Polar ice caps and possible rise in sea level

Wmscott! And here I thought you were out collecting more data to support your thesis. I am disappointed.You state:

quote:

---

"Hydroisostasy, the continents sank beneath the ice and the oceans rebounded. Water is only one third the weight of rock, but with Hydroisostasy you get to count it twice since you are using it twice, one in the sea by removing it and once on the land by placing it. That is a lot of displacement."

---

First, your rock/water ratio is wrong. You are not replacing the water covering the oceans with just any rock. You must replace it with mantle material. So, the ratio should be something greater than 4. Second, since the continents only make up about a third of the planet, you can only sink that much continental crust to displace mantle material to the oceanic area. Your displacement is getting smaller.Now if your flood is the result of such great displacement between the oceanic and continental crusts, why do we not see some structural evidence of this along all continent/ocean boundaries?Now, have you any evidence that your contrived sea level was anything more than a few hundred meters? If not, then you have no basis for a global flood any more than one can say that we presently have a global flood.

quote:

---

For further information I would suggest reading my book "Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood" available at https://www1.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid...

---

Pardon me for being a skeptic, but this be what your participation here is all about? Sorry, once again, Mr. Anderson, but usually research comes before publishing.This message has been edited by edge, 09-18-2004 02:52 PM

quote:

---

As for flooding higher elevations I allow for the possibility that they had their covering of water in the form of glacial ice which at that time, existed at all higher elevations, so the flood water level only had to reach the edges of the glaciers to be global.

---

This is a quite a reach. First of all it kind of throws out the standard definition of 'flood'. Not exactly biblical, either. I'll have to remember to apply for flood assistance after the next snowstorm. Second, this should mean that we have evidence for either innundation or glaciation in every part of the world at the end of the LGM. Such evidence would help your thesis. I am surprised that you have not researched this. If you have, please present such evidence.

Why? Based on what evidence?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Also it must be remembered that the mountains of today are not the mountains of pre-flood world. Of coarse both parties use the fossils on top of mountains info. It can be assumed the mountains whatever their makeup were low ones.

---

Not according to Genesis....Genesis 7:19
"They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered."To me this indicates that there were high mountains prior to the flood. Please explain.

Wow, I feel famous now.Ok, here is my creationalist, non-scientifical take on it. Please correct me if I'm wrong (do I need to say that?)I see everyone talking about flood, flood flood. But what does flood mean? But before we get into that, lets look at the KJV of what God said he was going to do. Flood waters.Now getting back the definition of flood. A flood as described in the bible?

​

I don't know about the rest of you but when my bsement gets 1" of water in it, its flooded.

​

The bible does say this also:

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

​

So the springs did have something to do with it.

​

So here's my theory, There arre many things that could happen, that would cause the rains to come. Where would they come from? The oceans. So if the oceans where heated up by any number of means, or natural causes, that would start evaporating very quickly. Causes massive rains to fall. If rain fell at the rate of 4" per hour over land, can you imagine the flooding that would occur?

​

We just got hit with the remenants of IVAN, and we got about 5" of rain. The mountain I live on, which is about a 35 dgree angle, reached critical mass of the water it can hold. The water is now shooting up out of the ground, and it looks like a spring just about every where you can find a crack. It is almost as if the mountain is a giant sponge and God is putting his hand on it to squeeze it out.

​

I do not think there should be any arguement that if we had a rainfall rate of 2-4" an hour, that eventually everything on earth would be covered with water, no matter how small it may be. The mountains would still be sticking up, but they would look like water falls, and all but the very peaks would have significant water on them. The peaks themselves would have maybe 1/4" of water on them, but they would be covered in water.

​

I wish someone could make a computer model of the Himilayas, and then apply the rainfall rate of 4" per hour, for forty days, and observe how it would back up, just like your favorite stream.

​

You see the water can only drain back so fast to the ocean, so it would back up and appear to be covered in water, without it actually being the same as sea level.

​

Forget about looking for marine life high up in alltitude, you won't find it, there isn't enough water for the seas to rise like that.

​

However the bible has this:

19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

​

I might have a problem with this statement, and it might be an exagreration of the author of the book. How would he know it was 20 feet, unless Noah sailed his boat exactly over the highest mountain, and measured the depth of the water, or God told him?

​

But still I would love to see some computer models of the rain I am talking about, and just how high, and far would the water back up. Maybe the 20 feet is possible.

​

This would also explain why fresh water species didn't get wiped out from salt water exposure in the flood. Only low lying areas, would have seen salt, places like the Bonneville salt flats, or death valley.

​

If it rains on mt everest, how long does it take for the water to reach the sea?

​

Let me know if I am clear in my explaination, I don't always express myself the best, I also hate typing, and its late, GN all.

Um... it would have to be high enough to kill off everything on Earth. The rise in sea level by the water from the poles ain't enough to kill off everything on Earth. I think you missed the unspoken point of this thread.

---

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

I have to ask the obvious question: do we see any geological evidence of such an event?

Um, I think you missed my whole point.I am saying that the water from the poles is not enough, I know that. but if flooded in the way I described, everything would be washed away into the oceans, except the fresh water fish, and die.You never seen floods before? Does the level of the ocean have to rise in order for things to die?

I cannot give a qualified answer to that. I can answer it with a question though.Was every river and stream here before the flood? Because after the flood God gave us a covenant of the rainbow. To me that is an indicator that it didn't really rain before the flood, otherwise there would have been rainbows.I wonder about these things too, but it doesn't stop me from believing.

Dear IrishRockhound;The "windows" when the Pleistocene extinct events are believed to have occurred are less than 100 years according to this news story that Bill B. provided the link to.
http://www4.nau.edu/...n1/quaternary_paleobiology_update.htmSincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Edge;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.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Charles Knight;In my book I do have the results of my early findings which include the discovery of marine diatoms at an elevation of 1000 feet in southern Wisconsin and pictures of some of the diatoms I found. Early work, but it is evidence no one here has been able to account for. I hope to do a second edition someday with updated research results once I can hopefully complete my research and publish the results.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

I invested a great deal of time discussing Wmscott's ideas with him in 2002 and 2003. Now that he has resumed discussion on these topics I feel I have to comment on this: Anyone who thinks this is an accurate characterization of the earlier discussion should read these messages from Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II:

• Message 132
  ​
  From me, this message characterizes the diatom evidence specifically (no replication, no peer-reviewed sources) and the debate generally, as well as noting Wmscott's failure to persuade other Creationists.
  ​
• Message 131
  ​
  From Bill Birkeland, characterizes the inherent uncertainty in ascribing a marine origin to Wmscott's diatoms.
  ​
• Message 108
  ​
  From me, more background about human distribution of diatomaceous material, and some suggestions to Wmscott in the context of helping him develop his evidence for a technical paper. Also includes my reply to Wmscott's bizarre claim that I had made a diatom identification that supported his views.

That thread also includes Wmscott's expression of his intention more than a year ago to submit a technical paper on his findings on diatoms to a peer reviewed journal. One of the serious problems with consideration of Wmscott's evidence is that it had been gathered, examined and analyzed by only himself, and so had not stood up to peer review or replication, so it would be relevant to hear the outcome of this effort.Wmscott's book is self-published.I post this message only to correct the record. Wmscott would be correct if had stated that nothing in the prior discussion had caused him to change his views, but it is definitely inaccurate to characterize those he was debating with as flummoxed and unable "to account for" his evidence and arguments.--Percy

ah - in light of those comments, I'd therefore say - get something in a peer-reviewed journal and I'll be interested. Otherwise, no thanks.

From the article:"So it now appears that there were two distinct extinction episodes. Each event took less than 100 years."Thank you for the correction; however the point still stands. This still does not equate to a single event lasting forty days and forty nights.