Catastrophism much?

Every now and then, scientists make interesting claims about the distant past. They find things that don’t fit the party line of slow, constant, predictable change over millions of years. Take the weather, for instance. There are at least several dozen models on the future effects of climate change all ranging from, “the sky is falling!” to, “this is just an uptick in the climate cycles; it’ll calm down.”

Recently though, some scientists are beginning to consider alternative theories for the real-world conditions they observe. Instead of the agonizingly slow, erosion-based geology over millions of years, they are starting to notice tell-tale signs of catastrophic destruction on the face of earth not too long ago. The reason they are noticing? By observing first; instead of having a narrative in mind, which they then proceed to forcibly twist and contort the data into somehow supporting unfounded processes.

The result, you ask?

For the 100 million people who live within 3 feet of sea level in East and Southeast Asia, the news that sea level in their region fluctuated wildly more than 6,000 years ago is important… That’s because those fluctuations occurred without the assistance of human-influenced climate change.

As it turns, roughly 6500 years ago the sea levels in this part of the world fluctuated by over 2 feet. That might not sound like much at first, but when we consider that there are numerous islands in the south Pacific barely rising 1-2 feet above sea level, which hundreds of millions of people call Home, it suddenly becomes quite serious. Let us not forget the earthquake and subsequent tsunami in southeast Asia in 2004 that killed more than 240,000 souls, and more recently the earthquake and tsunami in Japan in 2011 that took the lives of roughly 20,000 with hundreds of thousands more displaced or homeless as a result. These are just two catastrophic events that occurred within the last ten years or so. We could cite more, such as the earthquakes and tsunamis in Chile in 2015 and 2010, which devastated coastal regions and towns for hundreds of miles, killing more than 500 people and leaving up to ten percent of the population homeless.

Once again, scientists were forced to admit they had been working under false assumptions. Instead of this being cause for alarm, they make it sound like being mystified at how wrong they had been is a good thing:

“Our conventional understanding of ocean circulation and ice-melting history told us that such fluctuations should not occur, so we were a bit mystified at the results from our first site,” Meltzner says. “But after finding a similar pattern at a second site 80 kilometers to the southeast, and ruling out other plausible explanations, it was clear that the coral growth patterns must reflect regional changes in sea level. There would be way too many coincidences otherwise.”

In other words, the evidence is incontrovertible: catastrophic events shape the face of our planet unpredictably, uncontrollably, and undeniably. There is no need for an asteroid to wipe out the dinosaurs. There is even less need for hundreds of millions of years to slowly creep by, eroding the planet by constant wind and trickling streams. In one day, all life on this planet could be affected by a single event, completely outside of our control and equally inescapable.

The events mentioned above mainly affected the regions they occurred in. Effects were felt around the world, gradually, in the form of rough waves around the world’s beaches; by debris being deposited on beaches halfway around the world; by observing increased levels of radiation in the sea life and waters of the Pacific, months after the nuclear power stations in Fukushima failed explosively.

These regional catastrophes were caused by powerful earthquakes not previously felt nor documented by humanity. If the forces unleashed by these regional earthquakes were so monstruous and their effects so devastating, why is it difficult to believe that large-scale global upheaval and destruction was not possible by the Flood as described in Genesis? Or asked differently, why would all cultures and peoples each have traditions, legends, or myths that describe a flood scenario which destroyed the then-known world and all of their ancestors?

If a few scientists could diligently scour two coral reefs in southeast Asia and determine, beyond a doubt, that in this part of the world every island would have been flooded about 6500 years ago, why is it difficult for them to think perhaps this was more than a regional event? If the sea levels changed drastically here, why not elsewhere? How many more coral reefs are there to study? How much more is there to discover and learn before making grand assumptions or ridiculing others who believe differently?

“This is a basic science problem,” Kopp says. “It’s about understanding past changes. Understanding what drove those changes is what allows us to test the climate models we use to predict future changes.”

This is undoubtedly the crux of the issue. By not allowing for a global flood because it does not fit within their materialist worldview, scientists miss the crucial links between oceans and our climate. They don’t bother to study why the jet stream fluctuates as it travels around the poles and in opposite directions between the northern and southern hemispheres. They don’t add as variables the vast ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctic into their climate equations, rather they see them as the product of an unbalanced equation in which we are the unwanted variables. They don’t reason that the polar regions were not meant to be covered in ice sheets several miles thick and thousands of square miles wide. Instead, they tout “anthropogenic climate change” as the world’s most pressing problem. Not war, or poverty, or hunger, or disease, or radical Islamic terrorism. No, it’s people and their emissions. Poor souls!

Unfortunately for us, with all the science being performed around the world today, no one can yet predict when earthquakes will strike, or if tsunamis will be set off, or when volcanoes will erupt, or when the ice sheets will break and melt, or if the sea levels will rise and by how much, or if a solar flare will strip our atmosphere away, or if the poles will reverse, or if an asteroid will strike the planet.

In some ways, nothing has changed in 6500 years… or 65 million years, if you’re into that.


2 Replies to “Catastrophism much?”

  1. Hey Andrei,

    It seems to me that you extrapolate the findings of said scientists in order to support the idea of a global flood of Genesis. I hope you realize that the 2-feet difference in the level of the ocean cannot be taken as “flood”. Surely, you will find stories of “floods” in various cultures but these stories vary by great a number of details. It is easy to understand that humans were affected by the catastrophes involving water, which occurred all over the world at various times and of various degree. Water is one force of nature that even today is feared because, we, humans, have no solution to it when unleashed as a result of tectonic plates and earthquakes events. My point is that you cannot prove the Genesis flood by extrapolating or taking out of context what the scientists say. Since you brought the issue of coral reefs, I recommend you reading more about the rate of formation of such and see if you can attain to your version based on science. See below:

  2. Hi Dad,
    I’m not extrapolating anything, merely asking qualitative questions that start with “If.” Obviously I am interpreting things from a conservative Christian worldview, which makes me biased. I’m honest about it however, which is more than I can say for materialist evolutionists.

    Two feet doesn’t sound like a flood, I agree. But if your entire living space and for miles around is only a foot above sea level, then two feet of water driven by the massive volume and energy of oceanic waves is enough to decimate everything in its path.

    All cultures have at least one Flood story that represents the destruction of the entire then-known world. I’m not talking about regional or seasonal floods, I’m talking about the end of the world type floods. Just as almost all cultures have an Origins story about the first two people created in the world. The point is that even if these myths vary in detail, they are generally similar. There is no reason for all these different cultures to have two important, similar stories relating to their distant past unless it was a common, shared public-knowledge oral history of their origins.

    I’m not trying to prove the Genesis flood. For me, there is no argument that it happened. I’ve made that clear in previous posts.

    The rate of formation (or decay) of anything in this world is not and has never been constant; therefore even our best models are mere guesstimates that cannot be proven. Our lifespan and ability to work and study is barely 70-80 years; just because nothing observable happens in this time does not mean anything relating to rates of formation, deposit, decay or other changes.

    Again, “science” is the study of something, not the proof of anything. It is a ongoing quest with no endpoint. This is why any theories or assumptions should be just that, instead of being preached as “fact” and then clung to like a treasure. Things change and we don’t know why, even if we search and search. We think we might know after a time, but oftentimes we are hopelessly wrong and don’t even know it. We lean too much on our own understanding, you might say.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *