base where it’s 3,000 degrees
centigrade temperature. You're going to pile
these things up. They can't go into the core
because, of course, iron nickel is
much, much denser. So it’s just going to pile
up down, theoretically, into a pile of cold stuff. That's 3,000 degrees temperature
difference than the hot stuff, the normal stuff,
in the mantle. Now that we might actually
be able to tell that. You may be able to discern
where that stuff is. So as seismic tomography
got further and further down into the mantle, we're beginning to think, “ Hey, they can test
another prediction of the model, which is that there's
a pile of cold stuff at the base of the mantle that is 3000 degrees colder than the normal temperature
of the core/mantle boundary. ” And here's a picture
of the interior of the Earth, with cold zones in the earth and hot
zones in the earth. Then 240 kilometers above
the core/mantle boundary, we have temperature variations
which exceed 3,000 degrees as reported in 1997. If things are going
at normal rates, it's going to take much longer for these plates to get down
to the core/mantle boundary than it takes
for them to melt. So they would be gone. There should be no cold stuff
at the core/mantle boundary if things go slow. It's only going to be there if things go as fast as
this model predicted. What we have is
temperature differences at the core/mantle boundary
in excess of 3,000 degrees. Amazing prediction. Pretty cool stuff. Again, might even make it right. I don’t know, maybe. Now, setting John Baumgardner’s
work aside for a moment, in walks Russell Humphreys. If we have this situation,
think of the core. Let's ignore the mantle
for a moment. Let's think of the outer
core of the earth. It's liquid. The upper boundary
of that outer core is this thing that is showing all
these temperature differences. The normal temperature
of the outer portion of the outer core
would be 3,000 degrees. But alas, all of a sudden
one day shows up cold stuff. It’s 3000 degree
temperature cooler. Remember, the outer core has got a viscosity
about that of water. So this is kind of analogous
to having a pot on your stove that has a water like substance. Liquid water couldn’t exist
at these temperatures, but let’s assume there’s
a liquid that can be liquid at these temperatures. The stove is on
at 3000 degrees, and it's happy there. Now, let us drop an ice cube
on to the top of this thing. Just set it on top. That's 3,000 degrees colder
than the burner, okay? Or you could put it underneath. Either way. Now what's going to happen
under these circumstances? It's kind of like
taking a very big pot and having one part of the pots
over in a nice in an ice bath, and the other part of the pot
on a burner of the stove. You know what’s going to happen
on the burner of the stove, but it turns out the same thing, but much more vigorous, is going to occur with that
dual heating-cooling situation. It's going to be a very dynamic
motion of the water as basically what it is doing is it's trying
to even up the temperatures. It's transporting heat
from the hot area to the cold area to heat it up, and it creates
vigorous convection. So this is what D Russell
Humphreys is thinking as he was working with John. He's thinking, “ Well, if you had that on
the outside of the core, 3000 degree temperature
difference at different places on the outside of the core, that should induce a circulation
in the outer core. Vigorous circulation
in the outer core. ” And it turns out, because we believe that the earth's magnetic field
is generated by electrons that are running
around the outside of that core (it's
in the iron nickel) and they're creating
the earth's magnetic field. If, in fact, the outer core begins
to circulate in that fashion, it basically carries
the magnetic field lines with the material as the magnetic field lines
are being generated through the material. The materials are moving. It's changing the
earth's magnetic field. Anytime by Lenz's Law that you change
the magnetic field, you create a
counter electric field that produces a magnetic field
to counter the difference, how you're changing it. The effect of this, according to Russ's
calculations or estimations, is that it generates a reversal
of the earth's magnetic field as perceived at the surface. Actually, as perceived
at the surface, he suggested the earth's
magnetic field would seem to drop to 1/10
its previous intensity, and then flip, and then continue to flip, with the North Pole
becoming South Pole and South Pole becoming North Pole and the North Pole
becoming South Pole at a rate that is related to the rate
of circulation of convection in the outer core. And so, Russ didn't really know how fast the circulation
would be generated. But what he did is
take a rough count of how many reversals of the earth's magnetic field
we have in the geologic record, divides that into what he thinks
the length of the Flood is, or was, and he deduces that it seems that in order
to explain the number of reversals we have
in the record, you'd have to flip
the field every two weeks. Now it turns out, when he played
around with numbers, two weeks is entirely reasonable
as the convection that would be generated
in this could easily generate a flipping every two weeks. Now hold that thought. The conventional world also has an explanation
for the earth's magnetic field, and for the reversals
of the earth's magnetic field. But in Russ's model, he's starting with
a magnetic field he thinks was given to the earth at its creation basically
by electrons spinning around the outer core and they've been slowing
down ever since. They're losing momentum just
simply because they're slowing down from friction. That's consistent with
what we observe, and you've heard
Andrew speak about this. We've been observing
and measuring the intensity of the earth's magnetic
field since 1838, and there is a decrease in the intensity
of the earth's magnetic field that seems to have a half-life
of about 1400 years. That suggests that
the earth's magnetic field can't be very old. It's the same magnetic field
that he's working with to develop this idea
of the reversals of the earth's magnetic field. So his magnetic field is one
that can't be very old. It means the earth
can't be very old, and because of that it allows for very rapid reversals
of the earth's magnetic field. Now the conventional world has also an explanation
for the earth's magnetic field, but it can't be the one
that Russ's using because there wouldn't be
a magnetic field after about ten thousand years. But we have evidence
of the oldest rocks on the earth having been formed in the presence
of a magnetic field. So the earth must have had a
magnetic field at its beginning, and we all know
that is 4.5 billion years old. So you've got to have
a magnetic field that has been maintained somehow for four and
a half billion years. And so they've developed
things called dynamo theories, which is based upon the idea that the spin of the earth
is driving these things and allows the magnetic field of the earth to persist
for billions of years. But here's a
negative side effect: the same principle that allows the field to persist
for long periods of time makes it very sluggish in reversing. That, in fact,
in order to get it to reverse, and they have mechanisms
to get it to reverse, it requires at least
1,000 years to reverse and reverse back
another thousand years. So here we have two models
for the explanation of the earth's
magnetic field reversals. One that says they're occurring
every two weeks. In other words it
only takes, you know, seven days a week
or 14 days to reverse. The other one says
it takes a thousand years. So they're pretty big
differences in, let's say, predictions about the speed
of the earth's field reverses. How do you test it? There is a way to test it. Russ suggested a
way to determine if his theory was right
and the other theory was wrong. Here's the idea. Let's say we have a lava flow that flows across the surface
of the earth in the presence of the earth's magnetic field. At the place
that it is occurring, it is flowing across the earth's
magnetic field lines that point in this direction. In other words, north is in that direction
and 60 degrees north latitude is where this particular
rock was formed. The magnetic minerals that are within the lava
will orient themselves in the direction
of the earth's magnetic field because it is a lava. They are freed to rotate in whatever direction
they want to go. So they line up in this fashion. Now the lava begins to cool. It cools from the base up
and the top down. Over time you get cooling
here, cooling there. That freezes these particular
magnetic minerals at the bottom and the top. If the magnetic field changes, they're stuck in
that original orientation. But let's say before the center
of this heats up or cools off, that the Earth's
magnetic field flips. If it flips at that point, the little magnetic minerals
in the inside will now orient with the new magnetic
field of the earth. When the whole thing cools, you'll have this really weird
situation where one lava flow has one particular magnetic
orientation on the top and the bottom, and has an opposite
orientation in the middle. Now given that we know how fast it takes a lava flow of
a particular thickness to cool, we can then determine how fast the flipping
must have been for this to occur. Since Russ was believing that the magnetic field flipped
in about two weeks, he could then work
backwards and say, “ Well, if we look for a foot and a half thick
basalt lava flow, that should cool in just the right amount
of time to capture a reversal if the reversal occurred
in the middle of the cooling. ” You've probably got
to have lots of lava flows before you get one
that's just the right time to have the reversal
right in the middle of a cooling process. But that was a prediction
he made in 1986. In 1988, two geologists working
in Steens Mountain Oregon, which is a pile of kilometers
of basalt rocks. Most of them are lava flows that are about 18 to
24 inches in thickness. These geologists discovered a
lava flow in one particular unit that showed this feature. These are unbelievers. They didn't know a thing
about Russ's prediction. Never heard of it. If they had, they probably would have gone
and studied something different. But they knew nothing
about this prediction. They studied this and realized that it indicated
a very rapid reversal of the earth's magnetic field. They sent a paper
in for publication. The paper was rejected because the ones reviewing
the paper, geophysicists, said it was
absolutely impossible that the earth's magnetic field
could flip that fast. Therefore this is bunk. Somehow this is wrong. These two guys
are field geologists. You have to understand
that there is a big difference in geology between
the field geologist and the armchair geologist. The two don't like
each other terribly well. These two guys responded by, “ Well, I'm going to go
out into the field and look for more. ” They're going
to prove them wrong. They went back
to Steens Mountain and found another lava flow
that showed the same thing. It took a number of years. By 1992, they were able
to publish their paper arguing that the earth's magnetic
field flipped in 14 days, which is somewhat close
to two weeks, you know by my calculation. I think that yeah,
it seems kind of close. They have this caveat
in the paper, and you could tell that they had to put it in
because of the reviewers. “ You know,
we don't understand how in the world
it flipped this fast, but here's the data! ” I mean, it's the actual physical data
that it flipped that fast. Now this is really powerful. Not only was this a prediction
which was borne out later. If it's true, it means the other model
doesn't work because it requires a thousand years
to reverse the magnetic field. You can't preserve it that way. That means those
models don't work. There's no model left for the earth's magnetic field
except the one Russ was using, which requires the Earth's magnetic field to be
less than 10,000 years old. Since the oldest rocks
in the earth have evidence of having a magnetic field
in existence when they form, that would mean
that the oldest rocks on the earth are
less than 10,000 years old. This means that the earth is
less than 10,000 years old. That’s the logic that you
have to come to with this. Really cool stuff. Okay, the third thing that's happening at
the same time subduction and mantle wide flow
is occurring is spreading. This is material that comes down
in the mantle and rises hot. Material rises to
the earth's surface. This is what we call spreading
because it gets to the surface and moves away from
that spreading position. Here you can see it
again on this diagram. We got the subduction
in the blue, the arrows indicate
the mantle wide flow, and the red stuff
indicates the warming that's occurred by spreading that's occurring at
the earth's surface. And the concept here is we got 1,400 degrees centigrade
mantle material coming up and, since we’re in the midst
of a Flood, it’s contacting water. It vaporizes the water, perhaps propelling
it hyperballistically into the atmosphere. Entraining water along the way,
it rises into the atmosphere. It takes the entrained water which drops immediately
out of it, while the rest cools
by radiation in space and comes down as
intense global rain. So we have a possible mechanism
for the Fountains of the Great Deep
that the Bible talks about. Now the fountains would be
along the spreading zones, which is basically
a 50,000-mile long line, kind of like the threads
on a baseball, twice around the earth. So imagine a geyser 60,000 feet
high, 50,000 miles long around the earth, all going off the same time
and dropping rainwater. It's not really rain because it doesn't go up
and create clouds and rain down. So it's a completely different
kind of water addition mechanism to the earth. Another consequence
of this is interesting. At the spreading zone, when this stuff is being
applied to the plates as they're moving apart. This is hot material that's moving very rapidly
away from the center. What if, at the same time, the earth's magnetic field
is flipping every two weeks? Let's say we have material
coming up right now. The earth's magnetic field
has a certain orientation. As long as that stuff is hot, the magnetic minerals line up
with the earth's magnetic field at that time. If you were to
run a magnetometer over the surface of it, you would see a slightly
stronger magnetic field for the earth at that point. It would be the normal
magnetic field of the earth, plus the magnetic field created
by all the magnetic minerals that are in line with it. See, you have a stronger
magnetic field over that zone. Then as things moved apart,
there would be a point where the earth's
magnetic field flips. Once it flips, then the material that was once
in the same direction as the magnetic field of the earth is now going
in the opposite direction. Taking a magnetometer over that, you would see a lower
weaker magnetic field. You'd expect bands
of parallel ridges, or parallel lines,
along the ridges. You'd find bands of stronger
and weaker magnetic fields as you go outward. Now, at the same time,
let's say we did this slowly. If we did this slowly,
it took, let's say, 50,000 years to move
out to this point. It takes a thousand years
for the earth to flip. In a thousand years, it's going to produce, maybe,
a hundred yards of new material. In that hundred yards, it might be a little
messy, you know. Which orientation
is it going to have while it's flipping? You might have a clear
positive anomaly here, but probably a 100-meter zone
of mixed up rocks. Blotchy rocks. Some might be going
the right direction, some might not be, and then you'd have
another clear zone of a reversed or weaker magnetic field. That would be under
the conventional circumstance. But what if we sped it up
to meters per second? When you're doing this, and the thing is flipping
every two weeks, you know, there's stuff that was produced
at different temperatures. Some of it's cool because it's been cooled
with the water, but it's been
cooled discontinuously. So you would expect
what Russ predicted, that there should be
a very blotchy magnetic field everywhere. If you drill down
in these rocks over here, you'd find zones or areas, which was normal, and then zones
where it was reversed, and then zones
where it was normal again. It was going too fast
to have a uniform pattern. Rather than 100
yards of blotchy, you'd have everything blotchy, with more normal
in the middle there and more counter
in the next bit. Blotchy nonetheless. What we found
in every drill hole that goes into these rocks, we find blotchiness
in every single one that they determine
the magnetic orientation of. Sometimes it’s found
every six to eight inches in the drill hole. So in a normal mode, what's the probability
of hitting one of those blotchy things? It's 100 yards versus 100 kilometers
or something like that. It's pretty low probability. But in the accelerated model, you'd expect the blotchiness
in every single borehole. And that's what we observe. In addition, it might explain why these patterns
aren't pretty clear zones. Even at a large-scale,
they’re blotchy. This might be because of
the speed of this whole thing. In addition,
this rapid upwelling, this rapid motion of material
up to the surface, could explain things we
encounter in the geologic column known as flood basalts. Andrew referred to them
a couple of times. These are slits
in the earth's surface, out of which poured
unimaginable volumes of magma. Tens of thousands of cubic miles of magma poured out
of these things in the matter of days and weeks. Even by conventional study
they realize this. It's phenomenal. It's literally miles deep
of lava over hundreds and thousands of square miles, poured out in the matter
of days or weeks. When we have all this material
rising very quickly towards the earth's surface, I think we have a mechanism to explain these large
igneous provinces, these flood basalts. The flood basalts are
only part of the story. There's flood basalts
at the source. Then the rocks actually
create dykes and then sills that reach out 1,000 kilometers
in all directions. So here's the idea. You get enough
pressure into rocks, you can crack them, right? If you don't have enough
pressure to crack them apart, you might have enough pressure
to sneak in between the layers and lift the layers. What we have are places where
there's enormous flood basalts, and then cracking the rock in all directions away
from that point are these dykes that are found. You can trace them
for thousands of kilometers in every direction. Then they get to a point
where they're no longer dykes. They turn into sills because they don't have
enough energy to actually crack the rocks. They've lost that energy, but this is 2,000 kilometers
away from the source! They have enough energy
to lift miles of rock, just not crack miles of rock. We have one of these, for example, centered in
what is now West Indies, and it's cracking
rocks all the way through the state of Washington. It's lifting rocks in Alaska. The evidence is that the same event is cracking
rocks through Europe and lifting rocks in Russia. It is cracking rocks
through Argentina and lifting rocks and Chile. That's incredible power! And it's not one of these, there's at least a dozen
of these at different places in the Flood rocks. This model would give us the energy necessary to
explain these features that can't be explained
any other way. In addition we have
these kimberlites. We have these rocks
that contain diamonds. What are the conditions
to make diamonds? I said it before:
you need the right pressure. These things are coming
from great depth, but we gotta get them
to the surface very quickly. There's a diamond source in Canada where we got
a hole in the ground. We got diamonds scattered all
over the ground around the hole. I looked at the paper. It's really cool. You can take out a piece of your napkin
and figure this out. It's really cool. It said how fast
the kimberlite came up through the pipe to get from 10 kilometers depth to the surface between 5 and 10
hours after production. It came up so fast that it shot right out
of the pipe into the atmosphere, exploded under the low pressure
of the atmosphere, and rained diamonds over an area
tens of miles around the hole. The information is
in the paper, and I calculated how fast the stuff would have
to be coming out of the pipe. It's analogous to having
a vertical coal train, where each railroad car
is carrying 88 tons of coal in each car of the train. How fast do we have
to have the train moving out of this hole
to account for this? It needs to move at 60 miles
an hour straight up into the air in order to get enough material out of this hole high enough
to explode in the atmosphere and rain down diamonds. Now not everything explodes
out of the surface. Many of them get stopped
before they get to the surface. They ram their way
up through rocks, but then lose their momentum
before they get to the surface. They leave the diamonds
right there in cold rocks. But the kimberlites
cannot be formed slowly. They are formed
with incredible speed. In this model, we have the way to explain
things like kimberlites. Another side benefit of this is that we perhaps have a way
to explain why the world was covered with water. This spreading is
changing the earth from the pre-Flood condition where we had cold continental
crust and cold ocean crust. What we're doing during
the Flood is we're pushing or pulling the crust apart. We’re having hot mantle material
come into the place of the cold crust
that was there. The hot material, because it's hotter,
occupies more volume. In the present ocean, hot material sits a kilometer
and a half higher than cold material does
in the same ocean. Let's say you had a full ocean. Now in time, you're going to replace all
the cold crust with hot crust. You're basically going to take
the bottom of the ocean and raise it a kilometer
and a half. One mile. You're going to take
the bottom of the ocean and raise it up a mile, that's going to push the water
out of the oceans. Add to that the fact
that 5% of mantle magma, on average, is water by volume. Add some juvenile water that hasn't been on the surface
of the earth before, and the fact that the oceans occupy 70% of
the surface area of the earth, we could easily raise the ocean
one mile over the continents. So we have
a continent-covering mechanism. A way to cover
the continents with water. Here is John’s simulation
of sea level. You can't see it here, but there is a purple line that
indicates the initial sea level. Here is the sea level
20 days into the Flood. Here’s the sea level
40 days into the Flood. Here's the beach
along the continents. You probably can't see
it where you're at, but it's moving in
from the ocean. By 60 days (that's as
far as John gets in his model) he actually brings the sea level
up to the mountains, places that are rising
because of their heat. Also, from physical data
we have reason to believe that there are currents
over the continents. John's modeling also
produces currents, but it doesn't move them
in the right direction. So that's probably
a bunch of gunk. Again, it's that comparison
of the physical data and the real data. We have evidence that this water covered entire
continents and was apparently, for one reason or another,
moving over the continents. This is consistent,
by the way, with the moon holding the water of the earth and the earth
rotating underneath it. That would effectively
seem to make the water move from the east to the west
across the continents, and that's consistent with the direction that we see
in the fossil record. That allows for
the deposition of sediments over the continents, such as the Sauk Sandstone
over the continents. It would explain
why we have very thick uniform sedimentary layers
over entire continents. If we had a mechanism
for the east-west currents, which I think may have
something to do with the moon, then we can move our sediment
from long distances away. We see this consistently
in the geologic column. We've got sediments
that we got here. Where do they come from? We go looking for
where they came from because we know what direction
they came from by the currents. We have to go thousands of miles for a possible candidate for
where those sediments came from. Sediments are being carried
humongous distances, and that would be something that could be explained
by this model. It also could explain the
abundant well-preserved fossils that we find in the world. Plate tectonics is
awesomely powerful. It is so cool. It is such an amazing model
to explain the earth's geology. It explains so much. So many things. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, just a slight modification
of plate tectonics that speeds it up
three billion times, not only explains all
of these things, but also all
the things here in red. Not only do you have magnetic
striping you can explain, but the blotchiness of it. Not only can you explain
the mantle velocity anomalies, the seismic tomography evidence, but also the fact that you
have deep mantle anomalies, which you didn't expect
in the other model. You can not only
explain flood basalts, but kimberlites. You can explain
the magnetic field intensities. I didn’t get into that. The rapid magnetic reversals. You've got mechanisms
for thrust faults, detachment faults. You can explain high pressure
low temperature minerals. You can explain
some things I did get to. See? The talk isn't long enough. And we also have, potentially, an explanation for other things
that are attractive to us as creationists. It explains why
the Flood came to be, where the waters came from, it may explain what
the Windows of Heaven are, and what the Fountains
of the Great Deep are. It may ultimately help us explain regional metamorphism
and several other things. This is an awesome model
for the explanation of the earth's geology
due to the Flood. Thank you. Yes, the Ark experienced
some terrible conditions. I've said this before, but I just have
to emphasize this. The more I learned about the Flood and
the awesomeness, horribleness and destructiveness of it, there’s no conceivable way
that even an Ark would survive. On top of the water is definitely the
safest place to be! Let’s say you’ve got waves
with a wavelength of a mile and amplitude of 500 feet. If you’re in the open ocean,
you just go up 500 feet, and you go down 500 feet. You didn't even
know anything happened. It's wonderful. It's the most
wonderful place to be if you're in the open
ocean in tsunamis. You don't even notice it. It's only when tsunamis hit
the shallow area over continents that the wave breaks
and becomes destructive. So the safest place
to be is very definitely on top of the water. Certainly not at
the sediment water interface, where the water is perhaps
at this latitude moving at 700 miles an hour. If the hypothesis
of the Moon holding the water and the earth rotating
underneath it is true, then the velocity of the water over the land
is a thousand miles an hour at the equator. That’s what it is at least over
shallow areas of continents. It is not that fast, of course, over the oceans
that are deeper. The safest place
to be is definitely on the tops of the oceans. But with these geysers
and all these things, and possibly asteroids, and all this sort of thing, there’s no way this Ark
should have survived except that we have a God who preserved it
through the Flood. Again, the chiastic structure of
the Flood account has a center at “ God remembered Noah. ” This is the point of the account
when you're thinking, “ Oh man! Everything's gone! Everything's destroyed! There's no hope! ” God remembered Noah. Don't forget, people. The purpose of this Flood is
not just to destroy the evil that was there. It's to preserve
humans through it. It's to preserve
life through it. This is impossible. In the midst of God's wrath, there are no survivors
who deserve not to be destroyed by God's wrath. No one. Everyone deserves to be
destroyed by God's wrath. And God's wrath is capable
of destroying all. It's only in the
protective hand of God, in the loving
protective hand of God, that we can survive his wrath.
