> In a nearly identical manner, Google Earth reveals
> submerged topography that could not be observed
> until the last ten years or so. This new data
> caused me to question a fundamental scientific
> belief, the idea that there was never a worldwide
> flood catastrophe, and what I’ve identified is
> indisputable: two-hundred years ago, geologists
> blundered when they concluded that there was never
> a worldwide flood.
> Along with other map information and recent
> findings, there is no doubt: a cosmic impact
> roughly 13,000 years ago delivered a nearly
> unfathomable amount of water that forever - and
> irreversibly - changed the planet. We are a
> surviving species, but we are ill-adapted to the
> post-flood ecosystem. In this context: the
> entirety of the post-flood human endeavor has been
> directed toward surviving as a species.
> And we are oblivious to it, all because of
> geology’s fundamental, historic error.
Hello Michael. Having read your post and your introductory article, I have a few points to make and a few questions to ask.
I'm sure you're familiar with this diagram - it shows all the water on earth collected into a sphere. It also puts into perspective how big the earth is and how small the volume of water is, even though it's spread over about 70% of the earth's surface. The relative shallowness of the oceans in comparison with the size of the earth, when this sphere of water is distributed over all the oceans and seas, becomes immediately apparent. The diagram is from here:
The volume of the largest sphere, representing all water on, in, and above the Earth, would be about 332,500,000 cubic miles (mi3) (1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers (km3)), and be about 860 miles (about 1,385 kilometers) in diameter.
My first question would be - how much water do you believe was on earth before the impact? If you believe that the amount delivered in the impact was the greater part of that sphere in the diagram, what size was the impactor? It would have to be bigger than the sphere of water in order to contain it. And given that we now know from Rosetta that comets contain less water than previously thought, we're talking about an object probably over 1500 kms in diameter. That size object wouldn't just deliver water - it would destroy all life on earth in both the impact and the after-effects. How do you account for it not doing so?
Another question relates to the existing fossils of sea creatures known to have lived millions of years ago in the ocean. Your diagram showing an earth with very little water, in remote regions of the planet, doesn't square with the location of fossils such as ammonites. They're found all over the world, even in areas that are now dry land. This would suggest that the accepted model of plate tectonics is correct - that oceans existed millions of years ago when continents were different shapes and where land then submerged is now dry. It would suggest that oceans were plentiful, not sparse as in your diagram. It would also suggest that there was no need for an impact to provide much of the water than now exists on earth, as it was already there.
I'm also not clear why you disregard the notion of regional flooding throughout the world, in favour of one huge, once-off flood. Can you explain your thinking here? What physical features, that 'look' relatively young (geologically speaking) do you use as evidence of a world-wide flood?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on these points.