The TRVE history of the Flood...

I posted evidence and you ignored it, as usual.But then we all know you're preaching rather than debating, and that you have no answer to the evidence we present.

Only after you explain the lack of objective evidence for a biblical flood. Only after you explain your use of this straw man argument. Only after you explain the lack of evidence for kilometers-at-a-time theory. But that is what you are doing with your post. I suppose you will pass along this morsel of information to the other anti-evos in this forum? You are still at the station. So, you are unfamiliar with the voluminous literature about the topic?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

BZZZT! Wrong. Here's a copy of the home game, thanks for playing. Yep, they did.I'm not interested in your un-evidenced assertions.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

OK but you seem to be saying that the Mississippi Delta, for instance, has sunk independently of the land around it? Or is it just that the information isn't available? I'm thinking of the weight of the very deep strata which of course is exposed in the Grand Canyon but apparently also underlies most (all?) of the Midwestern US and probably a lot more than that. Strata a couple of miles deep at this time in the GC area would be quite a load wouldn't it? Is perhaps the very lowest part of the canyon level below sea level? I think that is indicated on at least one cross section. Is the fact that the land is raised -- the Colorado Plateau -- the reason it hasn't sunk further? Are there other parts of North America that are known to have sunk beneath sea level? I can't digest all that yet, but I'm wondering about that "old, thick continental crust" if it is meant to describe Europe/Africa because the Americas split off along that coastline so the crust shouldn't be any older or thicker should it? A compliment from you could almost keep me from posting any more, knowing it's all going to go poof as soon as I do. Oh well, neither rain nor sleet nor volcanoes nor the wrath of geologists... Of course I always have some aspect of Noah's Flood in mind as the ultimate explanation for most geological information, but I'm aware I have to come up with convincing evidence so that's what I'm focused on.I've continued to think about this sequence of transgressions and continued to have questions, which I hope are as thoughtful as the others.Observation: Some statistics about the Tonto Group in Grand Canyon, made up of the Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale and Muav Limestone. Various sources give its thickness as 1250 feet or 380+ meters, and it's shown to be continuous with the Cambrian Period.Pondering: That got me wondering how deep was the Sauk Sea, since that transgression is given as the cause of this formation, plus some above and below it. "No more than 200 meters" says first site to come up on Google. But the Tonto Group alone is over 380 meters thick. So this seems like an important discrepancy. The Sauk Sea spanned the upper Precambrian through Cambrian to part of Ordovician according to that chart of the cratonic sequences I posted in Message 477 So, to deposit sediment to that depth the water would have had to be at least 1250 feet deep, or probably more, wouldn't it?The Sauk Sea is identified as the source of the Tonto Group in the Wikipedia page on that group, so it would have to have been at least 380+ meters/1250 feet deep. That's a little under a quarter of a mile.Question: Is that a high enough rise in sea level to flood other continents? And to what extent?Question: Is there some formula that expresses how much weight will cause a land mass to subside? Or in other words, how heavy a load would cause the land to subside? Would the three rocks of the Tonto Group plus some of the Ordovician be heavy enough to do that? Would it sink a little, a lot? How much?Ponderings: If it didn't sink at all then it would be 1250 feet/380+ meters above sea level, and the next transgression would have to exceed that level by the thickness of the next group of sediments deposited. In the Grand Canyon that would include the redwall limestone which is 500 to 800 feet thick. The Kaskasia transgression laid down the Mississippian and the Devonian strata. the Devonian is maximum 100 feet so the Kaskasia transgression had to rise another 900 feet over the previous sedimentary deposits, laying it all down over about a hundred million years.And the next transgression would have to have risen above that level by some hundreds of feet or meters IF we haven't yet reached enough weight to cause subsidence. Of course if we have, then the level of the water required will be reduced by however deep the land sinks.So knowing what weight would cause subsidence to what depth is necessary for knowing whether a sea transgression has to rise some known amount to cover the previous sedimentary deposits, and add to them to whatever thickness lies above them. (My guess, admittedly worth nothing, is that it could take a couple or three transgressions before any subsidence occurred; which would mean that sea level would have to rise enough to transgress other continents to the same depth. (In fact this could already be the case with the first transgression of 1250 feet?)But if subsidence keeps pace with the sedimentary level and the sedimentary deposits keep sinking to the former level of that land, I guess then it depends on how fast they sink and whether the water ever had to get to 1250 feet to lay down the Tonto Group.Of course if the subsidence did not keep pace with the rising of the water and the sedimentary deposits, then other continents would also have been similarly flooded, even if for some reason the same kinds of transgressions don't seem to have occurred.Question: BUT again, wouldn't even that very first rise of 1250 feet also affect all the other continents?

I think that Faith has a very legitimate question here, and your response has nothing to do with the question.Her question might have been answered to some degree further downthread.I think I'm going to start a new topic concerning the mechanisms of sea transgression and regression.Adminnemooseus

You should not be bragging about adding something to the debate, as all you do is preach and then proclaim victory. You don't address the mountains of evidence that shows you are wrong. You lack even a passing acquaintance with evidence, logic, and laws. Those are associated with science, and you are about as anti-science as they come. I have presented some of the evidence in a previous post that shows the flood at your "exact" date never happened, which you -- as usual -- have completely ignored.So here it is again:

--From my own archaeological research I have documented Native American cultures which existed and flourished from before to after the "exact" date you concocted for the global flood. If there was such a flood it should have wiped those cultures out. (Along with cultures in Egypt and a lot of other parts of the world.)

​

--From my own archaeological research I have documented Native American mtDNA of a particular haplotype persisting from before to after the "exact" date you concocted for the global flood. If there was such a flood it should have wiped that haplotype out, replacing it sometime later with a Middle Eastern haplotype. (Other researchers have found the same evidence throughout the world.)

These two lines of evidence from my own research, not to mention thousands of similar findings from around the world, disprove the global flood at the "exact" date you concocted. Not my field. I'm a specialist, having studied a few things for decades. This is quite unlike creationists who read a couple of creationists books or visit a few creationist websites and suddenly are world-class experts in all fields. Creation "science" at work, eh? OK, here it is. You're a fraud. A preacher. A third-rate shaman. The only reason we waste time with you is the entertainment value, and to let you demonstrate just how poor your research and arguments really are. Your nonsense is now out there on the web for all to see and never to be recalled. You have branded yourself a Class A crank all by yourself. Oh? And you are going to address the evidence I posted above? And in previous posts? Or are you just going to continue to duck, dodge, and weave -- all the while proclaiming victory?You are not addressing my evidence because you can't. All you have is bluster. Poor analogy, as could be expected. You have no data, no evidence, a massive ego and overweening arrogance, and delusions of grandeur.You might at least try for a two-week-a-year time share in reality.

This is going to be a rather half-baked post. I'm still not grasping what the chart of the transgressing seas (cratonic sequences) represents. It helped a lot for you to explain that the left side represents the center of the continent and the right side the margins (I kept asking myself "center of what?")So that got me as far as understanding that the horizontal dimension represwents the land, or space, and the vertical dimension represents time, but I still have to fight the tendency to see the shape of the water figure as representing the amount of space it covers.So the transgression only covered the center of the continent for a relatively short period of time, covering the rest of the continent out to the margins for progressively longer periods. The rest of the time the dry land was eroding.{It doesn't seem to take into the account the possibility that the center of the continent could be lower and the water could stay there a longer time than at higher elevations? Such as would be the case with the Inland Sea?But I need to think about this more. I still don't really understand it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : punctuation, grammar

What you get is a deflection bowl something like this (pavement example) Areas covered by ice during the Ice Age subsided under the load and are still rebounding after the ice melted.The Himalayas continue to rise more than 1 cm a year but this is due to collision of continental plates rather than rebound. This is a problem for Flood Geology since it suggests that if Everest was covered by the flood it would have to have risen at an average of more than 1m/year and a peak rate of several m/year. Now that would have been a pretty violent event![edit1]The Earth itself also responds to lunisolar gravitational attraction. The solid earth tide (body tide) often reaches +/- 20 cm, and can exceed 30 cm. Solid Earth Tide
This happens on a daily basis but is spread over thousands of kilometers and ~24 hours so we don't notice it.Edited by CRR, : 1 as marked

It's easy to get caught up in thinking about the Cratonic Sequences in relation to the continental positions as they are now, but in fact, according to Geology for most of the Phanerozoic Eon North America was part of a loosely organized Supercontinent called Rodinia: It looks loosely organized on that illustration anyway, but from what I've read its history isn't yet completely understood. But it is said to have existed throughout the Paleozoic and into the Mesozoic when another Supercontinent formed, known as Pangaea.Observation: According to the map of Rodinia, Laurentia/North America was connected on the south with what later became South America, and on the north with what later became Australia and South Africa.Pondering: This provisionally suggests that transgressions of Laurentia/North America would likely also have transgressed those other land masses. Yet apparently there is no evidence of such transgressions on those continents.Internet Information: Then Pangaea formed in the Permian or about 270 million years ago, and broke up in the Jurassic, about 200 million years ago, into the current arrangement of continents. Observation: So from the Permian to the Jurassic North America was part of this Supercontinent, and during that period, which looks on that chart of the Cratonic Sequences like it lasted about a hundred million years, the Absaroka transgression was receding, and then the Zuni had just begun when the continents split.Deduction:Since Pangaea was one united continent any sea transgressions on North America/Laurentia would of necessity have had to occur on the rest of the land mass. In fact, since there aren't any margins to the North America/Laurentia area it seems to me the whole system of cratonic sequences completely breaks down for the last three, the Absaroka, the Zuni and the Tejas, which span the periods from the Permian to the present.Putting all this together would take more thought, but on first impression it seems that some changes have to be made either in the understanding of the Cratonic Sequences or the history of the Supercontinents or both.Observation: The formation and breaking up of Pangaea would also have had tectonic effects, but these don't seem to be taken into account in the history of the cratonic sequences. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, it would but I don't see any alternative, given the timing factors we have to work with, but to proceed with the expectation that the tectonic activity had to be fairly violent. So I've calculated how fast the Americas split from Europe/Africa for instance, over the last 4350 years. I think it came out to ten feet per day on either side of the Atlantic Ridge, slowing incrementally to its current minuscule speed. An "impossible" rate I know, but there it is. We're told this would generate too much heat, but there have to be all kinds of unknown variables we can't guess at for the prehistoric past so all I think we can do is go with the Biblical timing. Or all I can do anyway. You are pursuing some different angles on all this and it's interesting to follow your thinking.So I also figure the travel of the Indian subcontinent from the east coast of Africa to its current position would have been fairly speedy too, although I didn't try to calculate that. Given the condition of the Himalayas it looks to me like it crashed fairly hard into Asia and raised the mountains a lot faster than is ordinarily considered possible. Best I can do with the information at hand.One thing to take into consideration is that if this happened right at the end of the Flood, as I think it did (haven't noticed the timing you are using), then Noah and his family on the ark were the only human beings on the planet and nowhere near the areas of all the tectonic activity. Of course by the time India reached Asia... I don't know, that calculation is beyond me at the moment.Thanks for the other information. It's a bit too technical for me though. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This one is funny. No need to calculate, we measure the age of the sea floor between the Americas and Europe/Africa directly. The info is easy to get.It's quite easy. One of the methods involves the changing magnetic field on the planet found in the rocks between the Americas and Africa/Europe and another one involves radiometric dating techniques of those same rocks. No need for relatively uneducated people like you to try and do complex maths!Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Hi Faith. As my understanding goes, that's correct. But it's not just the energy generated by the movement which you would need to factor in - it's also the energy which you would need to apply, in order to create that sort of movement in the first place.To work out a decent stab at a number like that would be enormously complicated. Not only would you need to work out how much energy to apply to shift a rather large mass of rock laterally (and according to a quick trawl on Google, Everest alone weighs 357 trillion pounds) at a rate thousands of times faster than the plates are currently moving - you'd also have to factor in how much extra energy would be needed to crunch, subduct and fold all of that rock.And then you need to work out where that kinetic energy would have come from. The centre of the earth seems the only option - and it would be my firm guess that the application of enough kinetic energy, from the centre of the earth, to move that much rock that violently and that quickly, could only have led to a cataclysm which would have destroyed the planet.I might have a fiddle around with some numbers later on, if I get time.Either way - energy output, or energy input - the numbers are going to be more than daunting for the movement you'd need.

Even if you look simply at the very basic kinetic energy formula, the energy of a mass is a product of the square of its velocity. In principle, therefore, if the velocity of the plates then was, say, a thousand times greater than it is now, you would need to apply a million times more energy to achieve that velocity.This is horribly simplistic of course, but it gives you an order of magnitude. If the earth suddenly applied a million times more energy to the plates than it is currently applying to shift them at the moment...well, cataclysm wouldn't begin to describe it.

Yes, the energy released in that scenario is enough to vaporise the whole earth a few thousand times over. Every minute.

This one is funny: Nope. You didn't directly see it happening.Are you deliberately trying to conflate the standard creationist "Observational" and "Historical" sciences? You must be a compromiser.