June 28, 2013 | David F. Coppedge

Big Flood on Mars; Why Not on Earth?

More evidence has been presented for a “voluminous” flood on Mars, where there is no water today.  So why is a comparable flood disfavored for Earth, where water covers 70% of the surface?

In “Fill and spill of giant lakes in the eastern Valles Marineris region of Mars” published in Geology this month, scientists from London and Berlin propose that a megaflood caused by dam breaches of deep lakes scoured out a vast area of the equatorial canyon called Valles Marineris, draining into the northern polar regions:

The existence of Hesperian age (3.7–3.4 Ga) surface water bodies on Mars is a contentious issue, often conflicting with favored climate models. Extensive lakes are proposed to have filled parts of Valles Marineris during this period, yet evidence for their presence and temporal continuity is poorly constrained. Here we report geomorphic and chronologic evidence for the initiation and demise of a voluminous lake system within the basins of eastern Valles Marineris. We find that independent, kilometer-deep lakes were present here well after the wetter, global climate optimum that characterized the previous Noachian epoch (4.1–3.7 Ga)…. The topography data demonstrate that incision of the bedrock barriers between the basins during spillover was driven by a dramatic local base-level difference between the lake surface and downstream basin floors. We postulate that the lake spillover process created an integrated drainage routing system between a voluminous equatorial water supply and the northern plains basin.

In other words, these scientists believe that megafloods from large, deep, voluminous lakes occurred during a less-wet period following the “Noachian” period during which Mars scientists think water was even more abundant.

A press release from the European Space Agency shows an image from their Mars Express spacecraft suggesting a megaflood created channels measuring 1.55 million kilometers.  By contrast, Earth’s Grand Canyon covers less than 5,000 square kilometers.  The scientists believe that snow and ice, melted by volcanic eruptions, caused the flood.

Now silent, one can only imagine from examples on Earth the roar of gushing water that once cascaded through Kasei Valles, undermining cliff faces and engulfing craters, and eventually flooding onto the plains of Chryse Planitia.

The outflow channel extends 3,000 km, the article states.  By contrast, the Grand Canyon is 433 km long.

So what’s the problem with global catastophism on Earth?  Dam breach theories are popular with young-earth creationists.  They find evidence for massive lakes above Grand Canyon that would have contained more water than the Great Lakes combined, likely contained as inland seas after Noah’s flood.  A dam breach at Echo Cliffs, and another at the Little Colorado, could have led to the rapid formation of this world-famous scar on Earth that is far smaller than the channels claimed on Mars.  Creationists propose this with multiple independent sources of evidence, including shorelines of the upper lakes, dam breach notches, evidence of vast sheet erosion and rapid downcutting, and more; yet their theories are despised by the secular geological establishment moyboys* who cannot bring themselves to imagine catastrophes of that scale at home.  Bring it up, and “one can only imagine… the roar”.

The irony is that they can look at dry Mars and imagine catastrophes orders of magnitude larger!  No problemo.  They can even imagine huge lakes approaching ocean depth, and dam breach events there the likes of which they cannot imagine on Earth.  But propose a “Noachian” epoch (lasting one year) on Earth, and they say, Bosh, that’s religious myth.  As usual, creationists present scientific arguments, and the secular evolutionists respond with religious arguments.  Learn to brush away epithets and follow the evidence where it leads.  Ask yourself if it is plausible to propose that “giant” and “extensive” deep lakes on Mars sat there undisturbed for millions of years, only to breach their dams and create gigantic canyon systems in a few days of outflow.  If global catastrophism is good for Venus or Mars where no water is found, it’s good for Earth where water is plentiful.

*moyboys: evolutionists who use the phrases “millions of years, billions of years” with reckless abandon.


(Visited 355 times, 1 visits today)


  • SirWilhelm says:

    Both sides in this discussion, seem to be ignorant of Electric Universe theory, and it’s interpretations of what created Valles Marineris and the Grand Canyon. That is, cosmic scale electrical events, that probably occured when a planet sized body, the size of Neptune/Uranus, passed near both Mars and Earth, during the same passage event, causing catastrophes on both planets. Not only were the two canyons scoured out, but scores of other scars were left, in the form of craters, and fulgurites, Olympus Mons is the best example of a fulgurite, on Mars. There are other examples on Earth, such as Devil’s Tower. On Mars, almost the whole Northern Hemisphere was also removed, along with most of the water, and almost all of Mars’ atmosphere. Obviously, Earth’s atmosphere, and water, were spared, probably because the planet passed further away from Earth, and they have obscured the evidence, through erosion. Water, particularly, has done that, by following, and filling, many of the scars that were left on Earth. Evolutionists, and Creationists, both need to familiarize themselves with EU theory, and re-examine all the evidence, and their theories, in their light, before coming to conclusions.

  • Underhill says:

    I’m in no way affiliated with SirWilhelm, and i don’t know to what extent he has troubled you with his comments, but your reply to this posting alone seems very harsh to me. He merely suggests investigation of yet another theory trying to explain the formation of certain geological features mentioned in your article. That itself does not warrant being banned and labeled a troll, at least not in my book. Is not this web site often criticizing mainstream scientists and media for suppressing differing views and theories? I assume you get a lot of negative comments and have to filter everything thoroughly, but if he got banned because of the above post (or similar elsewhere), then i am really concerned.

    • Editor says:

      Underhill, thank you for your concern, but from previous posts by SirWilhelm it appears he has a strategy, not to promote legitimate alternative views, but to get wacky statements approved into our comments so as to discredit this site. That’s what trolls do, and that’s the basis for his expulsion. He cannot possibly believe some of the things he has posted under his fake identity. He’s testing us to see if we are gullible. We warned him in the past about this. On the other hand, we welcome reasonable and thoughtful comments, including critical comments that do not engage in ad hominem attacks.

  • Underhill says:

    Thanks for the clarification. My reaction came only from the context of this article and the foregoing comments.

Leave a Reply