Friday, September 16, 2016

Tidal waves

Having recently fielded some objections to the local flood interpretation, I'll be evenhanded and field an objection to the global flood interpretation. A staple objection to the global flood interpretation is that it poses a double whammy: where did all the extra water come from, and where did it go?

Of course, flood geologists have devised theories about that. In the past, I've mentioned that if God reversed the process in Gen 1:9 (orogeny), that would flood the earth. Now I'd like to suggest a different mechanism.

Suppose God gradually made the moon pass closer to the earth. Not only would that produce higher tides, but based on the inverse square law, it could generate supertides. And if, after that peaked, God made the moon recess, that would lower the tides. A single mechanism could account for both rising and lowering sea levels. You'd have the same amount of water throughout, but its distribution would vary depending on which part of the earth was facing the moon at any given time. Now let's consider some objections to my hypothetical:

1. Would the gravitational force of the moon be too destructive? Likewise, would altering the lunar orbit have any disruptive effects on the solar system overall? For instance, would a shift in the lunar orbit have any appreciable effect on Mars? If so, would a shift in the Martian orbit have an appreciable effect on the Venusian orbit?

I lack the expertise to address that question. However, from what I've read, conventional astronomy believes the moon used to be nearer to the earth. Yet that didn't have a cataclysmic effect on the earth or the solar system. Even if you reject conventional astronomy in that regard, I'm discussing the theoretical consequences of the moon drawing closer to the earth. 

2. On my hypothetical, the whole globe would never be submerged all at once. Isn't that a problem?

Not really. In the course of a solar day, the whole globe would be submerged as the moon orbits the earth and the earth rotates on its axis. Every day, land masses would be inundated by the supertides. That cycle would continue day after day for the duration of the flood. A serial deluge rather than a simultaneous deluge. 

I don't think the language of Genesis rules that out. Moreover, that would drown all the land animals. So that would have the same effect as a simultaneous deluge. 

3. This epitomizes all that's wrong with creation science. Young-earthers postulate ad hoc theories to rationalize Scripture. There's no direct evidence for their theories. They are only propounded to prop up the Bible. 

To that objection I'd say several things:

i) There is indeed a temptation in creation science to resort to ad hoc theories. However, that's hardly unique to creation science. The theory of evolution is riddled with stopgap explanations. Consider how Richard Dawkins conjectures evolutionary pathways. Nine parts interpolation to one part evidence. Likewise, evolutionary psychology is notorious for imaginative explanations to account for various adaptations. Or Richard Lewontin's brazen admission that "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories."

ii) But let's consider a few comparisons. Take a homicide detective who reopens a cold case. Suppose all he has to go on is the police report and coroner's report. He develops a theory of the crime. He doesn't have direct access to the crime scene or the body. That's long gone. Rather, his evidence is documentary. 

Likewise, some medical scientists diagnose famous men from the past. What was wrong with Isaac Newton, Jonathan Swift, John Ruskin, and Abraham Lincoln (to name a few)? 

They don't have a living body to examine, or a dead body to autopsy. They can't take blood samples or scan the patient. All they have to go by are biographical reports describing the symptoms of the individual.

By the same token, historians use ancient astronomical notices to construct a chronology. 

It isn't necessarily special pleading to devise a scientific hypothesis based on documentary evidence rather than direct evidence. That is, in fact, a common practice. 

iii) If God wanted to produce a global flood, why use the moon? It isn't quite natural and it isn't quite supernatural. 

But as a matter of fact, some miracles are preternatural rather than supernatural. Coincidence miracles are case in point. They don't circumvent the natural laws, yet they are more discriminating than natural laws. God employs a variety of causes. 

iv) My hypothetical fails to explain the constancy and duration of the flood. 

I disagree. According to the account, the flood waters gradually rise until they crest, remain at that level for a time, then recede. 

And that's what would happen of God caused the moon to gradually pass closer to the earth, stay at that distance for a time, then gradually recess to its original position. The approaching moon would result in higher tides, while receding moon would result in lower tides.

10 comments:

  1. Given the moon hypothesis, the height of the waters should cycle daily as the earth rotates. But that would mean that about halfway into the next day, Noah's Ark would end up on land again, while the waters were flooding the other hemisphere.

    You might theorize that the Ark rode the wave as it circumnavigated the earth. However, it would have to be traveling around 1040 mph, which is about 1.4 times the speed of sound.

    You might also argue that the Ark was close enough to the shore that it just drifted out to sea before the tides receded. But the sea level on the Ark's side of the earth would also be depressed as the water flowed to the moon side. If we assume that the terrain was relatively the same proportionally pre-flood as post-flood, then "covering the mountains" would mean that the sea on the opposite side of the earth would be one mountain shallower - which, except in the deepest ocean trenches, would uncover the bottom of the ocean.

    It's an interesting theory, but I don't think it holds up under basic scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. nor do I. I'd sooner answer sceptics to faith with their own arguments from earth history that I find compelling and compatible with scripture.

      Delete
    2. Some have associated the breakup of the hypothetical supercontinent Pangaea with the global Flood. Both would be world-shattering cataclysms, and it's not implausible that such massive tectonic movement would be associated with dramatic flooding. I'm not sure how much evidence there is for that hypothesis, but it makes for great imagery.

      Delete
    3. "Given the moon hypothesis, the height of the waters should cycle daily as the earth rotates. But that would mean that about halfway into the next day, Noah's Ark would end up on land again, while the waters were flooding the other hemisphere. You might theorize that the Ark rode the wave as it circumnavigated the earth. However, it would have to be traveling around 1040 mph, which is about 1.4 times the speed of sound."

      If the ark is in the middle of the ocean, it's not clear to me that it would run aground at low tide.

      Delete
  2. On average, the depth of the ocean floor is around 12,000 ft. Many mountains are taller than this: http://www.livescience.com/29536-infographic-tallest-mountain-to-deepest-ocean-trench.html

    So, if the water on one side of the earth shifts uniformly to a depth sufficient to cover the mountains on the other side, the ocean floor would be exposed on the non-flooded side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The flood needn't cover the mountains to kill the land animals. How many land animals could survive for months above the tree line?

      Delete
    2. That's a good question. There aren't many, in the grand scheme of things, nut the Himalayas boast some species that have adapted to live at heights greater than 12,000 feet (such as the yak and the Himalayan pika).

      For the record, I do believe in a global flood. But I tend to think that those high mountains were created during/after the cataclysm.

      Delete
  3. I believe John Baumgardner previously invoked near encounters with a moon-sized body. He recently exchanged that hypothesis for a more plausible one:

    https://answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/numerical-modeling-large-scale-erosion-sediment-transport-and-deposition-processes-genesis-flood/

    The primary issue he was addressing was accounting for the large scale erosion and deposition.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jonathan Winsley

    "Given the moon hypothesis, the height of the waters should cycle daily as the earth rotates."

    I believe the height of the waters (tides) should normally cycle about four times within 24 hours. From say high tide to low tide to high tide to low tide again. Approximately 6 hours per cycle. I don't necessarily see how this cycling would be any different on Steve's theory because (if I understand him correctly) he's simply postulating the moon is rotating closer to the earth, not that other factors have changed (e.g. gravitational forces)?

    "But that would mean that about halfway into the next day, Noah's Ark would end up on land again, while the waters were flooding the other hemisphere."

    If by "halfway" you mean 12 hours later, then we'd more or less be back where we started (e.g. high tide if we started at high tide, low tide if we started at low tide).

    "So, if the water on one side of the earth shifts uniformly to a depth sufficient to cover the mountains on the other side, the ocean floor would be exposed on the non-flooded side."

    Normally the moon pulls the water on the Earth toward itself, thereby creating a bulge of water toward the moon. At the same time, the water on the opposite side of the Earth, the side farthest away from the moon, bulges away from the moon. In short, there are two bulges on opposite sides of the Earth at the same time. Perhaps a picture is worth a thousand words here. As such, I don't necessarily see the water on one side of the Earth shifting "uniformly"? At least not without additional postulates.

    Speaking of which, if we posit other premises, then this could increase or decrease the gravitational effects of the moon on the Earth. Say if we factor in the sun, which should be factored in since it does have a non-negligible effect on tides on Earth. Say if we posit God had the sun line up in such a way with the Earth and moon (at new moon or full moon) as to cause spring tides. I'm imaging like super perigean/proxigean spring tides.

    By the way, the gravitational effects of the moon would also have an effect on the land on the Earth. It too is pulled toward the moon. We don't usually notice it because it's so small. But if the moon happened to be closer, then it'd presumably be more noticeable.

    Anyway, I don't know if any of this is what Steve has in mind though. If not, then I'd be off.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good points. I should have known that, but we don't have tides here in the Midwest so I didn't remember the periods.

    I think the principal of my argument still stands though: the displaced water causing extra-high tides would also correspond to extra-low tides.

    ReplyDelete