Polar ice caps and possible rise in sea level

Can anyone provide evidence to refute my theory?

You don't have a theory. You have unfounded speculation. You need to show that your suggestions are reasonable.You haven't even described exactly what you mean. At various times some have described high altitude sea shell fossils as being deposited by the flood.Now you have an idea that makes it impossible for anything at all to be deposited. The vague picture you paint of torrential rains running of steep mountaint sides yet somehow "piling up" to make it be a "flood" wouldn't allow for anything.Have you calculated the volume of water per square meter? Have you calculated how fast that will move off the side of a mountain at various inclinations?At the least, without the math, can you describe what you think it would have looked like?Is this the theory you are talking about? You continue to astonish with just how little you know but how much you are willing to throw around.

quote:

---

Yes, that is the evidence that I am currently looking for. I have already found traces of Marine Diatoms here in Wisconsin at a thousand feet as you know, and now I am trying to improve my metrology and collect more information on this finding.

---

Keeping in mind, of course, that some of that 1000 feet of elevation is due to isostatic rebound.

I believe I did, maybe you didn't really read it. Or maybe its your attitude towards a theory ever working. ITs already well known what happens to ground water on a mountain after just one day and 4-5' of rain. The ground water fills up and has no where to go, but back out the mountain, there-by turning the whole mountain into a water fall, or running stream. If enough water where to rain out of the sky, then I can't imagine what it would look like, but I can bet you, I wouldn't be able to survive it. Yes I do Mr. wizard. That would be evidence against my theory, possibly. We don't really know how those things got deposited there. Birds could have ate them, and crapped them out far away from the source where they ate it. Who knows? If your saying that sea shells on a mountain is evidence that the flood didn't happen the way I am theorizing it, then it must have happened a different way, but it did indeed happen then. Unless you can come up with another explainantion for the sea shells. They are extremely reasonable. Insulting me does not help your case. It also does not make my theory wrong, because you fail to understand what I described. I also did say I would try to describe it another way if you have trouble understanding what I am saying.
I know a lot more than you could ever imagine. I have a common sense understanding of science and physics way beyond any jerk scientist that went to 8 years of college, just because I can look around at things at see whats going on. Its the same common sense that makes one race car driver better than another, because he can fully understand all the dynamics involved with going around a race track, without going to college to learn it. Put a pyhsisit with 8 years of college in the same car, and he just might never get it. No matter how much he thinks he understands.So when you disrespect people, it shows your level of intelligence.I gave a theory so that someone who might know the actual numbers involved and could calculate it, might look at it and say "let me see if it would work" I don't have the time to go and find all the numbers. But not having gone to college, I could easily figure it out.My theory holds water *edited to add something*
Another possible cause of the seashell deposits are tornados, or water spouts. They can pick up debri and send it miles away through our atmosphere.This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 09-19-2004 07:58 PM

Uhhh... I don't think so. Go look at the thread about El Capitan in the Geology forum. Or go to Banff, Alberta, and look at the mountains. Half-mile thick shells/corals is a little much for your average killer ultragiant tornado.

That's nice, Riverat. I'm so glad to hear it.

Here is a web-site that explains what I am talkiong about on a much smaller scale.
http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/...urces1/maidment/gishyd.htmlIf we could use this model and increase the rainfall amounts to biblical proportions, I wonder how high the water would actually get.

I am sorry, but that statement by me or you doesn't make either one of us smarter than the other.
Don't take offence please.

Wouldn't it then be very easy to prove that part of the earths crust was indeed under water at some point, other than just seashell fossils?

Ok, then you shouldn't have any problem with this:

quote:

---

There is a wheel of r = 0.38m and m = 1.3kg and attached to that wheel from a cord is a 0.70kg block that is 1.2m off the ground. If the block is released from rest, what speed will it have just before it hits the floor if there is no friction at the wheel's axis?

---

You have 20 minutes, which is about how twice as much time as a "jerk scientist" with a degree in physics would take.

Sure it would be! That's what the geologists in England showed, quite conclusively, by about 1840. Based on the types of rocks, as well as fossils, they showed beyond reasonable doubt that England had been seafloor on several occasions, for huge periods of time, and that parts had been dry land at various times, too. The geologists since 1840 have been busy showing the same thing for most of the rest of Earth's surface: the top of Mt Everest, for instance, is made up of skeletal remains of sea critters that were compacted to limestone, buried tens of thousands of feet deep where it was hot enough to convert the limestone partially to marble, and then uplifted and the covering rocks eroded off to leave the tallest peak we have this millenium.Same sort of thing under my chair: there's a reef down there 6500 feet that grew in the Permian. It's covered up in rocks that formed in shallow seas that dried up on occasion - there's salt and gypsum beds to prove it. And I'm 500 miles from the ocean now, and 2700 feet above it.

quote:

---

Wouldn't it then be very easy to prove that part of the earths crust was indeed under water at some point, other than just seashell fossils?

---

I'm not sure what you are asking. It is easy to show that a particular location was underwater at a particular time. THe point is that it has never been proven that all locations were underwater at one particular time.This is what wmscott is trying to say. That there was a point in time that every place on earth was under water for a period of time after the last LGM. But he has no evidence to support the statment. He can only say that in the area of Wisconsin that he lives there was (MAYBE) a brief innudation by marine waters up to an elevation of a few hundred feet. And he really has very little solid evidence to back up even that minimal thesis. He has not entertained other sources for the diatoms, he rejects alternate transport systems, and his diatom identification is very questionable.

Dude, the geology of Ireland in its entirety refutes your theory, because it's inconsistant with the Flood.I also take offence at being called a jerk scientist. Be civil or stop posting in this thread.The Rock Hound

Used to rain cows in England from tornados.

I didn't call you one, if you fell that way though, sorry.
I was insulted first. Go tell him not to insult me.*edit*
I would like to know why Ireland is not consistant with a flood. I am not aware of this, and wnat to learn.This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 09-20-2004 07:47 AM