The Flood Waters: Source, Analysis, Remembrances

In my previous post, Galileo’s Telescope, Google Earth, I said that I’d leave it for another day to discuss the source of so much water. Today is that day.

To identify the flood waters’ source, we should first note that such a volume as to cover the submerged drainages in more than two miles could not be stored on Earth; there is insufficient room at the poles for such a volume, as the atmosphere only extends so far. Thus, the water’s source must be cosmic. This brings us to the Younger-Dryas event wherein geologists recognize incredible ecosystem changes induced by a cosmic impact roughly 13,000 years before present. (Firestone et al. 2007, Kennett et al. 2015) Geologists have yet to find the cosmic impact, though they presume that some comet struck an ice sheet somewhere in North America and projected ice chunks several hundred to more than a thousand miles (and outside the atmosphere!) thereby creating the Carolina Bays and other craters found in North America. (Zamora 2017) Such a forceful impact would have created a crater, no? Since the impact was only 13,000 years before present, the crater could not have eroded away…. Well, then, where is it?! (Answer: not in North America.)

Interestingly, but as yet unrecognized by geologists, thousands of similar impact craters are found along the entire length of South America – we can identify them on Google Earth. Some are shown on Figure 1; a list of example craters found in North America and South America is found, below (also in my book, The Worldwide Flood, which is available at Amazon). Note the NNW to SSE orientation in most of the craters, which indicates the overflight direction of the impacting object (IO) just prior to impact.

FigB2 Craters v2Figure 1. Several hundred IO fragment-created craters of various sizes are shown in this map. The long axes of the larger craters measure approximately one kilometer whereas the smaller craters are one-tenth that size.

I knew to look for ice chunk-created impact craters in South America because I had located the flood-inducing impact site in the Southern Ocean. It is shown, centered on Figure 2. Note what appear to be parallel central scrapes. They are the sides of a lengthy trough that was carved by the solid, central nucleus of the IO immediately after it hit. This trough indicates the direction of travel taken by the IO (shown on Figure 3), and back-propagating its direction indicates to us that the object overflew North America, South America, and Antarctica immediately prior to impact (overflying part of Antarctica has the impact orientation to the NE). Along the way, its ice fragments rained down and created the many craters that we can find on the new maps.

Impact site in Southern Ocean 18Dec2017Figure 2. The IO impact crescent is found in the Southern Ocean. The parallel central scrapes delineate the trough carved by its solid nucleus that served as the gravitational attractor in the Oort Cloud where the IO formed. Minerals and other debris delivered by the IO are found in deposit mounds interior to the crescent. The gap in the crescent was caused by IO fragmentation on its Earth approach; impact velocities and associated forces strew minerals and other debris nearly 1000 miles to the northeast through the gap.

Among its many names, the IO is known in various cultures as Phaeton, Set, and Satan, and it was one of a class of objects from which smaller comets are but fragments. So, it is necessary for us to address the nature of comets, which brings us to NASA’s Deep Impact mission that probed comet Tempel 1 to determine its composition. The mission’s findings provide very important information that will have immediate application as we analyze impact effects and the volume of water delivered. Also, and vitally important to what lies ahead is that, according to Deep Impact’s principal investigator, Dr. Michael A’Hearn, comets are porous objects, mostly open space, “unbelievably fragile,” and “less strong than a snowbank” (Wilson 2005).

FigB1 Impact path v2Figure 3. Back-propagating the impact trough’s parallel central scrapes indicates the IO’s pre-impact flight footprint, shown by the white arrow.

Though the object that struck the earth was not a comet, those comets that we observe are but tiny fragments of the type of object that did. This should not surprise us since small comets like Tempel 1 are asymmetric, jagged, and non-spherical, characteristics that imply fragmentation (Tempel 1 is shown on Figure 4). Furthermore, we expect a spherical parent object for these fragments due to amalgamating gravitational forces from some central, attracting nucleus; case in point: Deep Impact found no discernible, solid central nucleus in Tempel 1.

Comet fragmentFigure 4. Irregularly shaped comet Tempel 1.

The IO was loosely packed (as are its fragments that we call comets) due to small gravitational accelerations induced by its dense nucleus, as the object formed in the Oort Cloud, far from gravitational effects from our Sun and other stars. The IO impact crescent measures roughly 2500 km (~1500 miles) in diameter (blue line, Figure 5), and the width of its central trough measures somewhat less than 100 km (~60 miles) in diameter. The IO’s loosely packed nature likens its Earth-impact to a huge, porous ice-ball with a rock in the middle hitting a brick wall.

Impact site with diameterFigure 5. The IO impact crescent diameter measures roughly 2500 km (1500 miles).

The impact remnants are found in the Southern Ocean southeast of South Africa, north of Antarctica, and south of Madagascar; the impact center is in the vicinity of 57°S, 53°E. Figure 6 shows three views of the impact site from a common, fixed perspective roughly 8,000 km above sea level: the standard map image (top), a bathymetry overlay (middle), and a magnetic anomaly overlay (bottom, Korhonen et al. 2007).

Entry effects that broke off portions of the fragile impacting object (IO) account for the gap in the center of the crater’s crescent. Impact craters in North America (e.g. Carolina Bays) and South America were created by IO ice fragments that rained down along the IO’s path just prior to impact. Some minerals with positive magnetic susceptibility introduced by the IO were projected nearly 1,500 km to the north and northeast through the crescent gap by impact velocities and associated forces (Figure 6, bottom).  What appear to be parallel central scrapes emanating from the impact center (Figures 6, top and middle) are actually the sides of a trough measuring 1,000 km in length that was carved by the dense nucleus as it skidded northward. This trough corresponds to a band of intense magnetic anomalies (red stripe on Figure 6, bottom) created from materials worn from the nucleus during its immediate, post-impact transit. At the end of the trough are the IO’s nucleus materials (circled region on Figure 6, middle) that served as the gravitational sink needed to attract and aggregate the outer ice and debris layers in the Oort Cloud where the IO is likely to have formed.  Raised regions interior to the crescent are deposit mounds (yellow, orange, and red regions on Figure 6, middle), remnants from the melted mineral-ice complex that comprised the IO’s outer layer. These mounds also correspond to regions of intense magnetic anomalies (Figure 6, bottom).

Figure5 updatedFigure 6. Identical perspectives of the impact site include: (top) the standard view with a superimposed diameter measuring 2,500 km; (middle) a bathymetry map depicting raised regions of IO-borne deposits with a superimposed circle identifying nucleus remnants; and (bottom) overlay of magnetic anomalies, from Korhonen et al. (2007), that were created by the impact and its deposited minerals. Magnetic anomalies extend approximately 1,500 km to the northeast through the “crescent” gap.

[Our understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe could be informed by the age and composition of minerals obtained from the impact area’s deposit mounds. In addition, cosmologists, astronomers, and other scientists might be interested in the composition of the IO nucleus materials, especially since Earth’s waters are known to be older than the solar system, which might mean that the solid nucleus could be older than the solar system, too. With that in mind I submitted proposals to the International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP) to recover and analyze these materials. One reviewer commented, “It is thinking like this that moves science forward.” Indeed. Unfortunately, however, the chair of the IODP is not only a geologist but also a submarine geomorphologist whose academic life rests on the flawed assumption that there was never a flood. My proposal was denied. Though initially disappointed, I am confident that one day the mission to recover parts of the IO nucleus will be successfully accomplished. I look forward to learning of its age and composition.]

As depicted on Figure 7, the IO had a dense, solid core that was surrounded by a fragile outer layer.  Having formed in the Oort Cloud, this outer layer was consistent with known comet composition, which as noted above, is porous, mostly open space, “unbelievably fragile,” and “less strong than a snowbank.”

Impacting object diagramFigure 7. The IO had a solid core that attracted and amassed ice and other rocks and minerals from the Oort Cloud.

With a diameter of 2,500 km, the IO occupied a volume of 5.58 * 109 km3. Given that it was composed as Tempel 1, that is, 75% open space, 2/3 of its mass pure water ice (A’Hearn et al. 2005; Kerr 2005; Sunshine et al. 2007), then 1/6 of the sphere’s volume would be ice. But that ice melted, so we must account for the slight volumetric difference between ice and its melted form; thus, the IO’s equivalent water volume was 1.29 * 109 km3. To approximate the equivalent depth of water delivered, the volume can be divided by the present oceans’ surface area. Since the earth’s oceans are reported to cover 3.62 * 108 km2, the IO delivered an average ocean water depth of 3.57 km (more than two miles).

[To calculate the volume of water delivered by IO by using the equation V = 4/3*pi r3, where r is the diameter of the sphere and π (pi) is approximately 3.14159. . . . Since the impact diameter measures 2,500 km, then its radius measures 1,250 km.

IO radius:                                                      1,250    km

IO volume:                                      8,181,230,869   km^3

Ice percentage:                                                  17    %           =(1/4 non-open space)*(2/3 non-open is ice)

IO ice volume:                               1,390,809,248   km^3

IO water volume:                          1,287,786,340   km^3    =ice vol/1.08

Ocean surface area:                     361,000,000       km^2

Ocean depth due to IO:               3.567275181      km

Here we have found the volume of water delivered by the object and then divided it by the surface area that the oceans now occupy. Since the volume divided by the surface area yields the average depth of water, then this impact delivered roughly 3.57 km to the former abyss.]

This is a nearly incomprehensible amount of water, and its addition to the Earth ecosystem forever changed the planet. The IO’s waters flooded the planet, and they did so from the abyss upward – they did not inundate presently exposed landscapes. In addition, the IO’s impact created the recently discovered nano-diamond layer (Kinzie et al. 2014), and its ecological influences are known as the Younger-Dryas (YD) effects; the flood and the YD event are synonymous. The IO’s waters ushered in a new geologic era that we will call the Post-Diluvian.

In the Oort Cloud where the IO formed, gravitational accelerations induced by the solid inner core were less than 1% of Earth’s accelerations. Aggregations forming the IO’s outer shell of water-ice and debris made it more massive than its core, yet accelerations induced by the entire object were on the order of 2% of Earth’s. These comparatively small accelerations account for the IO being so loosely packed, porous, and fragile; its gravitational accelerations were too small to act as a compressing mechanism. This corroborates A’Hearn et al’s characterization of comets as less strong than a snowbank. Furthermore, the IO’s fragility explains why impact effects were far less damaging than what otherwise might be expected from a similarly sized yet solid object. It was like a lightly packed but fast-moving snowball – with a rock in the middle – hitting a brick wall. (See Postscript for IO fragility details and calculations.)

Despite its delicate outer layers, the IO, with its impact forces, nonetheless created the impact crescent that we observe in the maps, and it shifted local topography along the western edge of the crescent by up to 150 km; terrain elongations are evident in map images of the impact crescent’s western extent, shown on Figure 8.

terrain distortionsFigure 8. Terrain distortions of nearly 150 km are evident on the western extent of the impact crescent.

It is likely that the IO was displaced by a binary star system that passed through the Oort Cloud roughly 70,000 years before present (Mamajek et al. 2015), was eventually captured by our sun’s gravitational field, and was then brought into Earth’s path. Upon impact, collisions and interactions between energetic IO-borne minerals and terrestrial materials created the YD nano-diamond layer, placing the impact approximately 13,000 years before present (Kinzie et al. 2014). The timing and planet-changing consequences of the event have been preserved in the human oral tradition (the last 200 years notwithstanding).

[There are immediate consequences to cosmology and astronomy, as well. As suggested earlier, the smaller, irregularly shaped comets we observe are but fragments of these larger objects that have broken off due to gravitational interactions. Short period comets, especially Jupiter-family comets, are very likely fragments shorn from the IO during its Earth approach. In addition, Pluto could very well be a member of a class of objects similar to the IO.]

Imagine how the IO appeared to the ancients as it neared Earth. At 10,000 times the surface area of Halley’s comet and 1,000,000 times its volume, the IO would have had a fiery appearance and an incredibly lengthy tail. It would have dominated the sky, particularly as it neared impact. To the ancients, the illumination from the nucleus and its tail as it approached Earth must have been frightening and memorable, particularly since the flood ensued nearly immediately after its disappearance. Therefore, it is no surprise that we find recollections of the IO in ubiquitous, ancient oral traditions. It is known by names such as Phaeton, Typhon, Set, Ta-vi, and Satan.

Pliny the Elder described Phaeton’s approach: “A terrible comet was seen by the people of Ethiopia and Egypt. . . . It had a fiery appearance and was twisted like a coil, and it was very grim to behold; it was not really a star so much as what might be called a ball of fire.” (Rackham, 1938) According to Allan and Delair (1995), Phaeton “was anciently regarded as a generally round, brilliantly fiery body of appreciable size, and much more star-like or sun-like than conventional comets: and it was held to have in some way caused the Deluge.” The fiery comet-like appearance of the IO as it neared Earth impact and the irreversible changes induced by its flood likely account for the long-held notion that comets are harbingers of change. In addition, the Chinese New Year dragon, a glowing, fiery serpent depicted above the clouds with water emanating from its mouth (shown on Figure 9), is a commemoration and memorialization of the IO’s frightening appearance and effects.

Chinese New Year Dragon w water coming from mouthFigure 9. The Chinese New Year dragon, a fiery serpent above the cloud with water emanating from its mouth, commemorates the IO.

The legend of Adam and Eve is but another flood story: naked humans were evicted from their natural environment by the serpent (imagine my “Aha!” moment when I found that the IO was known as Satan), and having to adapt to a new environment changed their nature; they and their ancestors struggled to survive. Nomadic humans sought habitable regions as the Earth transformed from its pre-flood state to the present ecosystem.

Lemuria (Mu)

As a consequence of geology’s accepted “no flood, ever” doctrine, Lemuria’s existence has been castigated as the musings of eccentrics (at best). But because geologists erred, we can now reconsider the legend of Lemuria (a.k.a. Mu) from a more informed perspective.

Lemuria comes to our attention mainly through the 1926 publication of James Churchward’s The Lost Continent of Mu: Motherland of Men, which resulted from his translation of ancient tablets he discovered in India. His book culminates 50 years of research, and it prompted Churchward to claim that “at one time the earth had an incalculably ancient civilization which was, in many respects, superior to our own, and far in advance of us in some important essentials that the modern world is just beginning to have the cognizance of.”

Churchward describes Mu (italics added):

The civilizations of the early Greeks, the Chaldeans, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Egyptians and the Hindus had been definitely preceded by the civilization of Mu. Continuing my searches, I discovered that this lost continent had extended from somewhere north of Hawaii to the south as far as the Fijis and Easter Island, and was undoubtedly the original habitat of man. I learned that in this beautiful country there had lived a people that colonized the earth, and that this land of smiling and plenty had been obliterated by terrific earthquakes and submersion 12,000 years ago, and had vanished in a vortex of fire and water. . . .

It was a beautiful tropical country with vast plains. The valleys and plains were covered with rich grazing grasses and tilled fields, while low rolling hill-lands were shaded by luxuriant growths of tropical vegetation. No mountains or mountain ranges stretched themselves through this earthly paradise. . . .

At the time of our narrative, the 64,000,000 people were made up of ten tribes or peoples, each one distinct from the other, but all under one government. . . .

Rumblings from the bowels of the earth, followed by earthquakes and volcanic outbursts, shook up the southern part of the land of Mu. . . . During the night the land was torn asunder and rent to pieces. With thunderous roarings the doomed land sank. Down, down, down she went, into the mouth of hell – a tank of fire. . . . As Mu sank into that gulf of fire another force claimed her – fifty million square miles of water. From all sides huge waves or walls of water came rolling in over her. They met where once was the center of the land. Here they seethed and boiled.

Poor Mu, the motherland of man, with all her proud cities, temples and palaces, with all her arts, sciences and learning, was now a dream of the past. The deathly blanket of water was her burial shroud. In this manner was the continent of Mu destroyed. . . . For nearly 13,000 years the destruction of this great civilization cast a heavy pall of darkness over the greatest part of the earth.

Both Plato and Churchward claim that ancient civilizations, Atlantis and Mu, respectively, were lost 12,000 years ago after great earthquakes were followed by submersion in a flood. Although it is possible that Churchward’s writings were influenced by Plato, if the two accounts are independent, then their similarity presents a compelling coincidence.

Churchward was a talented painter, and he complemented his archaeological investigations with many works. Three are captured, below:

Churchward paintings grouped verticallyFigure 10. Three of Churchward’s paintings depicting Mu’s destruction.

Note that the top painting’s caption reads “Unaccompanied with Ice,” and that the second painting depicts huge ice chunks brought by the flood waters. We now realize that the celestial object that delivered the floodwaters was composed mostly of ice, and not all of it would have melted immediately after impact – some of it would have been carried about by the relentlessly coursing waters. Because Mu was located relatively close to the impact site, it is very reasonable to consider that the meltwaters would have carried substantial amounts of ice with them. Churchward was hamstrung by geology’s “no flood, ever” dogma; because he postulated that the entire continent of Mu had subsided into the abyss, he would not have considered that the waters had a frozen, cosmic source. Is it not fascinating to consider: what prompted him to mention ice? Where would he have found the account? Is it available today?

Note, too, that the bottom painting of Mu’s destruction depicts volcanic activity, which is also a likely and immediate consequence of the cosmic impact. The incredible force of the impact is certain to have initiated eruptions around the planet.

In addition to paintings, Churchward also created maps of Mu that he derived from his research.  Its borders bear remarkable similarity to the expanse of formerly exposed landscapes in tropical Pacific latitudes to the west of the Americas, shown in tan on the ArcGIS map pre-flood model on Figure 11 (note the two peninsular lobes south of Hawaii in the pre-flood map).

Churchward Lemuria map with ArcGIS mapFigure 11. Churchward situated Mu in the Pacific (top map), and his depiction of where it existed is  similar to the expanse of formerly exposed equatorial lands that were west of the Americas and south of Hawaii as shown on a model of Earth (bottom map), where tan regions approximate formerly exposed pre-flood landscapes.

Further support of Lemuria’s pre-flood existence comes from a recent paper by Llamas et al. (2016) dealing with DNA similarities between indigenous people in Australia and in the Amazon in South America. The DNA heat map from the Llamas et al. paper is shown on Figure 12. Investigators claim that the latest genetic analyses back up skeletal studies suggesting that some groups in the Amazon share a common ancestor with indigenous Australians and New Guineans. The find hints at the possibility that not one but two groups migrated across these continents to give rise to the first Americans. Their results “suggest this working model that we had is not correct. There’s another early population that founded modern Native American populations,” says study coauthor David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard University.

DNA heat mapFigure 12. DNA heat map showing inferred closest similarities between indigenous humans from Australia and South America (deep red) and lesser similarities in lighter colors. White circles indicate very few inferred DNA similarities.

Understanding the DNA similarities demonstrated on the heat map is obvious in the context of the worldwide flood. As described by Churchward, the peoples inhabiting Mu shared a common ancestry, and descendants of flood survivors in Australia and regional Pacific islands remain DNA-linked to descendants of flood survivors in South America.  As implied by the DNA heat map, the existence of Lemuria and its loss to the worldwide flood corroborate that South America was not populated by way of North America.

It is interesting to consider pre-flood Earth, a model for which is shown on Figure 13. It was created in ArcGIS by removing an estimated average depth of two miles from the present sea level. Humans evolved in the dark tan regions; we are not out of Africa. Human civilizations such as Zealandia, Lemuria (Mu) and Atlantis were destroyed by the flood waters. The canals of Atlantis are observable in NOAA maps (Jaye 2017), and I am confident that they will be investigated one day–hopefully soon.

Fig7 Preflood Earth v2Figure 13. With more than 3 km of water graphically removed, a model of land and sea distributions in pre-flood Earth shows previously exposed but now-submerged landscapes (tan), presently exposed landscapes (beige), and former oceans and seas (blue).

 With the removal of so much water, the atmosphere would have covered the former abyss. Thus, the dark tan areas on Fig. 13 experienced increased atmospheric pressure which would have led to higher temperatures. We are furless as a consequence. Who knows what it was like down there, but it is nearly certain that we did not struggle for food – we were adapted to that ecosystem. It is very possible that the variety in human skin pigmentation is due to the depth above the former abyss at which various peoples adapted. Those from the greatest depths would be of lightest skin pigmentation due to highest atmospheric attenuation of ultraviolet rays; those of darker pigmentation are likely from higher elevations where they adapted to greater UV exposure.

What is now coastal California would have been more than two miles above the former sea level, and winds uplifted by the nearly vertical continental shelf condensed to create persistent rainfall that eroded and rounded the hills. The Salinas Valley, shown on Figure 14, was once an inland lake, and it drained to the northwest and then down the nearly vertical slope where its waters acquired sufficient kinetic energy to carve what we now call Monterey Canyon. (Pay attention to the coastal region’s rounded hills and drainages the next time you fly from LA to Monterey – ask for a seat on the right side of the craft.)

Salinas Valley CAFigure 14. The Salinas Valley near Monterey, CA, was an inland lake prior to the worldwide flood. The former lake’s shoreline is discernible by the common, terminal depth of former drainages from surrounding hills.

The newly introduced waters flooded the planet, and they did so from the former abyss upward; the floodwaters did not inundate presently exposed landscapes. (Immediately after the impact, a worldwide increase in relative humidity likely caused incredible and memorable rainfall that some survivors assumed to be the flood’s source.) Coupled with the vast new waters and ensuing changes to weather patterns, the IO induced irreversible ecosystem and climatic changes that geologists recognize as the YD event. In short, the worldwide flood and the YD event are synonymous. Furthermore, the quick inundation preserved the former drainages that the new maps reveal.

That the worldwide flood and the YD event are synonymous is corroborated by a recent finding in archaeoastronomy wherein an analysis of pillar carvings at Göbekli Tepe “provide evidence that the famous ‘Vulture Stone’ is a date stamp for 10950 BC ± 250 yrs, which corresponds closely to the proposed Younger Dryas event.” (Sweatman and Tsikirsis, 2017) The study also notes that the people of Göbekli Tepe remained interested in the event several thousand years afterward, suggesting that “it had a significant impact on their cultural development.” The struggle to survive and adapt to the post-flood ecosystem so affected the Göbekli Tepe culture that they etched the event’s memory in stone.

The removal of so much water affords the annotation on Figure 15 of the Monterey Canyon map presented in the Introduction. What is now California would have been continuously inundated by rains induced by winds uplifted by the nearly vertical and formerly exposed continental margin. Eventually those rainwaters would be energized by the more than 3 km fall down the shelf, and their scouring interactions would eventually create Monterey Canyon. Identical processes account for the many well-preserved river drainage systems found submerged all over the planet.

Montere Canyon annotated18Dec2017Figure 15. This map displays former drainage systems that are now submerged off the coast of Monterey, CA, in more than three km (two miles) of water.

The combined Monterey Canyon and Big Sur drainages eventually flowed into a collection basin near the system’s terminus approximately 250 km southwest of what is now Moss Landing, California (located very close to Monterey Canyon’s source and just north of the Salinas River’s terminus). After its fall down the shelf, and as it neared the abyssal plain, the Salinas River system carved a prominent oxbow that is 8 km in diameter and located approximately 80 km from the present shoreline.

The straight trail left by a massive landslide caused by the collapse of the oxbow’s southwestern wall is also evident. The collapse was caused by rising ocean waters impinging on the riverbank that had become weakened as the river swelled with rainfall resulting from the cosmic impact. We note that the turbidity flow fell straight down the gravitational gradient and that it did not attempt to organize itself into other pre-existing flows in the area; in addition, its remnants lack any semblance to the other submerged riverbeds in the region. Finally, we note that the region to the left side of Figure 15 is in the abyssal plain where geologists’ presumed gravity currents could not exist due to the absence of sufficiently steep gradients.

The confluence region depicted on Figure 15 appears somewhat ambiguous or smeared as a consequence of river-borne sediments being deposited into rising floodwaters much like the formation of river deltas. Other river-borne materials that were deposited into the rising ocean waters account for the region’s sediment-filled channels (Fildani and Normark 2004).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has obtained core samples from this confluence region. NOAA reports that the primary composition of the cores’ materials is terrigenous sands, and the secondary composition is terrigenous gravel deposits. In other words, the sediments taken from the confluence region located more than 80 km from shore (and now in more than 3 km of water) are derived from terrestrial environments, not marine environments. Indeed, they were: the sediments were carried and deposited by the pre-flood subaerially flowing river, and they were deposited when its waters met the newly introduced, rising ocean level.

The more northern of the two tributaries indicated on the right side of Figure 15 drained what is now the Big Sur region westward and then to the north of what is now a seamount. This river’s course through abyssal region is somewhat difficult for us to discern on the map because, like the confluence, it is filled with sediments. Since this is a relatively flat region (there was only a 120 m elevation drop over the 40 km it traveled from the shelf toward the confluence), the riverbed is smeared or ambiguous on the map because the abyssal plane through which it flowed became filled by river-borne sediments deposited into newly rising ocean waters.

Rocks in surf and shoreFigure 16. Photograph of jagged rocks along the California coastline showing identical erosion in the surf, exposed on the beach, and above the beach.

Figure 16 is a photograph of the Monterey Peninsula shoreline region. Rocks in the surf, those protruding from the beach, and those well above the beach (foreground) show identical erosion. Furthermore, the rock formations in the surf are jagged. These conditions would be impossible if, according to geology’s accepted “no flood, ever” paradigm, the rocks in the ocean had been exposed to pounding surf for billions of years, because they would appear rounded or they would be eroded entirely. Note the gray color of the uppermost layer of topsoil on the right side of the image.

Peninsula soil deposit remnantFigure 17. Photograph of a small rock peninsula above a beach on the California coast. In the center of the photograph is a segment capped by a layer of topsoil (gray materials beneath non-indigenous ice plant) that has yet to be washed away like its neighboring sections.

Figure 17 captures a particularly interesting feature found on the California coastline. The photograph was taken during low tide. What makes it so interesting is its central feature, a small rock peninsula topped by less than a meter of gray soil that is protected on the surface by invasive ice plant. This tiny peninsula is very close to the ocean during low tide and nearly directly above it during high tide; in addition, it is only 6 or 7 m above the high tide level. We can assert that the topsoil layer could not possibly have formed above the small peninsula if there were never a flood.

The isolated topsoil layer is easily explained according to the correct perspective that there was a worldwide flood: the layer was contiguous with and exactly similar to all the other topsoil in the nearby region (noticeable on Figure 16, just right of center), including those from lower-elevation rocks that are now submerged. The common soil layers formed over eons of varying weather, but especially from persistent rains that eroded the bedrock terrain features. The soil layer was mutually self-supporting until intrusion by floodwaters removed the layer from formations in or exposed to the water, thereby making adjacent and partially removed soil layers unstable. Unlike nearby features in and near the ocean waters, most of the tiny peninsula’s upper layer of soil has somehow survived the 13,000 years of Post-Diluvian ocean and environmental activity. In addition, it has not been affected by tsunami activity.

The topsoil layer that once covered lower and now-submerged landscapes in the local region has been removed by the ocean waters, exposing the jagged rocks beneath, and the soil remnants now form portions of the area’s ocean bed. Knowing that former soils have been mixed with other pre-flood soils to form littoral ocean sediments should help submarine geomorphologists to better analyze and understand the morphology of samples obtained from such regions.

The flood displaced the atmosphere upward, meaning that the landscapes we presently occupy would have been exposed to significantly less pre-flood atmospheric pressure because they were more than 3 km above the former sea level. An estimate obtained from models of atmospheric pressure versus altitude indicates that air pressure 3.5 km above sea level is roughly 60% of standard atmospheric pressure; landscapes roughly 5 km above sea level would have slightly less than 50% (see model and chart on Figure 18).

Atmospheric pressure vs altitude above sea levelFigure 18. Atmospheric pressure decreases exponentially with altitude above standard sea level. At 5000m above sea level, atmospheric pressure would be less than .5 atmospheres.

Interestingly, a recent publication authored under the prevailing “no flood, ever” paradigm analyzed gas bubbles obtained from basaltic lava flows in Australia that reportedly solidified several billion years before present at what its investigators take to be present sea level. Investigators concluded that atmospheric pressure was less than one half modern levels (Som et al. 2016).

NW Australia bathymetry w Beasley River pinFigure 19. To the west of the Beasley River region of Australia was once a reservoir, identified by a common terminal depth at which ended many former drainage systems that are now submerged in more than 5 km water.

Figure 19 presents a map of the Beasley River region in Australia where the study’s researchers obtained their lava samples. Also shown is the bathymetry of a portion of the ocean to the west where, similar to the western Mediterranean Sea, the drainages in the former basin ended at a common terminal depth, in this case approximately 5.2 km below present sea level. Rather than forming at sea level, the lava instead formed more than 5 km above sea level where we expect the atmospheric pressure to be less than half of present. Thus, Earth’s atmosphere has been relatively constant over the course of its history.

Such diminished atmospheric pressure in these formerly upland regions likely accounts for the evolution of large flightless birds that we encounter, post-flood. Before the flood, and at 50% of current atmospheric pressure, these birds could not develop the requisite lift to attain flight.

submerged glacial valley near antarcticaFigure 20. Subglacial trough beneath Antarctic waters (Ross, 2013).

Another recently published discovery, that of a massive subglacial trough 300 km long, up to 25 km across, deeper than the Grand Canyon, and more than 2 km below present sea level and graphically depicted on Figure 20 (Ross, 2013), is easily understood in the context of the worldwide flood. Because ice floats on water, glacial scouring 2 km beneath present sea level could never have occurred had the present amount of water always existed, as currently assumed. However, in the context of the worldwide flood, the glaciers formed in Antarctica flowed down into the former abyss, subaerially scouring the valley over the eons before the flood. They have since been covered and preserved by the flood waters.

Indisputable proof of the worldwide flood will be attained once we discover the works of man entombed in ocean depths. I argue that such evidence has already been found – traces of pre-flood Earth exist (e.g. Atlantis), some of which are found on the new maps.

Finally, if someone out there has the funding to search for and to record the discovery of Atlantis, then please contact me.


Post Script

IO fragility can be inferred from an understanding of the small aggregating accelerations induced by its central core. We apply Newton’s law of gravitation and his second law of motion to determine accelerations induced by one mass on another, which can be expressed as follows:

a = G * M/r2

where: M is the mass of the attracting object, r is the distance to that object’s center, and G is the universal gravitational constant, G = 6.67 * 10–11.

From this equation, we can show that the acceleration of an object near the earth’s surface is roughly 9.8 m/s2 (first set of calculations, below).  Then we compute the acceleration at the surface of a 50 km sphere composed of very dense material. Afterward, we add a porous ice-debris outer layer like that of the IO in order to calculate the acceleration at its outer surface.

Acceleration at Earth’s surface:

Radius:                                             6,380,000           meters

Volume:                                           1.0878E+21        meter^3

Density:                                           5497.31393        kg/meter^3

Mass:                                               5.98E+24            kg

Acceleration at surface:                                            9.799088059     m/sec^2              =G*mass/radius^2

Acceleration at the IO’s core surface:

Radius:                                             50,000                 meters

Volume:                                           5.23599E+14     meter^3

Density:                                           5497.31393        kg/meter^3

Mass:                                               2.87839E+18      kg

Acceleration at core surface:                                   0.076795361      m/sec^2              =G*mass/radius^2

Acceleration at the IO’s outer surface:

Radius:                                             1,250,000           meters

Volume:                                           5.23599E+14     meter^3

mass, 1km^3 water:                      1E+12                  kg

H20 mass, outer layer:                 1.28779E+21      kg

mineral mass, outer layer:               5497.31393        kg

Acceleration due to core + shell masses:              0.198841398      m/sec^2         

=G*[(H20+mineral mass, outer layer) + core mass]/outerradius^2

IO’s acceleration, expressed as a fraction of Earth’s acceleration:

a_core/a_earthsurface                                       = 0.007836991 = 0.70%

a_combined mass core + shell/a_earthsurface      = 0.020291827 = 2%


Therefore, the IO’s small attracting accelerations in the Oort Cloud created a porous and fragile object that began to fall apart as it neared Earth impact. Hence the gap in the impact crescent, as well as the abundance of impact craters strewn along the IO’s broad and lengthy approach path. We get an idea of the IO’s approach from the impact trough that was carved by its dense nucleus: back-propagating the trough direction reveals the impact approach path. In doing so we find that the IO’s center of mass approached over west-central North America then western South America before crossing Chile and Argentina and flying over the Falklands.

Listed on the table, below, are latitude-longitude coordinates for some ice fragment impact craters along the IO approach path. The list is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it is meant to illustrate the multitude of craters created by IO ejecta. The latitude-longitude pairs are provided so that you might discover them – and others – using Google Earth. The term “eye” refers to the suggested altitude from which to begin crater investigation. The “Comments” describe locations and some features intended to pique interest. The progression of impacts listed on the table moves the viewer from north to south.

Impact Coordinates             Eye                  Comments

Northern Latitudes

40.6341N 98.0162W      7,800   ft            Nebraska; might be difficult to discern among crop circles

40.4670N 98.0381W      17,000 ft            Nebraska

39.1658N 75.8462W      3,500    ft            Maryland

34.8719N 79.0371W      46,600  ft            South Carolina, swarm of elliptical craters

34.8370N 79.1854W      20.3       mi          South Carolina, elliptical craters

32.8604N 82.0342W      12.5       mi          Georgia

33.4013N 104.0641W    40,600 ft            New Mexico

34.6756N 103.9874W    37,500  ft            New Mexico, swarm

34.8448N 104.1021W    45,000  ft            New Mexico, swarm

32.2140N 102.4217W    30,600  ft            Texas, swarm with one crater in someone’s backyard

32.5304N 100.6679W    17.5       mi          Texas

26.3530N 97.7112W      28,300  ft            Mexico

25.7206N 97.3893W      23.7       mi          Mexico

20.3999N 87.4530W      37,800  ft            Mexico; impact string visible at large view scale, running SW-NE

20.0234N 87.5228W      40          mi          Mexico, swarm of large impact craters; some carved shoreline

19.1279N 87.8039W      16          mi          Mexico, swarm

18.3340N 88.2799W      13          mi          Mexico

14.4011N 83.3440W      13,000  ft            Mexico


Southern Latitudes

6.1710S  80.7380W       28,500  ft            Peru; equatorial latitude impact crater

10.6985S 76.3237W       28.0       mi          Peru; two elongated impacts in mountainous region

22.8193S 66.8091W       47,000  ft            Argentina; swarm

34.8117S 61.6309W       20          mi          Argentina

35.0281S 62.4160W       31,000  ft            Argentina

35.8648S 62.3402W       32,000  ft            Argentina; impact swarm

37.4198S 58.1596W       16,000  ft            Argentina

37.6990S 61.0177W       18          mi          Argentina; swarm

41.2603S 68.0857W       13.5       mi          Argentina; check out the drainage runoff patterns from ice melt

41.3549S 67.7267W       16          mi          Argentina; swarm

45.1512S 70.6540W       24          mi          Argentina; small swarm, some drainages observable

47.8645S 71.4748W       25          mi          Argentina; impact crater now a lake; swarm in vicinity

50.5908S 70.3878W       37          mi          Argentina; large swarm

51.5756S 70.0404W       30          mi          Argentina; large swarm

51.9179S 70.0099W       30          mi          Argentina (barely); large swarm

51.7803S 59.1534W       28,000  ft            Falkland Islands

53.6401S 68.2996W       40          mi          Argentina; swarm of large craters

55.8726S 67.8791W       7000      ft            Tierra del Fuego; swarm



A’Hearn, M.F., M.J.S. Belton, W.A. Delamere, J. Kissel, K.P. Klaasen, L.A. McFadden, K.J. Meech, H.J. Melosh, P.H. Schultz, J.M. Sunshine, P.C. Thomas, J. Veverka, D.K. Yeomans, M.W. Baca, I. Busko, C.J. Crockett, S.M. Collins, M. Desnoyer, C.A. Eberhardy, C.M. Ernst, T.L. Farnham, L. Feaga, O. Groussin, D. Hampton, S.I. Ipatov, J.-Y. Li, D. Lindler, C.M. Lisse, N. Mastrodemos, W.M. Owen Jr., J.E. Richardson, D.D. Wellnitz, and R.L. White. 2005. Deep Impact: Excavating comet Tempel 1. Science (310) 5746: 258–264.

Allan, D.S. and J.B. Delair. 1997. Cataclysm! Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B.C. Rochester, Vermont: Bear and Company. Originally published as When the Earth Nearly Died (Bath, England: Gateway Books, 1995).

Fildani, A. and W.R. Normark. 2004. Late Quaternary evolution of channel and lobe complexes of Monterey Fan. Marine Geology 206 (1–4): 199–223.

Firestone, R.B., A. West, J.P. Kennett, L. Becker, T.E. Bunch, Z.S. Revay, P.H. Schultz, T. Belgya, D.J. Kennett, J.M. Erlandson, O.J. Dickenson, A.C. Goodyear, R.S. Harris, G.A. Howard, J.B. Kloosterman, P.Lechler, P.A. Mayewski, J. Montgomery, R. Poreda, T. Darrah, S.S. Que Hee, A.R. Smith, A. Stich, W.Topping, J.H. Wittke, W.S. Wolbach. 2007. Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions of the Younger Dryas cooling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:16016-16021.

Jaye, M. 2017. The Worldwide Flood: Uncovering and Correcting the Most Profound Error in the History of Science. Bloomington, IN: Archway Publishing.

Kennett J.P., D.J. Kennett, B.J. Culleton, J.E.A. Tortosa, J.L. Bischoff, T.E. Bunch, I.R. Daniel Jr., J.M. Erlandson, D. Ferraro, R.B. Firestone, A.C. Goodyear, I. Israde-Alcántara, J.R. Johnson, J.F. Jordá Pardo, D.R. Kimbel, M.A. LeCompte, N.H. Lopinot, W.C. Mahaney, A.M.T. Moore, C.R. Moore, J.H. Ray, T.W. Stafford Jr., K.B. Tankersley, J.H. Wittke, W.S. Wolbach, and A. West. 2015. Bayesian chronological analyses consistent with synchronous age of 12,835–12,735 Cal B.P. for Younger Dryas boundary on four continents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (32): E4344–E4353.

Kerr, R.A. 2005. Deep Impact finds a flying snowbank of a comet. Science (309) 5741: 1667.

Kinzie C.R., S.S. Que Hee, A. Stich, K.A. Tague, C. Mercer, J.J. Razink, D.J. Kennett, P.S. DeCarli, T.E. Bunch, J.H. Wittke, I. Israde-Alcántara, J.L. Bischoff, A.C. Goodyear, K.B. Tankersley, D.R. Kimbel, B.J. Culleton, J.M. Erlandson, T.W. Stafford, J.B. Kloosterman, A.M.T. Moore, R.B. Firestone, J.E. Aura Tortosa, J.F. Jordá Pardo, A. West, J.P.

Kennett, and W.S. Wolbach. 2014. Nanodiamond-rich layer across three continents consistent with major cosmic impact at 12,800 Cal BP. The Journal of Geology 122 (5):

Korhonen J.V., J.D. Fairhead, M. Hamoudi, K. Hemant, V. Lesur, M. Mandea, S. Maus, M. Purucker, D. Ravat, T. Sazonova, and E. Thebault. 2007. Magnetic Anomaly Map of the World,  1st ed., Commission for the Geological Map of the World, Paris, France.

Llamas, B., L. Fehren-Schmitz, G. Valverde, J. Soubrier, S. Mallick, N. Rohland, S. Nordenfelt, C. Valdiosera, S.M. Richards, A. Rohrlach, M.I. Romero, I.F. Espinoza, E.T. Cagigao, J.W. Jiménez, K. Makowski, I.S. Reyna, J.M. Lory, J.A. Torrez, M.A. Rivera, R.L. Burger, M.C. Ceruti, J. Reinhard, R.S. Wells, G. Politis, C.M. Santoro, V.G. Standen, C. Smith, D. Reich, S.Y. Ho, A. Cooper, and W. Haak. 2016. Ancient mitochondrial DNA provides high-resolution time scale of the peopling of the Americas. Science Advances 2 (4): e1501385. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1501385.

Mamajek, E.E., S.A. Barenfeld, V.D. Ivanov, A.Y. Kniazev, P. Vaisanen, Y. Beletsky, and H.M.J. Boffin. 2015. The closest known flyby of a star to the solar system. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 800 (1): L17.

Rackham, H. (transl). 1938. Pliny the Elder Natural History (London); vol ii, p 91.

Ross N., T. Jordan, R. Bingham, H. Corr, F. Ferraccioli, A. Le Brocq, D. Rippin, A. Wright, M. Siegert. 2013. The Ellsworth Subglacial Highlands: Inception and retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 19 Sept 2013.

Sedgwick, A. 1831. Address to the Geological Society of London, on retiring from the President’s Chair, February 18.

Som S., R. Buick, J.W. Hagadorn, T.S. Blake, J.M. Perreault, J.P. Harnmeijer, and D.C. Catling. 2016. Earth’s air pressure 2.7 billion years ago constrained to less than half of modern levels. Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2713.

Sunshine J.M., O. Groussin, P.H. Schultz, M.F. A’Hearn, L.M. Feaga, T.L. Farnham, and K.P. Klaasen. 2007. The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1. Icarus 190 (2): 284–294.

Sweatman S.B., D. Tsikritsis. 2017. Decoding Göbekli Tepe with archaeoastronomy: What does the fox say? Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 17(1): 233-250.

Wilson, E.K. 2005. An Icy Dustball in Outer Space. Chemical & Engineering News 83 (37): 12.

Zamora, A. 2017. A model for the geomorphology of the Carolina Bays. Geomorphology 282:209-216.



Galileo’s Telescope, Google Earth

For almost 200 years geologists have accepted that the Earth has had all its water since nearly its beginning. This paradigm finds its origin in the early decades of the 1800s when European geologists began the process of determining whether or not the whole of the Earth suffered a deluge. The early geologists set about various landscapes seeking a common deposit layer, but they could not find it. Instead, it became apparent that diluvial gravels belonged to multiple, distinct events. Therefore, because there was not a common event in the observational record, the early geologists concluded that there was never a worldwide flood.

In his 1831 president’s address to the Geological Society of London, Adam Sedgwick renounced his belief in a worldwide flood. He stated, in part:

The vast masses of diluvial gravel … do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth…. Having been myself a believer [in a worldwide flood], and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, … I think it right … thus publicly to read my recantation. (Sedgwick, A. 1831. Address to the Geological Society of London, on retiring from the President’s Chair, February 18.)

It was a celebrated pronouncement, for Sedgwick was not only the Society’s president, but he was also a Cambridge University professor as well as a clergyman in the Church of England. Sedgwick’s recantation had lasting effect: to this day, all of science accepts that there was never a worldwide flood.

Interestingly, today’s lettered geologists staffing the science’s premier journals do not know the source of their fundamental “no flood, ever” tenet. They simply accept it as an article of their faith, and they immediately discount anyone thinking otherwise. I know this because I have dealt with them. Many of them. I have found that the very few aware of the history are wholly uncritical of the conclusion relative to its supporting evidence.

Uncritical? Indeed: the early geologists’ “no flood, ever” conclusion is indisputably wrong. From the evidence, Sedgwick and his peers instead should have concluded: presently exposed landscapes were never submerged by a common flood. Whereas it is undeniably true that where we are now was never flooded by a common event, that is not equivalent to the claim that there was never a worldwide flood. Sedgwick and the other early geologists mistakenly passed judgment on vast, submerged landscapes that they could not observe; they assumed that all of Earth’s waters have been with us since the beginning. The error precluded the possibility that now-submerged landscapes were inundated by some event, something that Google Maps data strongly imply (examples shown on Figure 1).

Four drainagesFigure 1. Submerged drainages now discernible in Google Earth include (clockwise from upper left): coastal California, the Gulf of Alaska, the northwestern Mediterranean Sea, and the Celtic Sea to the southwest of Ireland.

Geology’s incorrect finding has persisted for two reasons: (1) there was little contradictory evidence on presently exposed landscapes that would call into question the prevailing theory, and (2) we could not see into the bathymetry to observe submerged landscapes until only recently. Today, however, the new maps allow us to observe the topography of ocean floors where we find former rivers. The new maps unequivocally reveal well-preserved drainages under more than three kilometers (km) of water, and they are ubiquitous. Their existence implies that there must have been a worldwide flood.

Please note that we are applying the scientific method: new data (maps) caused us to review theory. And what we find immediately is that geology’s ‘no flood, ever’ paradigm is erroneous. The new data should evoke new thinking, which in our case would result in the restoration of the belief that the Earth suffered a devastating flood. That geologists have failed to review their fundamental belief in the presence of this new data is powerful testament to the constraining effect that ‘no flood, ever’ holds over science, related disciplines, and rational thought.

The drainages in Fig. 1 imply that the Earth had much less water than the present. As such, it is interesting to consider pre-flood Earth, a model for which is shown on Figure 2. It was created in ArcGIS by removing an estimated average depth of 3 km from the present sea level, thereby exposing the former river systems.

Fig7 Preflood Earth v2Figure 2. With more than 3 km of water graphically removed, a model of land and sea distributions in pre-flood Earth shows previously exposed but now-submerged landscapes (tan), presently exposed landscapes (beige), and former oceans and seas (blue).

With the removal of so much water, the atmosphere would have covered the former abyss. Thus, the dark tan areas on Fig. 2 experienced increased atmospheric pressure, which would have led to higher temperatures. Humans evolved in these regions, and we are furless as a consequence. We find evidence of pre-flood human activity nearly exclusively in tropical latitudes because, at more than 3 kilometers (two miles) above the former sea level, most of the yellow regions on Fig. 2 were too cold for human habitation. In the context that there was a worldwide flood, humanity’s relationship with its planet might be better understood this way: our environmental abuse is a consequence of a maladapted, sentient species endeavoring to survive. We would be extinct were it not for our brains.

What is now coastal California would have been more than 3 km above the former sea level, and winds uplifted by the nearly vertical continental shelf condensed to create persistent rainfall that eroded and rounded the hills. The Salinas Valley was once an inland lake, and it drained to the northwest and then down the nearly vertical slope where its waters acquired sufficient kinetic energy to carve what we now call Monterey Canyon (upper left, Fig. 1).

We will leave for another day the identification of the water’s source, though we can state with certainty that it must be cosmic, for such a volume could not be stored at the poles. Until then, let us all recognize that geology’s “no flood, ever” tenet is an immense mistake: two branches of science, geology and anthropology, are fundamentally incorrect. This renders Google Earth as the historic equivalent to Galileo’s telescope – each ‘device’ revealed data that led to overturning incorrect scientific paradigms.

The task remains: how do we get geologists to recognize their error?  Should we treat them with derision? Do we mock them for adhering to an incorrect tenet as if it were religious dogma? I am not sure, but this much is certain – they must recognize their error. They must be asked: Why do you believe there was never a flood? and Do you not recognize the logical error committed by your predecessors?  We must make them reform. We must carry out the task of correcting the most profound error in the history of science.

PS – I submitted this essay in Nov 2017 to the National Association of Scholars who declined to publish it because it “did not fit within our current editorial plans for Academic Questions.”

Retraction request made to the Geological Society of London

I sent the following letter to the Chief Editor of the Geological Society of London on 3 November 2017. It began an exchange, which is included, below.

My request letter:

In his 1831 president’s address to the Geological Society of London, Adam Sedgwick renounced his belief in a worldwide flood. He stated, in part:

The vast masses of diluvial gravel … do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth…. Having been myself a believer [in a worldwide flood], and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, … I think it right … thus publicly to read my recantation. (Sedgwick, A. 1831. Address to the Geological Society of London, on retiring from the President’s Chair, February 18.)

It was a celebrated pronouncement, for Sedgwick was not only the Society’s president, but he was also a Cambridge University professor as well as a clergyman in the Church of England. Sedgwick’s recantation had lasting effect: to this day, all of science accepts that there was never a worldwide flood.

Unfortunately, Sedgwick’s ‘no flood, ever’ conclusion is indisputably wrong. From the evidence, Sedgwick instead should have concluded: presently exposed landscapes were never submerged by a common flood. It is undeniably true that where we are now was never flooded by a common event, but that is not equivalent to the claim that there was never a worldwide flood. Sedgwick mistakenly passed judgment on vast, submerged landscapes that could not be observed until only recently. By assuming that all of Earth’s waters have been with us since the beginning, Sedgwick’s error precluded the possibility that now-submerged landscapes might once have been exposed and then flooded (say, at the Younger-Dryas boundary).

Because of its far-reaching effects, the Geological Society of London must retract Sedgwick’s recantation. Sedgwick’s was an honest error, yet its far-reaching effects on subsequent science necessitate that his finding be retracted. Science must be allowed to explore the possibility that there was, indeed, a worldwide flood.


Michael Jaye, Ph.D.


The reply:

Dear Dr Jaye

Thank you for your email.

Many papers have been published in the past that have been proved wrong by later research. Retracting such papers serves no useful purpose and we will therefore not retract Sedgwick’s 1831 Presidential Address.

Best wishes



My reply:

Prior to my retraction request, it is nearly certain that you were unaware of the source of your belief that there was never a worldwide flood. Like nearly all modern geologist-PhDs, you simply accept “no flood” as true, much as a mathematician accepts an axiom.

All geology and related disciplines such as anthropology and history follow the “no flood, ever” tenet initiated by your Society. Thus, great parts of modern thought and beliefs are affected by Sedgwick’s error. “No flood, ever” is pervasive.

Therefore, retracting the erroneous “no flood, ever” would serve immense scientific and human investigative purposes. Sedgwick’s error must be retracted.


The reply:

Dear Dr Jaye

Whether or not there was a worldwide flood is immaterial. As I said in my first email, many papers were published in the past whose conclusions have been superseded by later research. Retracting such historical papers serves no useful purpose.

BTW I believe there has been some geological research that suggested evidence for the biblical flood.

Best wishes



My reply:

The central issue is whatever it is you happen to think constitutes a ‘useful purpose.’ Certainly, the ‘no flood, ever’ error is historic, but it is predominantly a scientific matter because it continues to affect modern thought. The error’s pervasiveness and lasting effect render moot your argument that rests on when the error was committed.

Furthermore, ‘no worldwide flood, ever’ is a foundational principle in your science, so much so that anyone confronting it is immediately discounted. (I know, for I have submitted papers to journals about this matter – including yours, and I have experienced the prejudice geologists practice against anyone daring to challenge ‘no flood.’) Geology has an entire sub-discipline, submarine geomorphology, that is built upon the error. Its practitioners – your peers – are wholly unaware of all that might be wrong in their beliefs and findings. In addition, another branch of science, Anthropology, is adversely constrained (and therefore affected) by ‘no flood.’

Because ‘no flood, ever’ is indisputably incorrect, because it pervades all contemporary science and associated modern thought, then there exists a useful, if not necessary, scientific purpose in retracting the error. Therefore, the Geological Society of London must publish its retraction of Sedgwick’s ‘no worldwide flood’ blunder. It is the most profound error in the history of science.


Michael Jaye, PhD


The final reply:

Dear Dr Jaye

We are not going to retract a paper published in 1831.

This discussion is now closed.

Best wishes