DINOSAUR BONES FOUND IN SAUDI ARABIA FOR THE FIRST TIME

[bonnie]

DINOSAUR BONES FOUND IN SAUDI ARABIA FOR THE FIRST TIME

In the middle of the desert, including giant marine reptiles. Paleontologists are explaining it as the result of a "flash flood".

"Much of what is today the Arabian Peninsula was underwater during the age of dinosaurs, and those rare remains that were discovered were washed downstream and out to sea by rivers, probably during a flash flood long ago in the Late Cretaceous period." <--So they admit a flood as long as they keep it to a localized flood

If you pay attention, these stories always support the Bible.

The evidence for Noah's flood is everywhere you look.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/26/world/meas...714dinobones12p

[Igakusei]

These stories do NOT always support the Bible, at least as you understand it. The difference is that there is good evidence for local floods, at various times and places in history, but there is not good evidence for a world-reshaping flood that explains any remotely substantial portion of the world's topography as claimed by creationists. In fact there are reams upon reams of evidence all over the world that is completely incompatible with the flood of Noah, when understood as the worldwide event that you seem to believe in.

see (pick one at random):

http://www.amazon.com/The-Rocks-Dont-Lie-Investigates/dp/0393346242

http://www.chem.tufts.edu/science/franksteiger/elders-flood-report.htm

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/08/06/the-defeat-of-flood-geology/

http://ncse.com/cej/1/1/fatal-flaws-flood-geology

http://www.gci.org/science/hayward8

http://www.atlantaapologist.org/rtb/resources/Papers/floodgeology.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

I don't care what you do or don't believe, but please don't pretend that the evidence supports your beliefs on this point.

[bonnie]

In fact there are reams upon reams of evidence all over the world that is completely incompatible with the flood of Noah, when understood as the worldwide event that you seem to believe in.

I don't care what you do or don't believe, but please don't pretend that the evidence supports your beliefs on this point.

I do not "seem" to believe in the bible,I do. I didn't pretend anything. I am not looking to anyone to support my belief.

The article is written by someone else and I thought it interesting.

[Igakusei]

Great, I was just providing a rebuttal to this bit:

If you pay attention, these stories always support the Bible.

The evidence for Noah's flood is everywhere you look.

[bonnie]

Great, I was just providing a rebuttal to this bit:

Originally Posted By: bonnie

If you pay attention, these stories always support the Bible.

The evidence for Noah's flood is everywhere you look.

No,you made it appear as if it were my words and then added this

"I don't care what you do or don't believe, but please don't pretend that the evidence supports your beliefs on this point".

I do believe the biblical account of the flood .I do believe the bible. Whether you do or not is your choice. There are others here that do as well and I thought it was interesting.

Your rebuttal is not that impressive as far as I am concerned

[Igakusei]

Your rebuttal is not that impressive as far as I am concerned

How so?

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

Great, I was just providing a rebuttal to this bit:

[/quote']

No,you made it appear as if it were my words and then added this

"I don't care what you do or don't believe, but please don't pretend that the evidence supports your beliefs on this point".

I do believe the biblical account of the flood .I do believe the bible. Whether you do or not is your choice. There are others here that do as well and I thought it was interesting.

Your rebuttal is not that impressive as far as I am concerned [/quote Exactly Bonnie, great posts. Seems like anytime someone posts believing the Bible they get trashed for there faith in it.

[bonnie]

Exactly Bonnie, great posts. Seems like anytime someone posts believing the Bible they get trashed for there faith in it.

For some reason the OP decided to make this personal with

" when understood as the worldwide event that you seem to believe in.

I don't care what you do or don't believe, but please don't pretend that the evidence supports your beliefs on this point'.

Had this been a non-christian or non SDA forum I would not have posted this and in doing so here it seems to have been resented or found annoying.

I do not "seem" to believe the bible account ,I do believe it.

Nor do I care what the OP believes. It was not posted as a challenge to his beliefs,but for others that believe as I do and there are still some.

If I cannot believe the Gen account,then I can't believe Ex or Lev etc. For me the bible is either true or it is not.

For all the learned minds that try to explain away God or His

Word they still fall short. You can read all sorts of reasons why the biblical accounts are not true.The one reason that is agreed on without fail is the bible is not an accurate account.

If the day were to come that the "learned minds" here or in the world can explain and prove "what was here prior to creation week,and where what was here came from" I will continue to believe in "Someone" that is far superior in intelligence than mere mortals.

When the great minds can get on the same page and tell me how old the earth following creation is,not guessing as to 60 million,100 million,billions of years then maybe there may be some value in listening.

Those that believe that man evolved from apes need to show me why that stopped,we still have apes and they don't seem to change as man does not.

I don't believe God did a partial job at creation and waited for his creation to evolve over thousands or millions of years.I believe their search for the missing link is doomed to failure.

I DO BELIEVE the biblical account of the flood. Is it possible to picture that? NOPE!

I do enjoy reading of the artifacts found that are thousands of years old as I think some here do.To bad if there are those offended by that.The simple solution is to simply not read it instead of making it personal

[phkrause]

[fccool]

Quote:

No,you made it appear as if it were my words and then added this

"I don't care what you do or don't believe, but please don't pretend that the evidence supports your beliefs on this point".

I do believe the biblical account of the flood .I do believe the bible. Whether you do or not is your choice. There are others here that do as well and I thought it was interesting. Your rebuttal is not that impressive as far as I am concerned

Bonnie, don't take it personally.

I think that some of generally suppress discussing these things in church (because few people care to see the other side of the story) that we jump on opportunity to discuss it any chance we get.

Igakusei works in scientific setting, so facts are important to him, and not just assumptions and claims.

I think that anyone with scientific mind will want to see 3-4-5 sides to the story without automatically jumping to "evidence for flood" conclusions.

That's all.

[Gerr]

Well, let's see. There was a huge "local" flood that formed the sandstone under Odessa, Ukraine, a huge "local" flood that buried North America, a "local" flood that put marine shells on Everest, and many other "local" floods throughout the world.

[Gregory Matthews]

I feel a need to make a statement:

I appreciate the post that Bonnie has made. I find it to be very interesting.

But, as one who has considered the issues of a global flood for years and considered the thoughts of field, Phd level geologists who are working in this field and are SDA believers in the Bible, I have to say that report that Bonnie has given us in not evidence of a global flood.

The person's name has slipped my mind. She is a Phd level geologist who is working in her field. She is conservative in her beliefs. I have personally heard her say: The geological evidence neither supports a global flood nor does it rule out a global flood.

I will say that I believe in a global flood.

But, I also must say that I do not believe that the geological structure of the Earth provides us with evidence of a global flood.

[bonnie]

I feel a need to make a statement:

I appreciate the post that Bonnie has made. I find it to be very interesting.

But, as one who has considered the issues of a global flood for years and considered the thoughts of field, Phd level geologists who are working in this field and are SDA believers in the Bible, I have to say that report that Bonnie has given us in not evidence of a global flood.

The person's name has slipped my mind. She is a Phd level geologist who is working in her field. She is conservative in her beliefs. I have personally heard her say: The geological evidence neither supports a global flood nor does it rule out a global flood.

I will say that I believe in a global flood.

But, I also must say that I do not believe that the geological structure of the Earth provides us with evidence of a global flood.

I don't believe any one find will prove the flood. I do believe there are various finds that make the biblical account believable.Just as other finds point to many accounts in scripture that are denied by "experts".

I still stand by, If Gen is not true,neither is Ex or Lev thru to Rev and if that is so then throw it out.

Much that many would like to "prove" cannot and I don't believe will be proven on this earth.

I do find it intriguing when artifacts from thousands of years ago are found relatively intact. I don't expect those finds to bolster my faith

[scott.t]

Evidence like this?

One major difficulty is that many large deposits of conglomerate lie on top of great thicknesses - often several miles - of fine-grained sedimentary rock. The great conglomerate sea cliffs near Marseilles, for instance, are hundreds of feet high and contain boulders more than a foot in diameter. What purely natural processes would enable the Flood to deposit a thickness of several miles of fine-grained sediments first, and then place the boulder-laden conglomerates on top?

[Aliensanctuary]

One must choose which pair of sunglasses to wear in order to try to understand the past. Darwinian Sunglasses are perfect for Evolutionists to see that life took millions upon millions of years to evolve.

Creationist Sunglasses are great to use to match evidence of high-tech origins and past cataclysms with accounts passed on verbally for thousands of years.

Although I suspect there is more to the story than instant creation, I believe that the teachings of Christ benefit the world far more than those of the Godless Darwinians. The Darwinians are playing a maddening tune of the lemmings that is driving the people of the world over a great precipice.

[fccool]

Quote:

I still stand by, If Gen is not true,neither is Ex or Lev thru to Rev and if that is so then throw it out.

Much that many would like to "prove" cannot and I don't believe will be proven on this earth.

I do find it intriguing when artifacts from thousands of years ago are found relatively intact. I don't expect those finds to bolster my faith

Is the story of Rich Man and Lazarus true? Why would it be in the Bible, told by Jesus, if it's not?

I think you misunderstand what part of allegory storytelling played in ancient world. It was not there to convey objective and actual reality. It was there to portray principles that people can learn and follow.

Virtually every culture during that time around the world carries stories like these, which usually exemplify some sort of moral values of that culture.

One can read the story of the flood in a literal sense, which makes no sense on many levels if we measure it up to the reality even on basics of:

1) Animals take populations to survive in nature, not pairs. Try releasing two horses into the wild where no other horses are, and see how well they do.

2) Many animals are extremely dependent on their current environment, which they formed symbiotic relationship with. For example, ants and bees need colony to survive. 2 specimens simply won't do.

3) Many plants depend on insects for cross-pollination. It's highly unlikely that insects would survive the global flood environment. Even if these did, it would take decades or years to repopulate the environment to levels that would sustain certain plants.

4) Solely based on genetics, populations generally contain genetic variations necessary for survival of the species. If you limit the genetic variation to a pair, you limit the chances of reproduction and survival quite a bit, especially in very harsh post-flood environment, where they would roam around in search for food and unlikely to find any.

5) Bacteria is probably the most abundant life on earth. You have more bacteria cells in your body than your own. As mentioned before, most environments are very much dependent on their current symbiotic relationship of life, which tends to balance naturally.

A good recent example that I got to personally document in a TV show - Lionfish. Lionfish got transported from a different environment to Southern Florida waters. Now they have infestation problem, because it's a fish that has no natural predators... and humans don't want to eat it... so it wrecks havoc on the natural environment there.

It was recently names as one of the worst environmental disasters that Atlantic ocean recently faced. You can learn about it here.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/18/tech/innovation/lionfish-infestation-atlantic-linendoll/

If the natural balance gets perturbed, a lot of species get wiped out in the process and face extinction, because these are not fit to survive certain environments, or get overrun by other species.

The point being, for people who study these things, global flood story is beyond improbable as a past occurrence in a way that it was described in the Bible.

You can always put word experts in quotes, but that's what these people do for living - they study things, so they can prevent or potentially remedy things like the above one. It's their job to KNOW, and not merely believe. Again, you can feel free to believe these things, but don't be offended when people who KNOW, will correct the improper facts that can be quite demonstrable. It's what they do, and they like to share that knowledge.

[fccool]

As for your claim about veracity of Genesis, I'll have to circle back to various level of truth.

For example, it is true that your house right now is not moving. It's standing in the same place where it always was, yet at the same time, it is moving at the incredible speed around the sun, and even faster in context of our galaxy.

In that sense, "truth" is relative to the context against which you frame it. There is objective truth/reality, but we measure it subjectively, and have to compare our measurements against other measurements, and find consistent consensus in what's true and what's false based on our observation, and in context of our observation.

Bible is true, in context that it's written in - to tell a story that's to teach us something. Much of it was not intended to present accurate historical or factual data. Science and religion was very much the same in the past, especially when people couldn't read or write, or store information consistently... they depended on religion to transfer generational "wisdom", largely via oral tradition. It was very much necessary to maintain order, and teach truth.

"Shindler's List" is a fictional book that sources many real facts. When people watch it, they don't watch it to learn objective history of Nazi regime. The story was an agglomerate of exaggerated portrayals that teach us a moral lesson.

That's what Biblical stories are at large, and it doesn't take away a bit from Christianity or Adventism if you look at them that way. It makes a lot of people feel wrong, but Christianity is not there to give you the factual information about the past... it's there to change who you are for the better.

[fccool]

Here's a good scene from Firefly about disparity of the ancient vs modern mentality:

http://www.scifixtreme.com/media_center/...e-s-broken.html

[bonnie]

Is the story of Rich Man and Lazarus true? Why would it be in the Bible, told by Jesus, if it's not?

I think you misunderstand what part of allegory storytelling played in ancient world. It was not there to convey objective and actual reality. It was there to portray principles that people can learn and follow.

[Igakusei]

Well, let's see. There was a huge "local" flood that formed the sandstone under Odessa, Ukraine, a huge "local" flood that buried North America, a "local" flood that put marine shells on Everest, and many other "local" floods throughout the world.

Are you just making this up as you go?

The continental plate containing India is moving north, and the Himalayas were created when that plate began colliding with the one above it. Before this happened, the crust between the two plates was at the bottom of a shallow inland sea. Part of the reason we know this is that the rocks that mountains like Everest are made out of are still being created in similar environments today. Those marine shells reflect that origin, not a local flood. You might think that either origin story is plausible, until you look at the whole picture including the composition and dating of the he rocks, the types of fossils found and where else in the world we do and don't find them, etc.

And by local flood that buried America, just what are you talking about? The Missoula scablands?

[Igakusei]

Evidence like this?

Originally Posted By: Wilfred Elders

One major difficulty is that many large deposits of conglomerate lie on top of great thicknesses - often several miles - of fine-grained sedimentary rock. The great conglomerate sea cliffs near Marseilles, for instance, are hundreds of feet high and contain boulders more than a foot in diameter. What purely natural processes would enable the Flood to deposit a thickness of several miles of fine-grained sediments first, and then place the boulder-laden conglomerates on top?

This does sound like good evidence of a flood. A flood or heavy rain will strip away topsoils, sands and clay first, leaving rock. If the storm or flood is violent enough the rock will be displaced too. Last, which would put it on the top layer.

Scott

I highly recommend that you find a big bucket, some dirt and rocks, and a garden hose and try this experiment yourself.

[phkrause]

in complete agreement Bonnie

[fccool]

Quote:

The bible is pretty clear concerning parables. What authority do you claim It was not there to convey objective and actual reality. It was there to portray principles that people can learn and follow. Many books convey principals people can learn from. That reduces the bible to nothing more than that.

Authority doesn't determine reality. Reality is the same, whether authority describes it one way or another. Authority is a convenient shortcut for claiming that reality is not what it seems, or beyond what it seems... but even you wouldn't believe things solely on "authority" of someone else.

If the President of the US stands up tomorrow and says that ETs have visited this world and they demand us to pay taxes or be destroyed... But he will not reveal the info because it is classified... I really can careless about his authority on the matter. There are always anterior motives to consider, and always adequate evidence to examine.

I want to evaluate evidence, and come to my own conclusion whether something is probable or not... and side with the highest probable explanation given evidence.

If you read the story of Noah's flood and:

1) You see incredible abundance of balanced ecosystems that took ages to build - like Choral reefs, for example.

2) You see that the story seems to be exaggerated to the max with things like everyone was evil, but one man who God decides to save on the boat the the man himself builds.

What we can take away from the story as an allegory:

1) Good people listen to wisdom

2) They are saved by following good advice

3) Their families and environment are better off because of that

4) They are saved by the "ark of peristaltic" that they diligently build.

5) They can go through extreme calamity and survive it

The meaning that we take away from literal interpretation:

1) God only talks directly to righteous people, who he likes much more

2) He doesn't really care that much for animal life in general, since it's just a poor painting that he can wipe out and start over... or the people who "don't really get it"... thus drowning them and their small children is absolutely justifiable in such context.

3) That out of all of him being all-knowing and all powerful, the best plan is to find a guy, who will build a boat which will transport a pair of animals of each kind to repopulate the earth.

Quote:

Once you take God out of the equation a great many things are improbable/impossible. That is the difference between you and I.

Not really. That's not the difference IMO.

I actually think that precisely because God is in the equation, some things are impossible... like laws of physics bent, or personal will of people altered.

First of all, we have to understand that we are talking about an entity that has logical limitations. God can't think faster than he can, for example... there are certain things that are logically self-negating, which would put "limits" even on the greatest entity conceived.

Likewise, God can't be just and merciful at the same time. Justice and mercy are incompatible ideas. If someone receiving mercy, then they are not receiving justice... therefore someone is merciful and not just in such instance, and the opposite is true too.

The problem is that God is described by most of the Christianity in self-negating terms.

Quote:

Science has provided us with knowledge and advances that are invaluable.Can't imagine living as they did 200 years ago without it.When science removes God from the equation to prove what is possible and what isn't,I stop and go back to the source.

Not really, you go back to your own reason... not the source. You can't just bypass yourself and your own worldview and go anywhere beyond that.

What you are going back is your own personal interpretation of reality... which ignores cognitive dissonance mainly because it's unaware of certain data that would clash with such worldview.

Reality is much more complex than Biblical description of it.

Quote:

I don't believe the bible is only a collection of nice stories to teach a moral. I believe it is the inspired word of God,the ultimate scientist.

What you believe is irrelevant to the point of what you can demonstrate. Some people believe that psychics are real, even after they've been repeatedly shown that these people utilize deceptive tactics to fake and create a perception that they are speaking to dead people by hitting on generalities, and fishing fore relevant information, and then feeding it back in a way that people fill the holes with their own presuppositions and believe that it came from their dead relatives communicating with a psychic.

We have to look at the world with clear mind, and asking ourselves what's more likely.

Usually, the view that makes the most assumptions is the one that's less likely to be correct one.

Generally, you don't go about in the world based on assumptions alone. You need evidence. And not just some evidence. You want reliable evidence.

Most people read the Bible in the same way they'd believe a psychic. They fill in the gaps with personal experience, and they declare it to be true about everything else.

But neither you nor anyone else can possibly know that, no matter which authority you go back to.

I'll accept that you believe it without any good evidence to do so, which is your own personal choice... again... don't be surprised when people give reasons as to why they don't believe, or challenge your reasons as to why you believe.

I don't think it's fair that they "jump all over you for believing Bible". They are asking your reasons for doing so.

Quote:

To pit the scientific mind to that of God is like using the IQ of a carrot to refute God and His word.

You can't presuppose something in order to then validate it's superiority via pointing to presupposition that you are making.

Anyone can turn around then and say, but to pit the mind of God of yours to even a greater God that made your god is like comparing IQ of an orange to a fruit no-one has ever heard of. And my God would know better, because he is much greater and created yours.

See, when we go off presuppositions, then any form of reasonable justification goes out the window. The only standard becomes your own self, which is quite ironic.

[phkrause]

You see that the story seems to be exaggerated to the max with things like everyone was evil, but one man who God decides to save on the boat the the man himself builds.

I don't see that at all! I see a loving God that his heart is breaking and almost decides to do away with man kind,but says, no, let me start over.

Originally Posted By: fccool

What we can take away from the story as an allegory:

1) Good people listen to wisdom

2) They are saved by following good advice

3) Their families and environment are better off because of that

4) They are saved by the "ark of peristaltic" that they diligently build.

5) They can go through extreme calamity and survive it

Who's we?? Don't add me to your "we," cause I don't buy that at all.

Originally Posted By: fccool

The meaning that we take away from literal interpretation:

1) God only talks directly to righteous people, who he likes much more

2) He doesn't really care that much for animal life in general, since it's just a poor painting that he can wipe out and start over... or the people who "don't really get it"... thus drowning them and their small children is absolutely justifiable in such context.

3) That out of all of him being all-knowing and all powerful, the best plan is to find a guy, who will build a boat which will transport a pair of animals of each kind to repopulate the earth.

Again, who's we???? And again, I don't see it that way at all!! And I think if you actually read the OT you would read where God does talk to non righteous people.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Well, let's see. There was a huge "local" flood that formed the sandstone under Odessa, Ukraine, a huge "local" flood that buried North America, a "local" flood that put marine shells on Everest, and many other "local" floods throughout the world.

Are you just making this up as you go?

The Pleistocene Ice Age

The Pleistocene and late Pliocene Epochs included a series of glacial advances Ice Age that began about 2.5 million years ago and lasted until 10,000 years ago (ybp). During this time, cyclic climate fluctuations caused glaciers and continental-scale ice sheets to advance and retreat into the mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere. Vast ice caps covered much of North America and Eurasia; As much as a third of Earth's land surface was periodically covered in ice during this time (Ray, 1993). Four major glacial periods are recognized in North America : the Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoisan, and Wisconsinan glaciations. Minor fluctuations occurred within each period. Interglacial periods were periodically warmer than the present climate (Ray, 1993). Major interglacial periods include the Aftonian, Yarmouth , and Sangamon periods. The formation of glacial Lake Missoula occurred during the Pinedale (Wisconsinan) Glaciation, which began 80,000 ybp, and lasted until 10,000 ybp, with its maximum extent at about 20,000 ybp.

Cordilleran Ice Sheet

Figure 1. Map showing the extent of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet, including the three lobes, at its maximum during the Pinedale glaciation.

During the Pinedale Glaciation, Canada and the northern United States were glaciated by two large continental ice sheets. The Cordilleran Ice Sheet, the smaller sheet, covered southwestern Canada and the northern areas of Washington, Idaho, and Montana (Figure 1). At times, the Cordilleran Ice Sheet coalesced with the eastern Laurentide Ice Sheet (Booth et al., 2003). It was approximately 1150 meters thick and contained three main lobes. The western lobe was called the Puget Lobe and scoured out Puget Sound in northwestern Washington. The central lobe was called the Okanogan Lobe. It blocked the Columbia River at the location of the current Grand Coulee Dam, forming Glacial Lake Columbia. The Purcell Trench Lobe, the eastern lobe, dammed the Clark Fork River several times to form glacial Lake Missoula. Maximum volume for lake Missoula has been estimated to be as much as 2500 km3 (Booth, et al., 2003).

The Palouse Landscape of Northern Idaho

North of Lewiston, through Moscow and toward Couer d 'Alene, the Miocene Columbia River basalts are mantled with windblown silt, known as loess, deposited mainly after the Pleistocene glaciers receded. This distinctive landscape is illustrated in the accompanying slide show by Jim Cash of Moscow High School. The soil is rich in nutrients derived from the basalt from which it was eroded. With abundant winter moisture in north Idaho, the area is a rich winter wheat growing area. The green grain fields mantle the gentle wavy topography, creating a gentle and charming landscape.

The loess blanket is not of even thickness, as it accumulated more thickly in dune shaped landforms. Many of these are influenced by underlying hills and stream valleys that had been eroded into the basalt flows.

Ancient Lake Missoula and the Missoula Ice Age Floods

Lake Missoula formed behind an ice dam, which formed when a finger of the Purcell lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet advanced into the Idaho Panhandle in the area which now is occupied by Pende Orielle Lake (Figure 2). This large ice dam blocked the Clark Fork River, allowing water to build up behind it, extending eastward some 200 miles into western Montana. Lake Missoula was as deep as 2000 feet at the dam, and held more than 500 cubic miles of water at its fullest. This is more water than Lake Erie and Lake Ontario combined.

Water pooled behind the ice dam until a critical point of water height and pressure was reached. Eventually, the ice dam of Lake Missoula began to fail when hydrostatic pressure wedged the water between the ice and the rock. This continued until the ice could become buoyant and the water could flow through subglacial tunnels. When the roof of the ice tunnels collapsed the dam failed and suddenly Lake Missoula flooded. This happened at a water depth of about 2000 feet, when the dam failed catastrophically. Water from Lake Missoula burst through the base of the dam, at a rate of ten times the combined flow of all the rivers in the world! Calculated flood speeds reached almost 65 miles per hour. At this rate, the lake would have drained in only a couple of days.

Figure 2. Shows Glacial Lake Missoula and pathway of the floods.

Floodwater, ice, and glacial debris thundered west through the panhandle of northern Idaho, and then west and south through eastern and central Washington, widening and deepening the Columbia River Gorge, as they passed. The floodwater followed and deepened the Columbia River channel until it became restricted at a narrow gap near Vancouver, Washington. Here, the flood spilled southward into Oregon's Willamette Valley, and formed a lake that extended as far south as Eugene, Oregon. Finally, back along the path of the Columbia River, the floodwaters made their way into the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of the Columbia River, having travelled a total of 430 miles.

Once the initial ice dam formed and subsequently failed, continued southward glacial advance of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet caused the ice dam to return, and Glacial Lake Missoula to fill, resulting in another flooding event. Over an estimated 2,500 years the sequence of the ice dam forming, the lake filling, the dam failing, and catastrophic flooding, was repeated dozens of times. This collective sequence is what is considered the "Ice Age Floods".

Lasting Effects of the Missoula Ice Age Floods

The floods of Glacial Lake Missoula left lasting scars on the landscape. The floods had both erosional and depositional features.

When Lake Missoula was filled, waves along the shore eroded away at the surrounding mountains. Paleoshorelines are carved out of the hillside just outside of Missoula, Montana. The highest shorelines are found at 4200 feet elevation, which would drown the city of Missoula underneath approximately 2000 feet of water.

Figure 3. Glacial Lake Missoula shorelines near Clark Fork ID after a forest fire. Photo by Roy Breckenbridge, IGS.

The flood waters of Lake Missoula also created giant gravel ripple-marks on the Camas Prairie in northwestern Montana. These ripple marks are found on the bottom of what was once Glacial Lake Missoula. These ripple marks are almost 50 feet high and have a wavelength of almost 500 feet. Ripple marks of such gigantic proportions could only have been made by incredibly powerful currents over the lake bottom.

Figure 4.Giant ripple marks produced by the Missoula Flood. From the 'Glacial Lake Missoula and the Ice Age Floods' website: http://www.glaciallakemissoula.org

Other depositional features of the Lake Missoula Flood include huge bars of current-transported debris and “erratic boulders”. Massive boulders embedded in the Cordilleran Ice Sheet were carried with the flood when the dam failed. Boulders which travelled from Montana and British Columbia can be found along the flood's path even into the Willamette Valley.

As the floods thundered through the Columbia Plateau of eastern and central Washington, they scoured away much of the landscape by stripping away topsoil, picking apart the bedrock, and carving an immense channel system into the land. This area is the famous Channeled Scablands, one of the largest flood-scarred landscapes on earth. Much of the bedrock of this land is the Columbia River Basalt. This basalt contained fractures which provided areas of easy erosion for the floodwaters.

The main features of the Scablands include an eroded, interconnected network of streamlined loess islands, flood channels, coulees, cataracts, and plunge pools, which have been scoured into the basalt. Also worth noting are the giant water falls which were produced by the flood, such as Grand Coulee, Dry Falls, and Palouse Falls. Dry Falls is the largest waterfall in North America, although water does not flow through it anymore. Compared to Niagara Falls, Dry Falls is about 3 times as wide and 2 and a half times as high.