THE BIBLICAL FLOOD   AND THE ICE EPOCH   http://www.creationism.org/patten/                               by DONALD W. PATTEN CHAPTER  VII Model of the Flood Catastrophe

MAIN PAGE  CHAPTER I  CHAPTER II  CHAPTER III  CHAPTER IV  CHAPTER V  CHAPTER VI CHAPTER VII  CHAPTER VIII  CHAPTER IX  CHAPTER X  CHAPTER XI  CHAPTER XII

AMONG THE MOST severe criticisms which can be properly leveled at Flood catastrophists to date is that they fail to discuss the catastrophe in astronomical or astrophysical terms, even though they were obviously dealing with geophysical forces of planetary magnitude. A second just criticism, closely related, is that they failed to conceive of the Flood Catastrophe in terms of CAUSE as well as effect. Also, Flood catastrophists have been concerned with catastrophism almost exclusively in the third millennium B.C.

Velikovsky concerned himself with astral catastrophism in the second and first millennia B.C.¹ Among the most severe criticisms which can be justly leveled at his works includes the fact that he wrote well over a half million words, mostly on the subject of astral catastrophism, and never produced either a single line diagram, a single map or a single table.

It may be true that Velikovsky endeavored to merge subjects which are essentially historical, but also happen to be (profoundly) scientific. It may be true that he was a good ancient historian, but not a good mathematician or astrophysicist. Even so, his characteristic of composing assemblages of words to the total exclusion of maps, line diagrams and tables of data has been a major weakness in his presentation.

In this volume, the attempt is made to avoid both of these defects. A limited number of tables are included to assist in the reader's orientation, particularly in Chapters IX and XI. A series of line diagrams is given in each of Chapters IV, V, VI and the present chapter (VII), dealing with the geography of the Ararat region, orogenetic pattern and patterns of the descent of astral ice.

In explaining the interactions of this celestial crisis, there are four celestial bodies and their four zones of gravitational dominance which must be recognized. These are:
 

(1) The Sun and the Sun's 25 to 40 trillion mile zone of gravitational dominance, extending outward toward the nearer stars.²

(2) The Earth and the Earth's 800,000 mile zone of gravitational dominance, a small enclave within the Sun's domain.

(3) The Visitor and its zone of gravitational dominance, possibly accompanied by a small, icy satellite or two.

(4) The Moon and its 50,000 to 90,000 mile zone of gravitational dominance, an enclave within the Earth's gravitational domain.³

The Earth's gravitational domain is not constant in size, since it orbits around the Sun in an eccentric orbit which varies between 91,500,000 and 94,500,000 miles. The Earth's field of gravitational dominance shifts about 7% in length from perihelion to aphelion and is pear-shaped, extending farther in the direction opposite the Sun than toward the Sun.

The zone of dominance of the Visitor is unknown, partly because its mass is only an educated guess, and partly because the dimensions of the zone will shift markedly, depending on its location. The Visitor may have been four times as massive as the Moon, and it may have approached the Earth ten times as closely as does the Moon approach the Earth. The contending forces involved were the staging of a four-way tug of war between the Sun, the small Earth, the smaller Visitor, and the Earth's tiny satellite, the Moon. The involvement did not result in permanent capture; the Sun finally won out.

If one concludes that this great event in Earth history, the Flood, was indeed a cosmic catastrophe, rather than merely a prolonged meteorological event, then one must conclude that its cause was gravitational rather than heat, which is the ultimate cause in floods caused by excessive rainfall (heat causing the evaporation and the organizing of wind systems). If the Flood is cosmic, it is not only a gravitational catastrophe; it is a gravitational-magnetic catastrophe, and it should be an excellent subject for a model.

Many different models might be chosen, depending upon whether analysis is limited to one or two features of this historical cataclysm. One model may seem to explain hydrographical matters best; another may seem to explain orogenetical matters best; yet another might explain glacial features best. Perhaps stratigraphical features or ancient literary sources will lend themselves to yet other models. A model which is chosen from many possible models is designated as the preferred model, and it stands in contrast to the several or many rejected models.

The best model of the Flood Catastrophe will be the model which best explains a significant number of interrelated events of this crisis period on Earth history, and not merely one or two aspects. Therefore, the best model of the Flood will likely be based on the most comprehensive analysis.⁴

A case in point is the recognition that if there are tides in the hydrosphere, there must necessarily also be tides in the fluid magma, tides likely of a much greater force. The evidences of these appear in the Circum-Pacific and the Alpine-Himalayan zones of uplift, evidences which become overwhelming when examined in moderate depth. Implicit in this is the recognition that mountain-building forces are:
 

(1) Astral rather than exclusively terrestrial in nature

(2) Sudden rather than extremely gradual in engagement

(3) Global rather than local in scope

(4) Recent rather than ancient in terms of multiplied millions of years

These conclusions will automatically lead to a total rejection or a near-total rejection of the various and typically vague uniformitarian propositions on orogenesis.

A second case in point, beyond the orogenetical, is the glacial case, the Ice Epoch. This essay declines to use the traditional terminology of "Ice Age" because the term implies too much of uniformitarian heritages. If the Ice Epoch were a great dump of astral ice, possibly 12,000,000 cubic miles, dumped over the magnetic poles, simultaneous in timing with the Flood, involving ice at temperatures approaching absolute zero, this understanding is essential in fully comprehending the totality of the Flood event. (Incidentally, this understanding also will automatically lead to a total or near-total rejection of the various uniformitarian propositions on glaciogenesis.)

Other considerations from many disciplines, including anthology and folklores, recorded history, paleoclimatology, biochemistry and astronomy, add further perspectives which may bear upon a preferred model of the Flood catastrophe.

The model as presented in the following diagrams and categorical descriptions is a preferred model; it is not the only possible model. The preferred model may or may not be a satisfactory model. A preferred model is one which satisfies the originating one or an originating group. A satisfactory model (in contrast to a preferred model) must meet a series of requirements, scrutinies, tests, observations and verifications by others; only then does it perhaps move from a preferred model status into a satisfactory model status. A satisfactory model must meet many kinds of requirements and these requirements must include the following:
 

(1) Horizontal Consistency. It must have horizontal consistency with the established and understood physical principles of our universe. It must have scientific consistency. In the case of the model portrayed in the following line diagrams, this consistency must include:

    (a) Consistency relative to principles of gravitation

    (b) Consistency relative to principles of electromag-netism.

    (c) Consistency relative to principles of deposition

(2) Vertical Alignment with Facts. In addition to scientific consistency, it must have historical consistency. It must be in agreement with the facts of Earth history. It need not be in agreement with the generally negative and vague interpolations and interpretations coming from uniformitarian notions; indeed, it must necessarily be in total conflict with such. However, it must be in agreement with the facts of Earth history as disassociated from the uniformitarian interpretations which have been attached thereto. Among the tens of thousands of specifics are:

    (a) Sudden-drowned mammoths, numbering in millions on three continents, followed by sudden burial, compression and fossilization.

    (b) Sudden freezing of mammoths, numbering in millions on two continents, followed by sudden changes in paleoclimatology and permafrost conditions.

(3) Implementation of Predictability. A satisfactory model must assist in, suggest, or even lead toward making further discoveries and observations, discoveries which in this case are historical in nature, since we are considering an historical event.

(4) Fruitfulness of Thought. A satisfactory model should be meaningful to investigating persons. It should catalyze research, ignite thought, possibly direct or focus effort. It should open new avenues of knowledge.

(5) Simplicity of Premise. A satisfactory model must contain a simple premise (in this case a simple astral crisis involving two approaches and a near capture, plus ice deposition). Although the premises for a satisfactory model must be simple, the results and conclusions derived therefrom may be neither simple nor predictable. Ordinarily the application of gained knowledge is seldom foreseen.

If a model is weighed and evaluated by one or a small group against the requirements as stated above, it may be designated as the preferred model in contrast to the various rejected models. If the model is scrutinized and tested by others, and substantially passes the five criteria just mentioned, it becomes a satisfactory model. It is found to be (a) mechanically workable, (b) generally meaningful and (c) psychologically satisfying to the uncommitted but inquiring mind. It then becomes (d) rational; only the logic contained therein has long existed, but is just recently recognized.

While a successful model should be psychologically satisfying, such satisfaction need not be universally the case. Many new ideas and discoveries, ranging from Copernicus' heliocentricity to Fulton's folly have been psychologically dissatisfying to many; however, a satisfactory model should be psychologically satisfying to the uncommitted mind, even if it may happen to contradict a century-old proposition into which nearly every philosophy of recent vintage has been rooted.
 

a. Due to the Earth's superior gravitational force b. Deflected by the Earth's magnetic field (Van Alien belts)

And possibly

c. Due to a fragmentation of an approaching icy satellite

a. Sudden

b. Simultaneous with the gravitational chaos
c. During the initial stage only of the catastrophe (until ice reservoir was depleted)

Rather than

d. Gradually or uniformitarianly

e. Prior to gravitational interaction and tidal surges

f. During the entire period of gravitational interaction

g. After the gravitational interaction

a. As statically-charged icy particles

b. At extremely low temperatures (possibly within 100° of absolute zero)

Rather than

c. As uncharged icy particles

d. As meteor-like icy agglomerates or fragments
 

a. Glacially, several weeks

b. Tidally, 150 days and nights

c. Astronomically, seven to eight months

d. In terms of Noah's voyage, one year from embarkation to debarkation

Rather than

e. Less than 1 day

f. One week

g. Forty days and forty nights

h. One decade

i. One century

j. One millenium

k. One uniformitarian era
 

a. Approximately 4800 revolutions ago +/- 500 years

b. Approximately 2800 B.C.

Rather than

c. 2349 B.C.
d. 5000 B.C.
e. 10,000 B.C.
f. 100,000 B.C.
g. 1,000,000 B.C.

a. Probably in its approaching phase (to the Sun)

b. Probably in direct motion (counterclockwise as viewed from Polaris)

a. Increasing as it approached the Sun

b. Between 1.5 and 2.0 million miles per day (Earth's speed is 1.7 million miles per day)

Rather than

c. Below 1.5 million miles per day

Mars' daily speed is 1.3 million miles per day
Jupiter's is .7
Saturn's is .5
Uranus' is .37
Neptune's is .16

d. Over 2.0 million miles per day

Venus' daily speed is 1.9 million miles per day
The fleet Mercury (as described by the Greeks) has a daily speed of 2.6 million miles per day

a. Nearly a temporary capture

b. Two approaches

Rather than

c. A single grazing approach

d. A multiple grazing approach of a series of Visitors

e. A permanent capture

a. Perhaps between 15,000 and 30,000 miles of Earth

Rather than

b. Within 10,000 miles of Earth (Roche's limit for fragmentation)

c. Within 15,000 miles of Earth
(Deimos is 14,600 miles from Mars)
(Rings approach Saturn to 7,000 miles)

d. More than 30,000 miles of Earth

(Jupiter V approaches Jupiter to 112,600 miles)
(Mimas approaches Saturn to 115,000 miles)
(Miranda approaches Uranus to 81,000 miles)
(Triton approaches Neptune to 220,000 miles)
(Moon approaches Earth to 221,000 miles)

a. Perigee between 15,000 and 30,000 miles of Earth

b. Apogee between 1,200,000 and 1,500,000 miles of Earth

c. A period between approaches of 110 to 130 days

a. The Earth's control over the Visitor was short of capture

b. The Sun's greater control over the Visitor remained dominant

c. The velocity of the Visitor made permanent capture difficult

d. The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit discouraged permanent capture

e. The secondary perturbations of the Moon discouraged permanent capture

a. Three or four months after perihelion

b. Approaching aphelion

Rather than

c. Approaching perihelion

d. Leaving aphelion

a. The Earth-Moon system

b. Primarily by the Earth

Rather than

c. Primarily by the Moon

a. Used the Earth as a turnpoint

Rather than

b. Using the Sun, as was normal

c. Using the Moon, which was too small

a. The perturbation of the Visitor caused by the Earth-Moon system

b. The shortening of its major axis

c. Its ejection from the Earth-Moon system at a velocity slightly greater than the Earth's orbital velocity

d. Its re-engagement with the Earth-Moon system upon passing aphelion

a. One or two months after Earth's aphelion

Rather than

b. Approaching aphelion

c. Approaching perihelion

a. Approximately one week from the Visitor's perigee

Rather than

b. At midpoint between the Visitor's apogee and perigee

c. At apogee

d. At perigee

a. To decrease its eccentricity (currently .055)

b. To decrease its period (currently 27+ days)

c. To increase its angle to the ecliptic (currently 5°)

a. To decrease its orbital eccentricity (currently .017)

b. To decrease its period

c. To decrease its circumference

d. To reorganize the orientation of its orbital axis

e. To alter the dates of aphelion and perihelion

f. To alter the dates of the solstices

g. To alter the dates of the equinoxes

a. The Visitor approached closer to the Earth

b. The Earth had more magma to disrupt and more surface to distend

c. The Earth had oceans to disrupt

d. The Earth had atmosphere to disrupt

e. The Earth had fauna and flora to engulf in burial

However

f. The uplift of the lunar mountain ranges is attributable to the same crisis

a. To cause an increase in the inclination from the perpendicular to the ecliptic (currently 23 1/2°)

Rather than

b. To decrease the angle of the axis from the perpendicular to the ecliptic

c. To cause no change in the angle of the axis
 

a. To increase the speed of the Earth's rotation

b. To shorten the day

Rather than

c. To reduce the speed of the Earth's rotation

d. To lengthen the day

a. To probably cause a relocation

a. To effect a shift in the location of the geographical poles

b. To cause a location shift of the poles in a magnitude of perhaps 2500 to 3000 miles

Rather than

c. To cause no relocation

d. To cause a mild relocation in terms of a few dozen miles

e. To cause a moderate relocation in terms of a few hundred miles

a. To increase it due to the capture of astral ice

b. To increase it in a proportion of 1 to 2 parts per 100,000

a. To cause an initial new zone of orogenetic uplift, the Circum-Pacific

b. To cause a second new zone of orogenetic uplift, the Alpine-Himalayan

c. To cause a bleeding of lava, forming new basaltic plateaus on several continents

d. To cause a rash of new volcanoes

e. To cause glacial scouring in the regions surrounding the magnetic poles

f. To cause burying and reburying of the former crust under sediments

g. To drown several hundred thousand square miles of crust eventually from melting astral ice.

Rather than

h. To duplicate an earlier zone of orogenetic uplift (such as the Appalachian-Caledonian-Her-zynian zone)

i. To leave the Earth unscarred

a. To increase the mass, approximately 12,000,000 cubic miles when the ice melted

b. To increase its mass in a proportion of 7 to 9 parts per 100

c. To ultimately raise mean sea level between 350 and 450 feet

d. To cause the flooding of the continental shelves

e. To cause an immediate decrease in the temperature of the Earth's oceans

f. To cause an eventual but marked increase in oceanic salinity due to the new climatological regime featuring rain and rivers

Rather than

g. To cause a decrease in oceanic volumes

h. To cause an increase in oceanic temperature

a. To cause a complete condensing of the antediluvian canopy of water vapor (the primeval Greenhouse Effect)

b. To cause a modest reduction of mass (and barometric pressure) in a ratio of 5 to 10 parts per 100

c. To cause a new heat disequilibrium

d. To cause a new climatological regime

e. To cause a reduced elevation of the ozone canopy

f. To cause a thinning of the ozone canopy

a. To bury billions of specimens

b. To bring to extinction thousands of species

c. To cause a reorganization of zoogeography for those surviving species

a. To bury trillions of specimens b. To bring thousands of species to extinction c. To cause a reorganization of the florigeography for the surviving species

a. To make his survivors very very few in number

b. To make his survivors and their early generations very catastrophic-minded

a. To reduce the major axis of its orbit, hundreds of millions of miles and possibly trillions of miles

b. To bring it permanently into the Sun's inner domain

c. To separate it from its pre-existing icy satellites and/or icy rings

a. To reduce the eccentricity of two of its periodic members

b. To add one to the number of planets in the Sun's inner domain

a. Not much

a. Even less
 

The model of the Flood Catastrophe is herein set forth. It is contained in the series of line diagrams within Chapters IV through VII, Figures 4 through 23. It is coupled with 40 listed categories of conclusions which both define and delimit this preferred model of the Flood Catastrophe, just one model among many possible models.

There may be a severe need for fresh concepts in Earth history, especially among the uniformitarian-dominated staffs of the universities of our generation. Until such ungrounded presuppositions are cast aside, little real progress will be made, and the entire matter of origins will remain a muddle. Reflections of this need are contained in the following words.
 

To the extent that the geomorphologist is primarily concerned to use landforms as the means of studying geologic processes or determining states of geologic history, his explanatory description, as Kesseli notes, is often "an explanation lacking a description." Russell, as well as Kesseli, concludes that a century of geomorphology dominated by the purpose of explaining genesis has failed to produce comprehensible representation of landforms for most areas of the world.⁵

These and similar protests which geographers have registered for more than a generation appear to run into a blank wall of dogma.⁶

It is therefore necessary to re-examine all theories of orogenesis that have ever been invented, in order to determine what can be saved of them in the light of the presently available facts. If this is done, it becomes immediately obvious that something fundamental is wrong with each and every one of the theories ... It appears, therefore, that the problem of finding the causes of the various geodynamic features must be regarded as still unsolved.⁷

To look upon a landscape ... without any recognition of the labor expended in producing it ... is like visiting Rome in the ignorant belief that the Romans of today had no ancestors . . . Wm. Morris Davis.⁸

The depth of the criticisms of Hartshorne, Scheidegger and others regarding the paucity of achievements from 100 years of uniformitarianism are very serious, if seldom appreciated.
 

CONCLUSION. A preferred model has been presented which claims to describe a realistic view of Earth history. It claims to describe a view more realistic than that described by other possible models of cosmic catastrophes. It claims to describe a view more realistic than the various, normally vague propositions of uniformitarian cosmology.

If this model is valid, among the first things to go in uniformitarian cosmology (and cosmogeny) will be the Lyellian geological time scale, a feature of uniformitarianism which purports to supply millions, frequently hundreds of millions of years for any major development in Earth history. Within one crisis year, as described by this model, 200,000,000 years of vague, implausible, unsatisfactory uniformitarian fabric is compressed. This includes all developments classified as "mesozoic" and "cenozoic."

This model further opens the way to conceiving an earlier catastrophe, possibly when the Earth became a dump or "void," and darkness may have been upon the face of the deep (Genesis 1:2). A possible earlier catastrophe, coupled by related evidences, might bring some interesting things to light regarding "paleozoic" events, events which purportedly required almost 400,000,000 years.

This preferred model presents a new theory⁹ of Earth history. If this preferred model, or any other model is mechanically workable, generally meaningful and psychologically satisfying, it is viewed as rational. And yet if it is found rational, it does not suddenly make the Flood account in Genesis rational; that account has been rational for 5,000 years. Only the rationale contained therein has been unrecognized by many recent, semi-rational academic figures who allow only uniformitarian assumptions. Hence, the rationale in this model does not "prove" the Flood; it merely proves the irrationale of the uniformitarian proposition.

This catastrophic perspective leaves the model-maker in a unique position; he becomes markedly skeptical of the professional skeptics. He recognizes that all of German rationalism and its atheistic tendencies are grounded to uniformitarian cosmology, which in this case was organized by Kant (in his work General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens, 1755). Kant required billions of years for the formation of the Earth or the birth of the Moon, as well as other developments in Earth history. Upon this basis he posited his non-theistic rationalism, a basis which is most inadequate (as will be reviewed in a later chapter.)

This then drives the model-maker to the question as to whether German rationalism, based on seemingly irrational assumptions, can be rational? This problem devolves into an even larger one. The question becomes, "Who is rational in this age of so-called rationalism?" "Who is the genuine skeptic in this age of professional skepticism?" And then there is its converse, or reciprocal question, "Who has been mostly gullible in this catastrophic-uniformitarian matter regarding Earth history?" And which is the truly liberating viewpoint, Catastrophism (which contains certain creationist implications) or Uniformitarianism (which contains certain atheistic implications) ? These may be questions which are anything but new, but yet are new. These are questions upon which the ancients also invested much intellectual energy.

It may be that the readership, particularly those dedicated to research, imbued with curiosity, and receptive to catastrophism, should think increasingly in terms of models for their research into Earth history.
 

The test of any such theory is not in its logic but in its workability . . . Whether explanatory analysis of development adds more than it detracts from a comprehension of the existing character of a landform as an integral element in a real variation is therefore a matter of judgment, rather than logic.¹⁰

Workability is essential; when something is demonstrated as workable, logic or rationale usually follows. This is the learning process.

The learning process is one which has been sometimes easy, but more often difficult for various generations. This chapter opened with twin sets of criticisms. One was relative to the learning process, and the failure of Flood catastrophists to view catastrophism in terms of CAUSE as well as effect. Another was that Flood catastrophists limited their perspective to the 3rd millennium B.C.

A second set of criticisms concerned the valuable but not entirely satisfactory works of Velikovsky. He thus far has limited his writings to catastrophism in the 1st and 2nd millenniums B.C. But he has not brought forth line diagrams, maps, models or even tables to support his thesis.

Celestial catastrophism in the 1st and 2nd millenniums B.C., if factual, does nothing to weaken our case concerning the mechanics of the Flood catastrophe; simultaneously it does nothing to weaken our case for a recent dating (2800 B.C.) of that catastrophe. It is to this theme of postdiluvian catastrophism to which Chapter VIII, in its brevity, is directed.