Where Did All the Flood Water Go?

Yahoo! Another question answered.

Been listening to a discussion on Jan Markel's Understanding the Times radio, on the subject The Top Ten Creation/Evolution Issues with Eric Barger sitting in for her. He is interviewing creationist Jay Seegert, who has the website the Creation Education Center, where he addresses the usual problems in the creation-evolution debates with his own emphases. On the program they don't get to all the ten most frequently raised issues, only five of them.

The question that got answered in a way that so captivated me was Where did the water go after the Flood? I've never known how to answer that question and hadn't really given it much thought either, but now that I've heard Jay Seegert's answer I think how obvious it is!

The answer:

There is enough water on the earth right now that if the land areas were all flattened and completely evened out the water would cover it to a depth of 1.7 miles.

Creationists always say there were not such high mountains before the Flood as after, and that the high mountains were raised up after the Flood by plate tectonic movement set in motion as part of the whole Flood scenario, but I haven't seen that made the explanation for what happened to the Flood waters until now.

Of course, the land was rearranged after the Flood, the mountains were raised to spectacular new heights and valleys were formed to new depths, especially on the sea floor where deep trenches now lie. THAT's where all the water went.

Here's an experiment I dreamed up myself to demonstrate this: Make a thick clay type paste out of flour and water (or use modeling clay) and pat it down flat in a container to whatever depth you want, so it has a level surface. Cover it with water to a depth of oh a few inches or whatever. Don't let it stand too long or it will dilute the flour paste. Then pour out the water into a container so you have the same amount. Then gouge out deep valleys in the clay and make high mountains of the gouged-out material, keeping the same amount of clay as before. Pour back the water, the same amount of water as before. You'll have dry land and sea.

Same amount of land, same amount of water.

HOW CLEVER!

I would do a dance of joy and celebration if my arthritis didn't hurt so much.

Seegert also said that this mountain-and-valley-building event is referred to in Psalm 104 which made me skeptical at first.

The King James doesn't clearly say that:

KJV - Psa 104:8 - They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

"They" refers to the flood waters, but there isn't anything here to suggest the mountains were higher or the valleys deeper than before.

But some of the other translations do say that. One of those few instances where the KJV translation IS inferior to the newer versions.

Some of the other translations say the same as the KJV, but most of them say the mountains rose and the valleys sank:

NKJV - Psa 104:8 - They went up over the mountains; They went down into the valleys, To the place which You founded for them.

NLT - Psa 104:8 - Mountains rose and valleys sank to the levels you decreed.

NIV - Psa 104:8 - they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them.

ESV - Psa 104:8 - The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them.

RVR - Psa 104:8 - Subieron los montes, descendieron los valles, Al lugar que tú les fundaste.

NASB - Psa 104:8 - The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them.

RSV - Psa 104:8 - The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which thou didst appoint for them.

ASV - Psa 104:8 - (The mountains rose, the valleys sank down) Unto the place which thou hadst founded for them.

YLT - Psa 104:8 - They go up hills -- they go down valleys, Unto a place Thou hast founded for them.

DBY - Psa 104:8 - The mountains rose, the valleys sank, unto the place which thou hadst founded for them; --

WEB - Psa 104:8 - They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys to the place which thou hast founded for them.

HNV - Psa 104:8 - The mountains rose, The valleys sank down, To the place which you had assigned to them.

[ May 22 update: After getting a typical rejoinder in my Comments section I have to add that despite all the attempts by creationists to come up with an unanswerable defense of the Flood or any other creationist claim there is always going to be an answer back that purports to be scientific. You can't "bullet proof" your Christian children as Barger and Seegert seem to expect, by having any kind of science-based answer to these things. What is your college student going to do after he's learned all these creationist answers and still someone comes back telling him he's ignorant of physics?

As Seegert points out, this area of science is historical science not the kind of science you can replicate in a laboratory, and historical science can never be proved the way laboratory science can be. So someone like my visitor can always come along and claim that the speed at which the tectonic plates would have had to move since the Flood only 4350 years ago would have generated so much heat that the oceans would have boiled and nothing could have lived afterward. He can't prove that, it's all speculation, but it sure SOUNDS scientific. Perhaps others can make calculations to counter him, but meanwhile your Christian college students are again left without a "scientific" answer.

They have to be fortified primarily with the word of God which tells us Noah and his family and many creatures did survive and go on to repopulate the earth, and, so that they won't be taken by surprise, made familiar with the fact that "science" about events in the prehistoric past cannot be definitively known, and that's the best we can do in the face of all the imaginative but unprovable speculations the other side can always generate against us.

Later yet: HOWEVER, this got me pondering what WOULD be the physics involved and I remembered some of my own speculations and other answers I'd heard in the past, and posted them in the Comments section.]

No novel features, no new information, no evolution

There is another thread at EvC which is basically about the question of whether evolutionary processes can produce new genetic information, but this one is not on the level of the genetics but the phenotype or the traits governed by the genetics. The question is How do "novel" features evolve? I've pretty much lost interest in this question from either angle but thought I'd note this post by Taq which more or less summarizes his view of the whole dispute:

Zaius has once again shown us why creationist claims are useless. They claim that novel features must emerge through evolutionary mechanisms in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. So what would happen if we were able to travel back in time to watch every single generation from the first life to modern life, mapping each and every mutation? At every step the creationist would claim that no novel features evolved, ever.

This pretty much shows that the whole argument is on such a hypothetical level that all the calls for evidence are simply futile -- no evidence could possibly exist for such fanciful guesswork and either side can say anything at all in defense of his position.

So I might as well give my own view of what would happen in the case he describes. If we COULD go back to the beginning of life and map each and every mutation we wouldn't see evolution at all, we'd see exactly what we see today, separated Species or Kinds that vary among themselves and never produce novel features or new genetic information because they never produce anything but their own Kind or Species. From the beginning of life we would see the same Species we see today though perhaps very different varieties of them, plus some Species we don't see today because they've become extinct. On the genetic level at first we wouldn't see many mutations but as the generations succeed one another we would start to see an increase. Mutations alter the genetics of the creature, either producing a genetic disease or not affecting the phenotype in any observable way. Yes, we WOULD claim that no novel features evolved ever because they don't. They never did.

The truth of the matter is that evolution does not need to produce novel features, as defined by creationists, in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. In their attempt to falsify evolution they have moved the goal posts off the field. "Novel feature" is a meaningless term as defined by creationists. "Novel feature" is a hole in the sand where they place their head.

Actually it's not. This particular question really ought to be focused on whether or not mutation is observed to produce new genes, not just new alleles but whole new genes, because that is at a minimum what "new information" implies -- again, at a minimum -- and what is needed if "novel" features could emerge. And novel features must emerge if a Species or Kind could evolve into another Species or Kind.

What does evolution need to produce? Heritable phenotypic change. Does it do that? Yep. Mutations produce changes in phenotype that are heritable, and the frequency of these new alleles is controlled by environmental pressures. Whether anyone names this change "novel" or not is completely irrelevant.

So here we are back at the evolutionist's reiteration of the evolutionist creed: what we observe happening is all that is needed to bring about evolution from one species to another, the great Faith or Fantasy that runs the whole show. They see normal variation within Species and make the mental leap that can never be subjected to evidentiary proof, that evolution is simply normal variation continued without interruption for millions or billions of years.

But let's unpack this statement. He says evolution needs to produce heritable phenotypic change and that it does that. How does he know that EVOLUTION does this? He sees heritable phenotypic change in nature and simply subsumes it under his evolutionist preconception. He assumes evolution and appropriates observable facts of nature to it. That's how it always works. That's the "scientific" procedure of evolutionism right there. Evolution is assumed and whatever is observed is mentally jammed into it. Evidence for any of this is nonexistent, it's all mental gymnastics. But heritable phenotypic change is just as well explained by the creationist assumption instead. Such change is simply the variations that occur within Species, or sometimes known as "microevolution." There is no evidence whatever that such change is open-ended as evolutionists assume, and as I will argue below, as I always do, there is evidence that there is a limit to such changes that confines them to the boundaries of a Species or Kind.

Mutations produce changes in phenotype that are heritable, and the frequency of these new alleles is controlled by environmental pressures. Whether anyone names this change "novel" or not is completely irrelevant

Mutations do produce heritable phenotypic changes, but it is one huge unproven assumption that the mutations create new alleles for viable healthy phenotypic traits; what HAS been proven many many times is that mutations have produced thousands of genetic diseases. It is pure unevidenced theory or assumption that mutations do anything that could further evolution.

The actual cause of NORMAL variation within Species is not mutations but the built-in genetic material that has been there from the beginning, such as genes for the traits that define the Species, plus a variety of alleles for the different genes. Alleles are just different forms of the genes that produce different qualities of a given trait in the phenotype. A gene may govern, say, eye color, and the various alleles for that gene will determine which color the eye will be. Mutations do not produce such viable alleles, they only interfere with these normal genetic variations and often produce distortions that cause diseases in the organism.

Mutations do not create new alleles, this has never been observed, it is something merely assumed by evolutionists, there is no evidence for it. The frequency of existing alleles may of course "be controlled by environmental pressures." Such as natural selection which could wipe out a part of a population, thus reducing the genetic variability and creating a new phenotype from the new gene frequencies thus brought about. Or a simple migration of a portion of a population to a new locale where it becomes isolated from the original population. Again new gene frequencies will be established and a new phenotype emerge. All this occurs from the simple shuffling of the alleles pre-existent in the gene pool. These alleles are pre-existing, built into the Species. There is no need for them to be formed by mutation and there is no evidence that any such thing occurs at all. Again, what there IS evidence for is that mutation is a destructive process; it alters the normal genetic formula, sometimes to the point of destroying its function altogether -- at which point the destroyed gene most likely becomes part of the great genetic graveyard known as Junk DNA. This is an UNhealthy process. Mutations not only do not do anything that could possibly further evolution, they contribute only to the deterioration of a Species.

As for what one CALLS new traits that emerge in new populations as a result of the "environmental pressures," they aren't called "novel" because they AREN'T novel, they are simply selected particular expressions out of the normal range of variation built into the Species. Except for the diseases of course, which ARE novel.

So as usual the best answer to all of this is that in reality what we observe happening IN ORDER to produce heritable phenotypic change is the DECREASE in genetic variability that ultimately leads to inability to vary further at all. Normal variation, or microevolution, has built-in genetic limits. This IS subject to evidentiary proof as I've also many times explained. If I were forty years younger and had a few million dollars I'd set up a scientific project for the purpose.

Normal variation comes about through changes in gene frequencies from population to population, which come about as populations become isolated from other populations, each having their own set of gene frequencies. This produces new phenotypes, especially in the smaller populations. If the new population is appreciably smaller than the original, which is often the case, the phenotypic change can be quite dramatic but the genetic variability of that new population will also be much less.

And so it goes until you can get what is called speciation or the development of a new phenotype that can't interbreed with the others of the same Kind, AND has drastically reduced genetic variability, which is the opposite of what it would need in order to vary further. Meaning: the very processes that bring about evolution lead to a genetic condition in which evolution is ultimately no longer possible at all. That's the end of the trail. Evolution defeats evolution.

Why is "new information" so hard to understand?

I don't understand why the concept of genetic information is so difficult and subject to so many odd attempts at defining it. Perhaps I'm the one who doesn't get it, maybe I'm talking about something other than information. But I don't think so.

This confusion comes up on another thread with Wounded King answering a creationist who has quoted an article that seems to be about quantifying information.

Which makes no sense according to my understanding about information, so let me try again to spell out that understanding:

Evolution to be true clearly needs a source of genetic material, something that makes DNA, makes genes etc.

Mutation is usually put forward as that source. Mutation is an accident that occurs during the replication of DNA that can rearrange segments of a gene. Sometimes the rearrangement brings about a change in the function of the gene so that it no longer does what it did before. Sometimes the rearrangement produces no observable change in the function of the gene, that is, it is still able to make the protein it made before and the trait governed by it still appears in the phenotype. Sometimes the rearrangement produces a different protein and this can bring about genetic disease. There are thousands of known genetic diseases as opposed to very few known positive effects from mutation, and those few benefits are gained at the expense of something that's basically destructive to the organism.

The kinds of rearrangements of DNA that mutation can bring about include the inversion of a segment, the exchange of a -- usually short -- segment with the same segment of the opposite paired gene, the duplication of a segment and so on.

I'm sure there are more but my impression is that nothing new is created by these means. That is it is all the rearrangement of given genetic material, and the most common outcome is something damaging to the gene and therefore the organism.

Something new, however, is what is needed if evolution is true. Something new would be a brand new viable gene for a brand new viable trait. A whole new section of the DNA strand as long as a gene that is brand new.

This is necessary because different species have different genes. Even if the majority of genes are common to similar species or even to all species, there are still definitively different genes that characterize the different species. What is needed, clearly, if evolution is true, is a mechanism that can produce such totally new and different genetic material.

As far as I know there isn't the slightest hint of a process that could ever yield such an effect. All that mutations can do is change an existking gene so that it functions differently. Enough mutations to a given gene over generations can kill it too. The very best result of a mutation would be the formation of a viable new allele. But it would still be an allele for an existing gene and an existing trait. And as far as I know even this much has not been observed. Damaged genes have, however, been observed, genes whose function has been damaged or destroyed by the mutation.

The creation of "something new" is what I've understood by "increase in genetic information." Reshufflings of existing genes are not ever going to produce the kind of changes that would lead to a new species.

What are known as new species are formed by the reduction of genetic diversity in a population until the particular alleles of the genes for the traits of the new species are favored and come to reliably characterize this new population or new species. None of this requires mutation or the addition of new information. And the genetic condition of the new species is REDUCED from the original, and every new isolation of a new species is formed the same way, from a genetic reduction.

You can't get evolution beyond the built-in potentials of the Kind because of this natural pattern for the formation of new varieties (which are called new species if they cease to be able to breed with the former population, a condition that can come about simply because of the genetic differences caused by the reduction in genetic variability it takes to form the new species.)

These changes are what is called "microevolution" and they do not require either mutation or new information.

SOMETHING like mutation would be necessary if macroevolution could occur but what mutations actually do doesn't help macroevolution at all.

A mutation that formed a new gene for a new trait, or even a sequence of mutations that could be shown to tend in that direction, is what is needed to generate new "information" which is what is needed for evolution beyond the pattern I've described above.

But even as I say that I realize I'm talking theoretically about something that is only the wishfulness of evolutionists as they deny the pattern I've described above, the fact that new varieties and what are called new species can only come about by reducing or eliminating alleles from the population of the new variety, reducing genetic variability in that population in order to form and preserve a new characteristic or phenotype, and that spells the end to all hopes of macroevolution.

A claim that a big effect from "mutation" makes "new information" irrelevant Pt.2

I have a second response to that thread at EvC I discussed in the previous post. That is, if we assume, as the evolutionists do, that humans did descend from previous life forms -- my main objection in that post was that their holding this assumption amounts to begging the question -- but if we accept their assumption for argument's sake, then perhaps we can entertain the possibility that this is an example of a difference humans have from those ancestors that didn't involve the acquisition of new genetic information.

If I take that as my premise then I have questions: Here is where I really need better description or a picture of what is meant by this "duplicate" gene, how it appears on the DNA strand and so on. My main question would then be, has this sort of change ever been seen within a species? I mean, I've seen many discussions and diagrams of different ways mutations occur and the complete duplication of a gene is not one I've ever seen.

Another question is, of course, that even if this particular human trait did evolve from some animal form, but didn't involve the acquisition of new genetic information, what about all the other differences between humans and animals? We'd need to list them and think about whether it would have been necessary that new genetic information be acquired for each supposedly evolved change to have occurred.

A claim that a big effect from "mutation" makes "new information" irrelevant is simply definitional hocus pocus

Trixie has started a new thread at EvC titled No "new information" required:

A new paper pubished in Cell has serious implications for IDist arguments of "no new information" and "mutation only breaks things".

Why limit the complaint to IDists? I'm a Young Earth Creationist and I also believe that "mutation only breaks things" in a sense, and does not provide new genetic information.

The researchers have found that a gene responsible for neuron development has been duplicated twice in humans only. One of the copies produces a truncated peptide at high levels which interferes with the original protein. This interference has the result that neurons form more connections and over longer distances.

The duplication etc is seen only in humans. It demonstrates how a duplication of existing information, followed by a "breaking" of the gene can have profound events.

[I'm sure you mean "effects" rather than "events"]. I really can't visualize what this is supposedly describing. Are you saying that human beings happen to have a pair of a gene that occurs only singly in animals? It would help if this were more clearly spelled out, perhaps graphically illustrated. When you say it is "duplicated" do you mean there are two of this gene strung end to end along a strand of DNA or what? What do you mean by "breaking" and how does it relate to "duplication?" Are you saying that the gene that occupies this same position in animals is a continuous line of "code" whereas in humans this "code" isn't the same continuous line or something like that? I'll probably have the same questions as I read the article.

Here is the link she gives to the original article, Scientists Show How a Gene Duplication Helped Our Brains Become 'Human'

A team led by Scripps Research Institute scientists has found evidence that, as humans evolved, an extra copy of a brain-development gene allowed neurons to migrate farther and develop more connections.

(Credit: Photo courtesy of The Scripps Research Institute)ScienceDaily (May 3, 2012) — A team led by scientists at The Scripps Research Institute has shown that an extra copy of a brain-development gene, which appeared in our ancestors' genomes about 2.4 million years ago, allowed maturing neurons to migrate farther and develop more connections.

This is the caption to the photo on the page. 1) Again I need a way to picture what this is referring to. Where does this "extra copy" of this gene show up? Does it just follow an identical copy in marching order along the DNA strand as it were? 2) I must point out that the statement that this "appeared in our ancestors' genomes about 2.4 million years ago" is tendentious and would be better stated as a simple descriptive fact (unless of course the intention is purely to mystify and pre-empt opposing opinions). My attempt at translation would go something like this: Human beings have two copies of a gene that occurs only singly in animals, which allows [maturing?] neurons to migrate farther and develop more connections than occurs in animals. {I put "maturing" in brackets because I really don't know what this means.]

What genetic changes account for the vast behavioral differences between humans and other primates? Researchers so far have catalogued only a few, but now it seems that they can add a big one to the list. A team led by scientists at The Scripps Research Institute has shown that an extra copy of a brain-development gene, which appeared in our ancestors' genomes about 2.4 million years ago, allowed maturing neurons to migrate farther and develop more connections.

Surprisingly, the added copy doesn't augment the function of the original gene, SRGAP2, which makes neurons sprout connections to neighboring cells. Instead it interferes with that original function, effectively giving neurons more time to wire themselves into a bigger brain.

Again we have a tendentious statement, an interpretive statement from the evolutionist point of view, which of course begs the question of interest to a creationist. I assume by "original gene" what is meant is the gene that occurs in animals [all animals? some animals?] at the locus being discussed for humans. If humans were separately designed then there is no "added copy" there is simply a different genetic design at this locus. The statement should read something like: In animals the single gene makes neurons sprout connections to neighboring cells, but in humans the extra gene at this same locus interferes with that function, giving neurons more time etc. I also need to ask exactly-what-neurons-where are governed by this gene or pair of genes? All over the body, in the brain or what?

"This appears to be a major example of a genomic innovation that contributed to human evolution," said Franck Polleux, a professor at The Scripps Research Institute. "The finding that a duplicated gene can interact with the original copy also suggests a new way to think about how evolution occurs and might give us clues to human-specific developmental disorders such as autism and schizophrenia."

The very idea that this is a "duplicated" gene or a "genomic innovation" is tendentious, that is, it is an interpretation based on the assumption of evolution, as is the idea that one of the genes is "original" and the other a "duplication" of it. But of course if human beings did not evolve from some earlier form of life then this genetic difference between humans and animals is in reality a difference in design. In any case, descriptive language is always clearer and less mystifying than interpretive language. How about something like: The finding that two identical genes can interact with each other in such and such a way that is different from what would be expected ...

This is all crucial to the point of this thread. If this is simply a design difference and not a mutation from some previous or "original" gene, which of course the researchers assume in keeping with their evolutionist bias, if it's not a "duplication" of some "original" but simply a way the human genome is different from animal genomes at this particular genetic location, then it's not a mutation in any sense at all and has nothing to do with the question about whether a mutation can bring about new information.

It's nevertheless interesting that the presence of a copy of a gene in humans that occurs singly in animals codes for or governs such a difference in neuronal function or development. This fact can be just as well discussed -- and scientifically investigated -- from this creationist perspective as from the evolutionist perspective.

I could go on demonstrating the tendentious language of this article and attempting to rewrite it in simple descriptive terms, demonstrating that the design paradigm works just as well for the scientific purpose of showing the different function of this genetic formation in humans as compared to that in animals at the same locus. In this paradigm we have simple difference, not the assumed duplication of an assumed original, and there is no "mutation" involved and therefore the whole question of "new information" is irrelevant.

All that is going on here is that the evolutionist bias assumes these things must have occurred. But you can't prove your evolutionist assumptions by simply tendentiously defining away the creationist assumptions. That's called begging the question.

Just one last remark: That there should be big effects from a mutation -- and again, this topic is not an example of a mutation -- does not contradict the creationist position. There can be big effects indeed -- protection from malaria through sickle cell is a pretty big effect, as are all the thousands of other genetic diseases mutations bring about. This is not "new information." A method of generating new genetic information is necessary if evolution is true, "big effects" is not the criterion for new information.

Kent Hovind on claims for bacterial evolution

I don't follow creationist ministries any more, mainly because they cover so many different topics while I'm trying to keep my focus on the few I feel I understand best, but I did just happen to be watching Chris Pinto's film, Megiddo II (It's at You Tube) in which there is a brief interview with Kent Hovind who neatly sums up one of the main problems:  The claim that mutations are the fuel of evolution doesn't hold up because mutations don't increase but decrease "information" -- or as I've been putting it, they destroy DNA. 

The term "information" is used to refer to the DNA sequence of chemicals -- which can also be called a "code" or a "recipe" -- that produces a given trait in the organism.  A mutation is a change in the sequence of chemicals that make up a segment of the DNA which constitutes a gene, which of course changes the code or recipe or information of that gene that produces the trait. 

That's all mutations do, they alter DNA which is a destructive process, changing the sequence of a gene so that its function is interfered with, often producing no immediate detectable change in the organism, but in thousands of instances producing identifiable genetic disease.  Unqualified beneficial results do not occur.   Kent Hovind pointed out that the claim that mutations in bacteria demonstrate evolution because they evolve immunity to antibiotics is bogus, because the way this happens is that the mutation simply destroys the ability of the bacteria to latch on to the antibiotic.  It's a destructive process, which may have a very temporary beneficial effect, just as the fact that the sickle cell mutation protects against malaria is a beneficial effect, but overall the organism has been damaged, and information has been lost, not gained, the opposite of anything that would lead to evolution.  It was good to hear that spelled out.

Archaeology again falsely claims to have disproved the Flood

Coyote at EvC is restating his ridiculous idea of how the Flood of Noah has been disproved. Another evolutionist PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times) which he repeats at every opportunity.

The idea that the world was created in 7 days and a biblical flood and the tower of babel was assumed as fact by me as soon as I read about such things in the bible. I was 6 years old at the time. Every sermon I listened to from then on confirmed that belief. Every family member of mine believed it except my stepfather who was catholic. It wasn't until 8th grade biology that I heard anything different. It wasn't until I was an adult until I started hearing serious discussions about evolution.

Some of these issues science can readily test.

As just one example, the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago was tested initially by creationist geologists seeking to document that flood. They could not do so, and had to admit that the flood did not occur as described. This capitulation occurred in the early 1800s, long before Darwin.

They had wrong ideas about what such a flood would have done in those days, in fact very much the same wrong ideas Coyote is promoting here, the silly idea that you could "detect" such a flood at a certain depth having left certain remains while the rest of the landscape is completely undisturbed.

Since then the evidence that there was no global flood ca. 4,350 years ago has become overwheming. It is so easy to disprove this that any archaeologist can do it.

I've done it in my own research. What one needs to do is find an archaeological site that cross-cuts the 4,350 year time period. A site that does so by thousands of years is best. Then you examine what occurred before and after that time period, and you look to see if there is any evidence of a major discontinuity at that time.

This is utterly absurd. First of all of course there is no reason to trust such dating of any site. There is no such thing as a settlement that goes back before 4350 years ago, this is all false.

But the main problem is the idea that if there had been a worldwide flood it could be detected in a before-and-after scenario that left any evidence whatever of such a settlement from before the flood occurred. The Flood of Noah absolutely obliterated everything that had pre-existed it and rearranged the land into deep layers of separate sediments containing the bodies of everything that was killed in it. Anything recognizable as a human settlement has been built since the Flood.
This conversation continues over a few posts. Here's the next one.

Can you point me at any papers on this? Thanks.

Just look in any general archaeology text. You will find descriptions of culture sequences from several parts of the world.

None include a flood event with total population and culture disruption at that time period.

Egypt is a good example. Their writings began before the date ascribed to the flood and continued beyond that date. There was no break as would have been seen from a global flood.

Again there is this idea that you could detect a worldwide flood as having been "included" within culture sequences. No, such a flood would have absolutely destroyed any culture that pre-existed it, leaving not a trace. And again he trusts in the dating of artifacts that there is no reason to trust, as the writings of Egypt.

Just another evolutionist PRATT, Coyote. As you guys are always saying to the creationists, you've been shown to be wrong about this, give it up.