The ICR’s Acts and ‘Facts’ – May 2012

Larry Vardiman | pgs. 12-14 | link

Tracking Those Incredible Hypercanes

Larry Vardiman’s first article in this edition (out of two) looks very much like a red herring to me. Dr Vardiman seems to spend much of his time on the ICR’s supercomputer (for certain values of ‘super,’ I would say) modelling powerful post-flood weather systems. Here he discusses his research in determining what would have happened to some cyclones if the the water was significantly warmer when they formed:

This researcher previously simulated the development of Hurricane Florence (1988) in the Gulf of Mexico and found that warm sea-surface temperatures caused the storm to grow from a weak hurricane into a hypercane. Figure 2 shows the simulated hypercane that developed one day after the sea-surface temperature was increased to 104oF. Hypercane Florence formed deep convection, dramatically increased its rate of rotation, quadrupled its vertical and horizontal winds, and increased its precipitation rate to ten times that of the actual hurricane.

You get the idea. He gives his conclusions:

Hypercanes are not mentioned in the Bible, and no statement can be found anywhere in Scripture that says the oceans were hotter immediately after the Flood. But if the events of the Flood were as catastrophic as described in Genesis, then it is almost certain that major earth-shaking events like those described here occurred. If so, then it is also highly likely that a massive amount of heat was transferred to the ocean and that hypercanes were present for hundreds of years after the Flood. For those who have difficulty distinguishing clear statements of Scripture from scientific models built on a literal interpretation of Scripture, the concept of hypercanes is a good example. That does not mean such models are wrong, it just means they do not have the definitive authority of a statement from God about what occurred historically. They are derivative from such statements using logic and the scientific method.

So, God trumps science apparently. This is a good example of the strange things that pop out of the YEC world view – more follow:

God cared for Noah and his family by placing them on the Ark to escape the devastation of the Flood. They survived because the Ark floated on the surface of the ocean safely away from dangerous activity near the edges of the continents. But even after Noah and his family disembarked onto the mountains of Ararat, they remained safe from continued devastation. The Ice Age to the north and hypercanes near the coastlines to the east, west, and south after the Flood were far enough away that Noah and his family only had to deal with local and regional geological and meteorological readjustments. God selected the specific spot on the earth where He wanted Noah to land.

Spot the things not mentioned in the Bible. As for “They survived because the Ark floated on the surface of the ocean safely away from dangerous activity near the edges of the continents.” They started over a continent, they finished over a continent… And wasn’t there an ice sheet on Ararat? I can’t remember – there might well have been.

As Noah moved down the mountains of Ararat after leaving the Ark, he migrated toward the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, known as the Fertile Crescent. In this location, his descendants were able to grow plentiful food supplies for years to come and avoid continued catastrophes. If the Ark had landed near a coastline, it is likely Noah would have experienced frequent heavy rain, mudslides, extreme winds, and flooding. The Tigris-Euphrates Valley— present-day Iraq—looked considerably different than it does today. Unlike the dry, dusty desert present now, it was a rich, fertile, well-watered valley. God protected Noah and his family before, during, and after the Flood.

It was also, I suspect, rather prone to flooding. All that moisture from that warm ocean would have precipitated when it met the mountains, and come gushing down the rivers. And would there have been enough time for the valley to become “a rich, fertile, well-watered valley”? In addition, I’m not actually sure that the Euphrates would have been particularly geologically safe in this scenario. These, I think, are more useful subjects of investigation for creationists than hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.

One thought on “The ICR’s Acts and ‘Facts’ – May 2012

  1. I’m enjoying this post. I particularly like your discussion on page 3. The fact is that, as you say, “good isn’t the same thing as perfect.” Too often, YECs hold that “very good” means the universe had been made as some kind of cosmic playground for humans. I don’t see this in the text at all. The theology of YEC is very skewed in that they hold God’s purposes are all about making things great and wonderful for us. It’s very anthropocentric, and it doesn’t seem to reflect Biblical teaching.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s