Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 302 of 460 (10247)
05-22-2002 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by wmscott
05-22-2002 5:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
e: "how does the water completely cover the land masses up to elevations of even 3000 feet? Where is the independent evidence to support your conclusion?"
wmscott: As I have been stating, a sudden large scale release of glacial ice and melt water would have raised global sealevel faster than isostatic adjustment could occur. Simple basic geology, a sudden surging event at the end of the last ice age caused a brief rise in sea level that flooded all the land areas not already covered by ice.

wmscott, let me spell this out for you: THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE. IT IS A STORY.
quote:
We have independent evidence of this occurring in the Driftless area dropstones along with the other dropstones around the world found in places only a global flood could put them. [quote] Or a glacial lake or a shallow marine inlet. You still do not have evidence of a world wide flood.
[quote]We also have marine traces left by this event in the form of a microscopic dusting of marine diatoms and other marine animals, plus we have larger traces such as the Michigan whale bones.

All at elevations below 1000 feet. This is not evidence of a worlwide flood.
quote:
Then there is the evidence of the sudden movements of very large amounts water on the earth's surface in the form of sheet floods and super floods.
Once again, this is not evidence, it is a story.
quote:
Then of course we have the greatly elevated shorelines.
Which are more easily explained by and compatible with standard plate tectonics.
quote:
On late ice age deposits being faulted by sudden offsets in a very short period of time.
Yes. There have been late Pleistocene faults. What is your point?
quote:
e: "What exactly is a very short period of time? If you have sources, lets see them."
wmscott: The 'short time' is in the geological sense, in that these deposits are faulted without any signs of the shift taking place progressively.

Well, that's what most faults look like.
quote:
Here is a reference on ice age faulting."The Pleistocene indeed witnesses earth-movements on a considerable, even catastrophic scale.
And this is evidence? Does it say that there have been no other movements before or after the Pleistocene on a catastrophic scale? This is sillinesss.
quote:
There is evidence that it created mountains and ocean deeps of a size previously unequaled . . . The Pleistocene indeed represents one of the crescendi in the earth's tectonic history: . . .
Unsupportable hyperbole. The Miocene of the western US and the Devoninan over most of the world were probably just as crescendific.
quote:
Faulting, uplift and crustal warping have been proved for almost all quarters of the globe.
Okay, what about Africa?
quote:
Faults, with throws of up to 100 m or more, have been observed in many countries traversing glaciated rock-surfaces, drifts, till, moraines, outwash fans, loess, varve clays, strandlines and lake-terraces," (The Quaternary Era: With Special Reference to its Glaciation by J.K. Charlesworth 1957, volume two, page 603)
Your source is questionable. It seems narrow in scope and kind of theatrical. You have to understand that some people become infatuated with certain effects or eras. Not to be taken seriously. I also note that it does not say that other eras were not similar in their own right. I think you read too much into this quote.
quote:
In reading the geological literature late ice age deposits in mountainous areas are frequently faulted, though seldom as much as 300m which is an extreme example. A few meters seems be the more common example seen in these deposits.
Well, yeah, that's one reason there are mountains there. Besides these are mostly alpine glaciers. We were discussing continental ice sheets.
quote:
"But if this were a broad, regional uplift as you assert, then why are those areas now below sea level?"
[quote]Because in the ice age the sealevel was lower, the area was not uplifted enough to raise it above the higher post ice age sealevel.

So the continents were lower? How did they manage that? You didn't have ice sheets everywhere you know.
quote:
Since sea floors were pushed down by the weight of the returning glacial water, the edges of adjoining land areas were held back or even pulled down while areas farther inland were free to rise.
Pulled down sort of like the Andes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by wmscott, posted 05-22-2002 5:28 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by wmscott, posted 05-29-2002 5:11 PM edge has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 303 of 460 (10254)
05-23-2002 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by wmscott
05-22-2002 5:25 PM


wmscott writes:

I would suggest you get yourself a subscription to Consumer's Digest since basic marketing seems like a major deception to you. Hope you never have to buy a car. (LOL)
You're comparing yourself to a used car salesman? Geez, I was only trying to say you have an underdeveloped sense of openness and honesty.

Why are you so shy about your specialty? You are beginning to make me wonder what it is that you are so embarrassed about it.
My specialty, indeed anyone's specialty, is irrelevant here, for two reasons. First, relying upon association as a means of persuasion is one of the seven major fallacies of debate. "I have a degree from Incredible Reputation University, so you can trust me when I say...etc..." is a fallacious form of debate.
Second, you're already disagreeing with people whose professional credentials are much closer to this debate than mine are, so what would be the point?
If you're really sincerely interested in my professional credentials then let me know via email and I'll send you PDFs of some of the stuff I've authored professionally. But even if I were a Nobel prize winner and you were a wino it wouldn't be relevant, because what matters is the cogency of the arguments we post here.
The most important point everyone is trying to make to you is that your arguments do not qualify as good science. You can't have just stories, you have to have evidence. Some of your stories are credible, some are not, and few have evidence.
Oh, and I loved your example of someone contributing to fields outside his specialty:

Tell that to Fred Hoyle and many others.
Hoyle is one of the best examples of why one should stay close to home, scientifically speaking. After Hoyle's early contributions, which were significant and important, he not only went off the deep end outside his specialty, even delving into Creationism, he even went off the deep end within his specialty by continuing to back a steady-state universe long after evidence for the Big Bang (a term he himself coined, intending it to be derisive) became incontrovertible. It is suspected to be one of the reasons he did not win a Nobel prize - too much of an embarrassment.

"I don't need to come up with counter evidence" And that is why you are losing this debate.
Gee, I don't know, usually one finds that when opponents start quoting you out of context and begin declaring victory it's because they're in a weak position. What I actually said was:
"You can't support your argument with evidence where the dates are off by 10X. I don't need to come up with counter evidence for such silly 'evidence' - your 'evidence' is already self-evidently wrong."
In other words, when your dating evidence is off by 10X it is already so wrong that no counter evidence is necessary.
The problems with your arguments can usually be summed up as either a lack of a mechanism, or a lack of evidence that the proposed mechanism took place, and often lack of both.
Your argument involving the porosity of bones is a good example. I doubt many here are ignorant of anything you said, but the original question posed to you concerned how you were going to *replace* old carbon in the whale skeleton with new carbon. The carbon in bone is mostly tied up as a compound with calcium called calcium carbonate or calcite, CaCO3. You need something to drive this chemical reaction:
CaCO3 + CO2 => CaCO3 + CO2
Where the CO2 on the left is new carbon and that on the right is old carbon. Certainly bone is porous to ground water, so the dissolved carbon dioxide in water is going to rub right up against the calcite, and nothing's going to happen. This is an example of lack of a mechanism. And certainly with no proposed mechanism for carbon substitution, you cannot have any evidence of such a mechanism taking place.

Presently I am finishing up on some other projects so I can make time for researching and writing a scientific paper. If things go well, I hope to have my paper ready for submission before the end of the year. The person who never tries is the one who fails at everything.
More research? Why would you need more research? Your argument here is that the evidence you've already presented to us is sufficient, and that we're all basically just scientific ninnies because we don't accept it, won't even admit that it's evidence in most cases.
If you really believe that the problem your having convincing anyone here is really just due to lack of sufficient background on the part of your fellow protagonists to properly interpret your arguments and evidence, then you don't need more research. So what's the real story?

On the date for the flood. As I have stated so many times, I prefer the biblical date, but allow for the possibility that it occurred earlier.
If you don't have a date then you don't have a theory.

The record of the deluge recorded in the Bible is a contemporaneous record of the event.
This is one of the wonders of the Internet - you can actually find people willing to argue simple facts.
Even if Moses wrote the Pentateuch, which is what most evangelicals believe, he lived long after the flood, and so the Biblical account of the flood is not contemporaneous with it. A contemporaneous account of the flood would have to have been written by someone who lived through it.
You cited a dictionary definition of prehistoric but seem not to have read or understood it, since it defines prehistoric in basically the same way I did. Your definition says that prehistoric means "prior to recorded history", which means when no one was recording events. Since no one was recording events during the flood, there was no contemporaneous account, and the flood was prehistoric.
It was also mythical.

Under my theory it was a deep flexing not a shallow flexing, with the result that most of the heat energy would occur below the earth's surface. For the most part, areas of the earth's surface where merely lifted or lowered, which would not result in surface heating.
Under your theory, the deep flexing was still reflected by a severe sinking of ocean basins and rising of mountains, which are surface features, not deep at all. Plus in your time frame you have no evidence for either deep flexing or severe ocean basin subsidence or rising mountains. All you have is a story. And the only reason you propose mountains were lower then was so water could cover them so that the claim of the flood story that it was world-wide could be true. In other words, your theory is not based upon evidence.
The weight of water in the world is roughly a constant. It doesn't matter whether it is tied up in glaciers or lies in ocean basins, it's still the same amount of weight. A catastrophic flow of water from glaciers to ocean basins doesn't cause mountains in the tropics to pop up. What it does is cause the ocean basins to depress somewhat (water is spread across much greater area) while the former glacial regions rebound.

I am advocating the large scale survival of many animals outside the ark, which if enough survived here and there, the total could be equal to entire herd surviving. And there have been a number of genetic bottle necks found at this time and no doubt more will be found as more studies are done.
First, this is ridiculous on its face. Is this going into your paper?
Second, entire herds surviving a worldwide flood by floating on flood detritus? Including elephants and giraffes? This seems possible to you? I guess it must, so can you add anything that would make it seem less utterly ridiculous to everyone else?
Third, okay, I'll bite. What's your evidence for genetic bottlenecks 10,000 years ago.

Nearly all ocean sediment comes from the land, which is why sedimentation rates on the ocean floor decrease with greater distance from land. A global ocean would have a sediment rate of near zero, since there would be nowhere for the sediment to come from.
But your global flood was short, remember? You claim it coincided with tsunamis and a massive comet strike. These cataclysms would have kicked up huge amounts of sediment at ocean margins world-wide, and as the rising water levels caused the oceans to move across the land it would have brought sediment with it and the tidal waves and climatic disruptions would have kicked up huge amounts of additional sediment.
There's no evidence of any of this.
I keep forgetting that you live inland. Have you ever been to the ocean? Encroachment of the ocean onto land would not be a quiet affair, would not be a "gentle rise in sea level". If the sea was everywhere 10,000 years ago there would be evidence of it everywhere.

Your general rejections merely show a stubborn refusal to accept something new because it is different. You are free to disagree, but without any evidence to back up your position, it becomes merely your personal opinion. Unless you can come up with some solid evidence, I will consider your position overturned.
That's nice, but you have no evidence which requires countervailing evidence. All you have is stories.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by wmscott, posted 05-22-2002 5:25 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by wmscott, posted 05-29-2002 5:15 PM Percy has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 304 of 460 (10586)
05-29-2002 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by edge
05-22-2002 11:03 PM


edge
"THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE. IT IS A STORY"
Actually its a theory, one that you have not been able to poke any holes in, I might add.
"All at elevations below 1000 feet. This is not evidence of a worldwide flood."
If I have convinced you that there was a post ice age rise of 1000 ft in sea level, I have accomplished much of what I set out to do and do not have much farther to go to reach my goal. For the evidence cited, those locations would of had to have been under water, they also could have been more than just shallowly submerged. Despite their fairly low elevations, they do point towards the possibility of a much deeper flooding having occurred at that time.
"Your source is questionable. It seems narrow in scope and kind of theatrical. You have to understand that some people become infatuated with certain effects or eras. Not to be taken seriously. I also note that it does not say that other eras were not similar in their own right. I think you read too much into this quote."
The book "The Quaternary Era: With Special Reference to its Glaciation" by J.K. Charlesworth, is a questionable source?! Oh boy, maybe you should provide a list of the geology reference books you don't accept so I can avoid quoting from them. (LOL) But I think that perhaps when a source suddenly becomes questionable, it is perhaps because you disagree with it. You pay me high honor by challenging my source, my point must be sharp here indeed. I don't read too much into this quote, but it does show that there was extensive uplifting of the world's mountains in connection with the ice age.
Most uplift would cause minor faulting, the majority of the uplift would be expressed in titling, which would be most clearly indicated by stream flow erosion patterns. What we find in ice age stream and river deposits is an extensive amount of sediments which the water flow cuts down through in non glacial times, creating terraces. This deposition has been attributed to glacial erosion over loading the carrying capacity of the stream. It is apparent that this is not the entire answer, for glacial depression would also slow down the current flow reducing the carrying capacity. Then when the area rebounds, the river grade is increased and it cuts down into the ice age deposits creating the ice age terraces we see today. We also find this pulse pattern of erosion turning up in rivers in ways that only periods of uplift alternating with periods of depression can account for. A computer model of the erosion of the Colorado river revealed that most of the erosion had occurred in pulses. "Erosion of the canyon was not uniformly fast or slow, but occurred in a series of pulses. Downcutting of the main stream was extremely rapid and was largely a function of the rates of uplift." (The Earth's Dynamic Systems; p.200) This cyclic pattern of erosion shows up in the sediments on the continental shelves, including even continents such as Africa which was not extensively glaciated."The margins of continents have afforded remarkable sites of cymatogenic tilting with repeated uplift upon the landward and depression upon the seaward side of axes trending closely parallel with present coasts. Corresponding with the polycyclic denudational history of the lands is therefore a polycyclic depositional record embodied in the offshore sediments." (The Morphology of the Earth; A study and Synthesis of World Scenery by Lester C. King 1962, p.223) By polycyclic King means that there occurred a number of distinct periods of rapid erosion of recently uplifted land followed by periods of little erosion. He also connected the uplift of the land with subsidence of the sea floors. King also noted. "Remarkable indeed is the correspondence, episode for episode, between events and landforms in Brazil and those already recorded (Chapter IX) from Africa. Such correspondence, continuing into Recent times, can only be a result of similar tectonic activity in the vertical sense on opposite sides of the Atlantic basin (King 1956 A)." (The Morphology of the Earth; by Lester C. King 1962, p.316) King noted that there was simultaneous uplift occurring in stages on both Africa and South America which he stated was the result of forces acting vertically. What happened of course was that with the ending of each stage of the Ice Age, the melt waters returned to the sea and pushed the ocean floor down and in turn created a vertical acting force beneath the land which caused the land to arch upward with the cracking tensional effects seen in the geology of the earth today. Then as the global climate cooled in the next advance of the Ice Age, the water was once again removed from the sea and the glaciated land areas sank down and the sea floors rebounded. This resulted in a lessening of relief and caused the pause or slowing of erosion seen in each advance of the Ice Age. This lessening of grade caused the rivers to flow more slowly towards the sea and resulted in the build up Ice Age sediments in river channels. Then when the ice melted and the land rebounded upward again, the river grade was increased and the river cut down in the Ice Age sediments forming the river terraces seen today.
The return of the melt waters to the oceans has resulted in "hydro-isostasy," their weight pushed the ocean floors down into the earth and resulted in "epeirogenic," or vertical uplift of the land. This vertical upward movement is still going on and is wide spread in places were current scientific opinion has no explanation for it. This uplift is recorded in large areas which are believed to have been unaffected by recent tectonic uplift or glacial rebounding. "If such movements are real the problem remains of finding a plausible mechanism to explain them. It is obvious that such high rates in 'passive' tectonic settings of generally subdued relief cannot be sustained for long periods of time, otherwise they would generate a quite unrealistic topography (a sustained uplift of 200 mm per year would give rises to a 2000 m high mountain range in just 100,000 years assuming no erosion). This implies that such epeirogenic movements are episodic or oscillatory, with periods of uplift alternating with periods of subsidence. Although episodic or oscillatory movements must be related in some way to epeirogenic mechanisms (along passive continental margins) or plate interactions (along active plate margins), the specific processes involved are unknown. Nevertheless, the considerable areal extent of the regions affected by these rapid epeirogenic movements (up to 1000 km across) implies that the cause cannot lie just in the crust but must be deep-seated and probably involves the entire thickness of the lithosphere and even possibly a part of the asthenosphere." (Global Geomorphology; An introduction to the study of landforms by Michael A Summerfield 1991, pages 378-379)
"So the continents were lower? How did they manage that? You didn't have ice sheets everywhere you know."
No, we didn't have ice sheets everywhere, but what we do have everywhere is oceans. The weight of a glacier depresses the earth beneath it, and this in turn creates a surrounding glacial bulge. The removal of the weight of the glacial water from the world's ocean's would have created a some what similar effect in that the rebounding ocean floors would have pulled material from beneath the surrounding land areas, sort of a negative bulge. Then when the water returned the ocean floors where pushed down and the material was forced back out from under the ocean floor back under the surrounding land areas. Areas on the water side of the bulge would have been pulled down with the ocean floor, while the bulge area was pushed up. In small oceans these effects were less pronounced, while around larger oceans the effect was much greater. The Pacific margin shows results of these effects acting in conjunction with plate tectonics.
"Pulled down sort of like the Andes?" Answered above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by edge, posted 05-22-2002 11:03 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by edge, posted 05-30-2002 1:24 AM wmscott has replied
 Message 312 by edge, posted 06-01-2002 11:54 AM wmscott has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 305 of 460 (10587)
05-29-2002 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Percy
05-23-2002 12:03 AM


Percipient
"My specialty, indeed anyone's specialty, is irrelevant here, for two reasons. First, relying upon association as a means of persuasion is one of the seven major fallacies of debate. "I have a degree from Incredible Reputation University, so you can trust me when I say...etc..." is a fallacious form of debate."
Yes, you are correct. But I am very curous about what your field of interest is, I look forward to reading your e-mail.
"Fred Hoyle". I am not totally aware of his more recent work, but I can't help liking him. I like people who are willing to risk it all to stir the pot, and who knows, some of his crazier ideas may in the end turn out to be right.
On the carbon flushing of bones you stated. "And certainly with no proposed mechanism for carbon substitution, you cannot have any evidence of such a mechanism taking place."
Actually I do. "Because the rather numerous attempts at C14 dating of the present materials shed light on certain sources of error implicit in the radiocarbon method they are of interest from a methodical point of view, too. Determinations made on reindeer antlers have produced inconceivably low values (11,000-12,000 years BP), evidently owning to the fact that the CaCO3 contained in the porous antler material has reacted with CO2 and younger carbonates in the percolating groundwater." (The Pleistocene; Geology and Life in the Quaternary Ice Age by Tage Nilsson 1983, p.304)
"If you really believe that the problem your having convincing anyone here is really just due to lack of sufficient background on the part of your fellow protagonists to properly interpret your arguments and evidence, then you don't need more research. So what's the real story?"
Some people require more evidence than others to be convinced, and some will not be convinced by all the evidence in the world. By posting on this board I have learned better how the opposed geologist's mind thinks and what kinds of evidence he or she finds the most convincing. Building on what I have learned here, I plan to do additional research that should have a maximum impact. My paper would then be written limited to merely reporting the results with little or no theorizing. Such a bare bones approach may have a chance of getting published.
" Even if Moses wrote the Pentateuch, which is what most evangelicals believe, he lived long after the flood, and so the Biblical account of the flood is not contemporaneous with it. A contemporaneous account of the flood would have to have been written by someone who lived through it."
Yes Moses wrote the Pentateuch, Jesus stated so himself at Mark 12: 26 "But concerning the dead, that they are raised up, did YOU not read in the book of Moses" If you consult the book of Genesis you will find three separate accounts of creation. Why would there be three if Moses was making it up himself? It is apparent than he was recording earlier accounts from the people involved who passed on ether a written or oral account on to their descendants. The account of the flood is likewise a combining of at least two separate accounts of the deluge. There is no requirement that a history be written. The history of many North American Indians is oral and recounts a number of geological events which have been referred to in learning more about how these events happened. For an event to be prehistoric, it can not be described in ether a written or oral history, such a description by definition makes an event historical. The deluge is a historical event, it more than meets the requirements.
"The weight of water in the world is roughly a constant. It doesn't matter whether it is tied up in glaciers or lies in ocean basins, it's still the same amount of weight. A catastrophic flow of water from glaciers to ocean basins doesn't cause mountains in the tropics to pop up. What it does is cause the ocean basins to depress somewhat (water is spread across much greater area) while the former glacial regions rebound."
It should be remembered that in the ice age all the mountainous areas were glaciated and would have been subject to a degree of depression. Also that the depression of a tropical ocean area, will due to displacement can cause a rise in adjoining areas. I have also stated that some high elevations may have been merely covered by a glacial covering rather than having to have been depressed below the level of the flood waters. This would greatly reduce the amount of flexing required.
"entire herds surviving a worldwide flood by floating on flood detritus? Including elephants and giraffes? This seems possible to you? I guess it must, so can you add anything that would make it seem less utterly ridiculous to everyone else?"
You have to remember what a big place the earth is, an animal that manages to survive here or there can add up to a vast herd. Plus we also have the historical account that speaks of special provisions made for the survival of a select group of animals, which probably included some of the ones least likely to survive on their own. The existence of floating or grounded glaciers and ice sheets opens up the possibility that many animals may have survived by climbing the ice as the water rose. Since all the high elevations were glaicated at that time, there were many possible points of refuge scattered all over the globe. Then of course we have rafting and such. Animals surviving this way may seem impossible until considering island animal populations. Many very remote islands have terrestrial animal populations. Their arrival on some of these islands may have required a sea voyage of longer duration than the deluge. All because something is improbable, doesn't mean it is impossible.
"okay, I'll bite. What's your evidence for genetic bottlenecks 10,000 years ago."
First we have the Pleistocene extinction event, a time when many animals died. Second we have the pronounced differences in many animals between their ice age form and modern form. This change is indicative of the modern population being descended from a small selection of the ice age animals resulting in a change in the genetic average of the species. Thirdly we have direct evidence of this genetic bottleneck in the results of genetic testing with ice age genes that do not appear in modern populations such as the total lack of Neanderthal genes in Homo Sapiens Sapiens despite the fossil evidence of such in the past.
"with tsunamis and a massive comet strike. These cataclysms would have kicked up huge amounts of sediment at ocean margins world-wide, and as the rising water levels caused the oceans to move across the land it would have brought sediment with it and the tidal waves and climatic disruptions would have kicked up huge amounts of additional sediment."
The postulated comet strikes are theorized to have impacted the continental ice sheets, there may have been no ocean impacts. There is evidence of tsunamis hitting a number of coastlines in this general time period which may or may not be connected with this event. But since this evidence is not found on all coastlines, any ocean impacts and resulting tsunamis were limited in their effects to only portions of the globe and did not create huge tsunamis traveling all around the world. A global glacial surging event occurring over a period of a few months would not create any tsunamis and would rather have caused a progressive rise in sealevel. We also have the reported account of 40 days of what was probably an impact rain, which would have been an earth wide steady heavy rain that would have tended to flatten the waves and may have stilled the winds. Without wind and with a heavy rain, the ocean is flat, without waves a rising sea level would leave little evidence of its passage. As I have been repeatedly pointing out, we do have evidence of this type of flooding event occurring while we have no evidence of a massive sediment creating flood you seem to be envisioning along YEC lines. Although I should mention I recently had a conversation with a soil geologist who stated that he had observed in his field work at all of the surface soil layer in the entire Midwest area that he had examined over the years had been worked by water, he even attributed it to a sudden release of glacial water that briefly flooded large areas of the world. It was interesting meeting a total stranger who yet seemed to share my thoughts. Now I haven't seen what he has seen, so perhaps what he saw was the result of many smaller separate events, but they all did have to occur recently and he was knowledgeable in glacial deposits. This does point out the possibility that the reworked by wave action surface deposits that you are looking for may actually exist and have been misinterpreted and overlooked.
Unless you have other evidence or better objections, in this debate I will consider that my flood theory has at least been shown to be feasible, and it is now a matter of proving that what could of happened, actually did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Percy, posted 05-23-2002 12:03 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Percy, posted 06-01-2002 10:53 AM wmscott has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 306 of 460 (10588)
05-29-2002 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Joe Meert
05-22-2002 6:20 PM


Joe Meert
I think that while it is technically correct, it is a bit unfair to say that 'continental drift as envisioned by Wegener was rejected' when plate tectonics is such a direct continuation of Wegener's theory. I like to look at it as more of a suit that needed some major tailoring rather than it was exchanged for an all together different one. Even if I don't always manage to spell his name right, I feel that Wegener should be given credit for his visionary theory that was the foundation for so much of modern geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Joe Meert, posted 05-22-2002 6:20 PM Joe Meert has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 307 of 460 (10614)
05-30-2002 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by wmscott
05-29-2002 5:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
edge: "THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE. IT IS A STORY"
Actually its a theory, one that you have not been able to poke any holes in, I might add.

No, wmscott, your story is one big hole. It makes no sense at all and you have presented absolutely no evidence for it. You have not given us an iota of evidence that the seas reach higher than modern elevations of something less than 1000 feet.
quote:
"All at elevations below 1000 feet. This is not evidence of a worldwide flood."
If I have convinced you that there was a post ice age rise of 1000 ft in sea level, I have accomplished much of what I set out to do and do not have much farther to go to reach my goal. For the evidence cited, those locations would of had to have been under water, they also could have been more than just shallowly submerged. Despite their fairly low elevations, they do point towards the possibility of a much deeper flooding having occurred at that time.

And it is possible that I was a linebacker in a previous life. Sheesh, wmscott, do you really believe that this is evidence?
quote:
The book "The Quaternary Era: With Special Reference to its Glaciation" by J.K. Charlesworth, is a questionable source?! Oh boy, maybe you should provide a list of the geology reference books you don't accept so I can avoid quoting from them. (LOL) But I think that perhaps when a source suddenly becomes questionable, it is perhaps because you disagree with it. You pay me high honor by challenging my source, my point must be sharp here indeed. I don't read too much into this quote, but it does show that there was extensive uplifting of the world's mountains in connection with the ice age.
Many geologists get carried away with some idea and get quite dramatic. This may be the case here, or perhaps you are quoting him out of context.
quote:
The return of the melt waters to the oceans has resulted in "hydro-isostasy," their weight pushed the ocean floors down into the earth and resulted in "epeirogenic," or vertical uplift of the land.
What utter nonsense! The continent will attain an elevation related to the relative bouyancy of the lithosphere compared to the asthenosphere.
Really, I'd like to discuss this further, but I am convinced that it is more of the same nonsense that you have been feeding us for the last few months. Perhaps when I have more time. In the meantime, why don't you look up a good defintion of 'evidence' and then try to find some to support your position.
quote:
This vertical upward movement is still going on and is wide spread in places were current scientific opinion has no explanation for it.
Where is this? What other, and how many vague unsupported assertions can you make in one post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by wmscott, posted 05-29-2002 5:11 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Percy, posted 05-30-2002 11:47 AM edge has replied
 Message 315 by wmscott, posted 06-06-2002 7:31 PM edge has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 308 of 460 (10640)
05-30-2002 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by edge
05-30-2002 1:24 AM


wmscott writes:

This vertical upward movement is still going on and is wide spread in places were current scientific opinion has no explanation for it.
edge replies:

Where is this? What other, and how many vague unsupported assertions can you make in one post?
I believe Wmscott's point is, in part, correct. If memory serves me correctly, Scandanavia (in part or in whole I do not remember) is still rising due to the lifting of the weight of former glaciers. I forget the rate, maybe a few inches per century? Maybe Wmscott knows.
Wmscott may also be referring to the ongoing uplift of the Himalayas due to the continued northward movement/collision of the Indian subcontinent into/with Asia.
Where Wmscott is, I think, incorrect is in stating that it is "widespread" and that "current scientific opinion has no explanation for it."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by edge, posted 05-30-2002 1:24 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by edge, posted 06-01-2002 11:15 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 309 of 460 (10787)
06-01-2002 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by wmscott
05-29-2002 5:15 PM


I'm going to take a different tack in this post. Since you want to write a paper, I'll provide the responses you'd possibly get from a kind-hearted reviewer or editor of a mainstream journal. My own personal comments appear in small text between square brackets.
I realize your post was not a technical paper. I simply respond to each topic as I might had it appeared before me for review properly written up in a technical paper.
Percy writes:

On the carbon flushing of bones you stated. "And certainly with no proposed mechanism for carbon substitution, you cannot have any evidence of such a mechanism taking place."
wmscott replies:

Actually I do. "Because the rather numerous attempts at C14 dating of the present materials shed light on certain sources of error implicit in the radiocarbon method they are of interest from a methodical point of view, too. Determinations made on reindeer antlers have produced inconceivably low values (11,000-12,000 years BP), evidently owning to the fact that the CaCO3 contained in the porous antler material has reacted with CO2 and younger carbonates in the percolating groundwater." (The Pleistocene; Geology and Life in the Quaternary Ice Age by Tage Nilsson 1983, p.304)
Never heard of in situ CaCO3 substitution. Please provide references.
[Means references to the primary literature. If you visit Bone you'll see no such process is mentioned, Dr. Nilsson notwithstanding.]

Yes Moses wrote the Pentateuch...
[Do not under any circumstances cite anything Biblical or religious.]

It should be remembered that in the ice age all the mountainous areas were glaciated and would have been subject to a degree of depression. Also that the depression of a tropical ocean area, will due to displacement can cause a rise in adjoining areas.
Never heard of Wisconsian glaciation being worldwide. Please provide primary references.
Unaware of contrapuntal depression due to adjacent rise. Please provide primary references.

I have also stated that some high elevations may have been merely covered by a glacial covering rather than having to have been depressed below the level of the flood waters. This would greatly reduce the amount of flexing required.
[Biblical references would be a killer. Most any reviewer would stop reading once he saw the Biblical connection. In case I'm not being clear enough, and no matter what you personally believe, "flood waters" is a dead giveaway of YEC views.]
[You probably realize you can't wax Biblical in a scientific paper, so one thing about your posts here is very puzzling. Biblical references in support of scientific claims carry negative weight, detracting from whatever merit your ideas might have. What makes you think that science buffs and scientists here are any more receptive to Biblical references than technical journals? I recommend that from now on you attempt to carry the day without Biblical references, because it'll be more effective here, and it's what you need to do for a journal anyway.]

Then of course we have rafting and such. Animals surviving this way may seem impossible until considering island animal populations. Many very remote islands have terrestrial animal populations. Their arrival on some of these islands may have required a sea voyage of longer duration than the deluge. All because something is improbable, doesn't mean it is impossible.
Speculative, probably wrong. Any primary literature to cite in support?
[This is probably dead wrong. The evidence from recent volcanic islands like the Galapagos is that only small animals like lizards successfully raft. Large animals are never found on such islands. Speculation in and of itself is fine, usually in the conclusion. But speculation as supporting argument is worthless.]

Second we have the pronounced differences in many animals between their ice age form and modern form. This change is indicative of the modern population being descended from a small selection of the ice age animals resulting in a change in the genetic average of the species.
Not familiar with genetic bottlenecks being responsible for significant morphological change. Please provide primary references.

Thirdly we have direct evidence of this genetic bottleneck in the results of genetic testing with ice age genes that do not appear in modern populations such as the total lack of Neanderthal genes in Homo Sapiens Sapiens despite the fossil evidence of such in the past.
Far off the mark, seems dead-wrong. Please correct, delete, provide evidence, or cite primary literature.

The postulated comet strikes are theorized to have impacted the continental ice sheets, there may have been no ocean impacts.
Please provide evidence or cites to primary literature.

There is evidence of tsunamis hitting a number of coastlines in this general time period which may or may not be connected with this event.
Please provide evidence or cites to primary literature.

We also have the reported account of 40 days of what was probably an impact rain, which would have been an earth wide steady heavy rain that would have tended to flatten the waves and may have stilled the winds.
Please provide evidence or cites to primary literature.

As I have been repeatedly pointing out, we do have evidence of this type of flooding event occurring while we have no evidence of a massive sediment creating flood you seem to be envisioning along YEC lines.
Please provide evidence or cites to primary literature.

Although I should mention I recently had a conversation with a soil geologist who stated that he had observed in his field work at all of the surface soil layer in the entire Midwest area that he had examined over the years had been worked by water, he even attributed it to a sudden release of glacial water that briefly flooded large areas of the world. It was interesting meeting a total stranger who yet seemed to share my thoughts. Now I haven't seen what he has seen, so perhaps what he saw was the result of many smaller separate events, but they all did have to occur recently and he was knowledgeable in glacial deposits. This does point out the possibility that the reworked by wave action surface deposits that you are looking for may actually exist and have been misinterpreted and overlooked.
Anecdotal speculation.
[Anecdote as an adjunct is okay, though not recommended. Again, speculation as supporting argument is worthless.]
Okay, I'm back to being Percy again. I hope this helps. This was meant to be helpful, not adversarial.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by wmscott, posted 05-29-2002 5:15 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by wmscott, posted 06-06-2002 7:21 PM Percy has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 310 of 460 (10790)
06-01-2002 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by Percy
05-30-2002 11:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
wmscott writes:

[b]This vertical upward movement is still going on and is wide spread in places were current scientific opinion has no explanation for it.
edge replies:

Where is this? What other, and how many vague unsupported assertions can you make in one post?
I believe Wmscott's point is, in part, correct. If memory serves me correctly, Scandanavia (in part or in whole I do not remember) is still rising due to the lifting of the weight of former glaciers. I forget the rate, maybe a few inches per century? Maybe Wmscott knows.

I was referrring to the 'no scientific explanation for it' part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Percy, posted 05-30-2002 11:47 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Percy, posted 06-01-2002 11:46 AM edge has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 311 of 460 (10791)
06-01-2002 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by edge
06-01-2002 11:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
I was referrring to the 'no scientific explanation for it' part.

Ah, yes! Sorry about that, couldn't tell.
Perhaps we should colloborate on a book called Solving the Mystery of the Creationist Mindset. Though Wmscott consistently professes a strong desire to be scientific, he possesses all the typical characteristics of the Creationist mind, in this particular case inventing mysteries where none exist, then treating it as evidence for his position.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by edge, posted 06-01-2002 11:15 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by edge, posted 06-01-2002 12:05 PM Percy has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 312 of 460 (10792)
06-01-2002 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by wmscott
05-29-2002 5:11 PM


Wmscott, let's cut through the fanciful stories and wishful thinking, and get down to your evidence that there was a global flood. Do you think you could do that for us? Saying that the flood was too brief to leave evidence is a cop out. We want evidence.
As yet, all you have provided is data for sea level changes of somewhere between 400 and 1000 feet in the midwestern part of the US. You have indicated some wave-cut terraces at possibly higher elevations but amazingly, these occur in regions that are tectonically active as well and also have submerged terraces. You have dismissed our reservations with a wave of the hand and forged ahead with unconstrained imagination. Please give us something to think about rather than stories of unsubstantiated tectonics, based on old references and clothed in fantastic supposition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by wmscott, posted 05-29-2002 5:11 PM wmscott has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 313 of 460 (10793)
06-01-2002 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Percy
06-01-2002 11:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Perhaps we should colloborate on a book called Solving the Mystery of the Creationist Mindset. Though Wmscott consistently professes a strong desire to be scientific, he possesses all the typical characteristics of the Creationist mind, in this particular case inventing mysteries where none exist, then treating it as evidence for his position.

Actually, a new thread might be in order. Or several of them. I like your observation of 'inventing mysteries'. This is very common as we have seen primarily with Tranquility Base and to some degree with most creationists. I think it arises because they lack the ability to critically analyze their sources of data.
For instance, over on the Baptist Board, Helen has noted that some previously thought BIF's are actually 2.2 Ga lateritic paleosols. She thinks this means that the there was more oxygen in the atmosphere than those wacky evolutionists thought at the beginning of life on earth. The problem is that the earliest life forms are dating at 3.5 Ga! She actually has a valid reference that suggests the atmospheric oxygen curve should be reevaluated!!! What a blow to evolutionary theory!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Percy, posted 06-01-2002 11:46 AM Percy has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 314 of 460 (11095)
06-06-2002 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Percy
06-01-2002 10:53 AM


Percipient
I like your idea of treating my posts as a technical paper up for review. I like what it conveys about how you view the quality of my posting. I also noted that you did not counter me on any of my points, I have to assume that you are unable to do so on at least some of them. You hope to side step my argument by changing your position from a party in a debate to one of a reviewer while raising the bar for me at the same time. Plus you hope to put me in a difficult position by requiring references on points not generally found in mainstream technical papers. If you think you need this much protection for your position, I seem to have already won the debate on at least some points. But I would like to continue this to see how far I can take it.
"of in situ CaCO3 substitution. Please provide references."
My first reference of course would be the geology book "The Pleistocene; Geology and Life in the Quaternary Ice Age" by Tage Nilsson 1983, p.304)
and the following articles.
Olson, E.A. (ms), 1963. The problem of sample contamination in radiocarbon dating. Unpublished Phd dissertation, Columbia University, New York.
Taylor, R. E., 1982. Problems in the Radiocarbon dating of bone. In L.A. Currie (ed), Nuclear and Chemical Dating Techniques: Interpreting the Environmental Record,pp453-473. Washington DC, American Chemical Society.
"Never heard of Wisconsian glaciation being worldwide. Please provide primary references."
The Wisconsin was the "fourth glacial stage of the Pleistocene Epoch in North America" and occurred at the same time as the Wurm which was the "fourth of the four classical glacial stages of the Pleistocene of Europe," (Dictionary of Geological Terms, 3rd ed.) in referring to the global effects of the Wisconsin ice age or glacial stage, I would be more correct to refer to it as the Wisconsin/Wurm glacial stage or fourth or last glacial stage of the Pleistocene, but I prefer the more commonly used term of 'Wisconsin ice age' which is much easier to use and perhaps the best known. The Pleistocene glacial stages were earth wide in their effects in that they are believed to have covered 30% of the land with glacial ice and as a direct result lowered sea level by over a hundred feet. On a question this simple a reference to any of a number of introductory books on the ice age would be best and I would suggest reading such for a basic background in this subject. However as requested, here a few references on the global effects of the last (Wisconsin) ice age that I happen to have on hand..
Global ice volumes at the Last Glacial Maxium and early Lateglacial, Lambeck, Earth and planetary letters 181 (2000) 513-527.
Ice sheets by volume, Clark, Nature, vol 406, 17 August 2000.
Timing of the Last Glacial Maxium from observed sea-level minima, Yokoyama, Nature, vol 406, 17 August 2000.
The timing of the last deglaciation in North Atlantic climate records, Waelbroeck, Nature, vol 412, 16 August 2001.
Magnitude and timing of episodic se-level rise during the last deglaciation, Locker, Geology, September 1996, v.24, no. 9, p. 827-830.
Refining the eustatic sea-level curve since the Last Glacial Maxium using far- and intermediate-field sites, Fleming, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 163 (1998) 327-342.
"Unaware of contrapuntal depression due to adjacent rise. Please provide primary references."
You misstated the question, it should be phrased 'uplift due to nearby depression'. I referred to the phenomena of glacial bulges which are a band of uplifted area surrounding a glacially depressed area. Britannica states "A complicating factor near the periphery of former ice sheets is the so-called marginal bulge. , an American geologist, postulated that, if the ice load pressed down the middle of the glaciated area, then the Earth's crust in the marginal area tended to rise up slightly, producing a marginal bulge. . . . southeastern Baltic and northwestern Germany are subsiding. The Netherlands area is subsiding also . . . . The coastal area of southern New England is still slowly subsiding at the present time (1-3 millimetres per year)." The phenomena of a depression causing a rise in adjoining areas is described in a common encyclopedia with documented examples that are now subsiding as a result of the removal of the glacial weight nearby that had created the bulge they had been uplifted on. I referred to glacial or marginal bulging as an example of the effects of the return of a large amount of melt waters to the world's oceans. The increase in weight upon the earth's crust would have similar effects regardless if the depression was caused by ice or water. The following link had some technical information on glacial deformation of the lithosphere and the resulting effects seen at the earth's surface in the form of uplifting in the marginal areas.
http://home.comset.net/aaman63/glacial/
Here are some graphics from that page illustrating the effect of depression in one area causing uplift in adjoining areas. The fist pushing down in the pictures could be a glacier or a ocean with returning glacial melt waters increasing it's depth.
As you can see from this graphic, under the right conditions, the depression of the ocean floors due to the return of melt water at the end of the ice age would have caused extensive uplifting of the adjoining land areas, and could have led to extensive uplifting of coastal mountain ranges. ( think of the mountain range 'root' or 'subbasement' as the 'barrier' in picture 3.)
". The evidence from recent volcanic islands like the Galapagos is that only small animals like lizards successfully raft. Large animals are never found on such islands."
What about the Galapagos tortoises? They are quite large (500 lbs) and obviously were rafted to the islands from at least South America. ( Galapagos Islands Guided Tour - The Endangered Galapagos Giant Tortoise ) A book I just picked up at the library "Wildlife of the islands" by William H. Amos, on pages 105-113 has information on island mammals. "It is evident that very large mammals are among the animals that have penetrated the islands least. The elephant, for example, went no farther than Java. The Javan elephants disappeared a thousand years ago . . . but there remains a population of the beasts on Sumatra." There is even a Javan rhinoceros, island tigers, leopards, bears, pigs and a number of primates. The island mammals are all restricted to SE Asia islands which are or were in the past not that far from land due to land bridges and tectonic movement of the islands over time. Most of these animals due to their locations had to have had to cross over ocean water by rafting or swimming. Due to the history of the area, it is not possible to accurately state how wide was the body of water they crossed. Recently in the Caribbean, Iguanas were rafted over 200 miles between two islands. (Science News, volume 154, p.267) Animals can and are still crossing large bodies of water. "Against all the odds, animals and plants have dispersed across formidable ocean barriers to populate islands throughout the world." (Coral Reefs & Islands; The Natural History Of A Threatened Paradise, by William Gray 1993, p.42) "At the same time, it became clear that many other volcanic islands had never been connected to any other landmass (Kennett 1982; Brown and Gibson 1983). The ancestors of present-day plants and animals on such islands as Hawaii, Tahiti, the Marquesas, the Galapagos, the Canary Islands, and the Azores all must have arrived by oversea dispersal." The Galapagos Tortoises are one of the better cases of long distance rafting of island animals. Refences on Galapagos Tortoises.
"Not familiar with genetic bottlenecks being responsible for significant morphological change. Please provide primary references."
I would suggest referring to the works of Stephen Jay Gould who had a theory called Punctuated Equilibrium. The following link is about this, and appears to possibly have been written by you or at least by your long lost twin since the author has similar background and interests. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/punk_eek.html
A mainstream link on Punctuated Equilibrium. Evolution: Library: Punctuated Equilibrium
A site on Stephen Jay Gould and his Punctuated Equilibrium theory 5 ,
References.
Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Models In Paleobiology (Ed. by T. J. M. Schopf).
Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. 1977. Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3, 115-151.
Gould, S. J. 1980. Return of the Hopeful Monster. In: The Panda's Thumb. New York, New York: W.W. Norton Co. pp. 186-193
On the total lack of Neanderthal genes in Homo Sapiens Sapiens despite the fossil evidence of such in the past. A news link on this, News | Penn State University and Krings et al.: Neandertal DNA sequences and http://www.cabrillo.cc.ca.us/~crsmith/neander.html
And a science article on the lack of Neandertal DNA in modern humans.
Salvaged DNA adds to Neandertal's mystique.
Bower, Bruce
Science News, 2000, vol. 157, no. 14, pp. 213
SCIENCE NEWS
A paper on a ice age fossil Human/Neandertal.
On the phylogenetic position of the pre-Neandertal specimen from Reilingen, Germany
Dean D.; Hublin J.J.; Holloway R.; Ziegler R.
Journal of Human Evolution, May 1998, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 485-508(24)
Academic Press, Harcourt Place, 32 Jamestown Road, London, NW1 7BY, U.K.
As I posted, we have evidence of ice age Neandertal/Homo Sapiens Sapiens breeding, yet DNA testing reveals a complete lack of Neandertal genes in modern populations.
Since this post is already getting way too big, let me sum up a few point briefly. First none of what is posted here is planned to go into my paper. I also don't plan on making any Biblical references or to the flood. I like to do so in my book and here since it spices up the discussion. If I was merely in favor of an undocumented post ice age marine transgression, we wouldn't have much of a discussion. But just mention the flood and you light the fires. Even here most of my references to the Bible have been as a historical account which in light of the use of American Indian oral histories in archeology and geology, is appropriate given the subject matter. It also makes sense to refer to the Bible to dispel misconceptions that some have raised about it and the flood account, going to the horse's mouth so to speak, to set the record straight. Also if we want to use this format, I should only cover one point as I would do in a paper. Also this post and its references were thrown together, where as a paper has to have the precision of a Swiss watch. Perhaps in my next post I can do more of focused paper type approach.
[This message has been edited by wmscott, 06-06-2002]
[This message has been edited by wmscott, 06-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Percy, posted 06-01-2002 10:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Percy, posted 06-07-2002 1:56 PM wmscott has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 315 of 460 (11096)
06-06-2002 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by edge
05-30-2002 1:24 AM


edge
Actually I have been posting evidence all along, you have just chosen to ignore most of it, or all of it. Now if you have accepted that the evidence presented so far does support a post ice age rise in sea level of nearly 1000 ft, we can then go on to examine the evidence for flooding at higher elevations. But if you are unwilling to accept the evidence of lower elevation flooding, there is no point in discussing evidence of high elevation flooding since it is impossible to have one without the other. If you are still rejecting the low elevation flooding evidence, we should discuss what your specific objections are, and go over them in detail.
On the book "The Quaternary Era: With Special Reference to its Glaciation" by J.K. Charlesworth, perhaps you should consider the possibility that I quoted him correctly and the author knew exactly what he was talking about. Why not go to the library and find out? I found him very sound and reliable, not at all prone to exaggeration.
"What utter nonsense! The continent will attain an elevation related to the relative buoyancy of the lithosphere compared to the asthenosphere."
You have forgotten to take into consideration the effects of local increases in pressure applied to the asthenosphere such as in the form of increased water depth in an ocean, will cause a increase in pressure beneath an adjoining continent which will in turn lift it. This pressure effect is widely known in geology for causing glacial bulging. What did you think caused the uplift in areas near an ice sheet in the ice age? You also need to remember that the earth is a closed system. If for example the weight placed on the earth's crust was to be increased by the addition of material from an extraterrestrial source, the average pressure applied to the asthenosphere would increase. Not a likely event, but it does show that due to the asthenosphere being trapped inside the earth, it is not free to flow like water around a boat in the sea. The thick viscosity of the asthenophere also means that local shifts in pressures applied to it are not readily transferred over the entire earth. Which is why a sudden shift of water from arctic ice sheets to oceans around the world, is too long distance of a shift in weight distribution for the thick and sluggish asthenosphere to respond to in the short amount of time since the ice age. This results in local increases and decreases in the pressure upon the asthenosphere which results in local up lift or depression. Remember also that areas covered by ice sheets in the ice age are still rebounding today, if these areas are still responding to local changes, how can you expect the large shift in water from the ice sheets clear to tropic oceans to already have been fully compensated for? It has not been long enough since the end of the ice for all the shifts to be compensated for, and for the earth to have reached a perfect balance of neutral buoyancy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by edge, posted 05-30-2002 1:24 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by edge, posted 06-07-2002 3:48 PM wmscott has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 316 of 460 (11145)
06-07-2002 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by wmscott
06-06-2002 7:21 PM


wmscott writes:

I also noted that you did not counter me on any of my points, I have to assume that you are unable to do so on at least some of them.
You'd assume wrong. I said I was changing tack. It's a sure sign of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expect something different to happen. After trying for a considerable period to convince you of the lack of evidence for your viewpoints, I've decided it's not within my power to do so. And so I've decided to instead help you whip your paper into shape. However, I'll modify my previous approach of pretending to be a kind-hearted reviewer to include my personal objections.

"of in situ CaCO3 substitution. Please provide references."
My first reference of course would be the geology book "The Pleistocene; Geology and Life in the Quaternary Ice Age" by Tage Nilsson 1983, p.304)

Books are normally considered secondary literature.

and the following articles.
Olson, E.A. (ms), 1963. The problem of sample contamination in radiocarbon dating. Unpublished Phd dissertation, Columbia University, New York.
Taylor, R. E., 1982. Problems in the Radiocarbon dating of bone. In L.A. Currie (ed), Nuclear and Chemical Dating Techniques: Interpreting the Environmental Record,pp453-473. Washington DC, American Chemical Society.

These references have two problems:
  1. They're far too old to offer in support of a significant contributor to uncertainty that's not currently recognized.
  2. There's no indication that they deal with carbon substitution in CaCO3 due to groundwater. Have you actually read these?
There are a few significant reasons why I don't believe this process is significant, if it happens at all:
  1. Except for Targ Nilsson, it isn't mentioned anywhere, and the example he provides of reindeer antlers is problematic for you. First, antlers aren't bone. That doesn't mean that the same exact thing doesn't happen to both, but you can't assume it does. You can't even assume that bones from all species behave the same. Maybe they do, but you can't assume it, you (or someone you reference) has to demonstrate this.
    Second, his problem is that the antlers in question dated far too young at 10-12,000 years BP. We don't know the age of the strata he was working in (if you go back to Nilsson's book you can probably find out), but the maximum extent of radiocarbon dating is around 50,000 years BP, so if they were at most 50,000 years old then he has an error of 400%. But you need an error of 1000%!
    But that's not the end of your problems. If his bones were actually 50,000 years old then whatever groundwater reactions were taking place with the antlers had 50,000 years to work and effect a 400% error. But your bones are supposedly at most 10,000 years old, so you need a much faster process to cause more than twice as much error in just a fifth the time.
  2. This process simply isn't going to take place, where once again the CO2 on the left contains new carbon and that on the right contains old:
    CaCO3 + CO2 => CaCO3 + CO2
    You instead need something to break down the calcite, for instance sulfuric acid from acid rain reacting with it to form calcium sulfate:
    CaCO3 + H2SO4 => H2O + CO2 + CaSO4
    Now you can perhaps combine the calcium sulfate with the CO2 that contains the new carbon:
    CaSO4 + CO2 => CaCO3 + CO3 + S
    But this reaction is not going to take place at the same site within the bone where sulfuric acid just dissolved the calcite. The dissolved calcium sulfate will first have to travel to a site of lower sulfuric acid concentration. In other words, the reaction won't take place in situ. Anything that dissolves the calcite is in effect dissolving the bone. Perhaps new carbon from groundwater attaches to what is left, but it would be readily apparent that significant reactions with the environment had taken place simply by the bone's appearance.
    Now, I'm no chemist, so you can't trust my reaction equations, but what you need are references to papers which *do* describe reactions that are somehow replacing the carbon in situ.
  3. Sea floor sediments are submerged all the time, and the sea has an old carbon load, maybe 400 years or so. If the carbon substitution you propose were actually taking place then all sea floor cores older than 400 years would date way too young.
  4. Once you demonstrate a process that can replace carbon in situ, it still remains for you to demonstrate that this is what happened to the whale bones in Michigan. Competent and reputable labs C-14 labs are intimately familiar with potential sources of error and are trained to recognize when they might come into play. The whale bones have already been dated to be 900 years old by a lab that presumably knows all about sources of error. Even if you were precisely right about carbon substitution, all it would mean is that the whale bones dated to younger than 900 years and then the adjustment for error yielded the 900 year figure. If the labs screwed this one up you're going to have to in some way demonstrate this.
    There is no independent evidence that would cause one to suspect the whale bones are older than 900 years. You just want them to be because you're on an evidence hunt.

"Never heard of Wisconsian glaciation being worldwide. Please provide primary references."
...The Pleistocene glacial stages were earth wide in their effects in that they are believed to have covered 30% of the land with glacial ice and as a direct result lowered sea level by over a hundred feet.

The part I was responding to and that I even quoted in my response was, "It should be remembered that in the ice age all the mountainous areas were glaciated..." My response asked you to support this assertion, since it is certainly not the current understanding that "all the mountainous areas were glaciated". For example, many mountains in the Alaska region were unglaciated, not because it wasn't cold enough, but because it was too dry. Many mountains located near the equator weren't glaciated.
A more significant problem for you is that glaciers generally don't form on mountains, they form in mountain valleys. They only cover mountains after the valleys are filled, and not even then if the mountain's height and regional climate make it too dry. There is no evidence that all mountains too high to be covered by water were covered by glaciers, and no non-Biblical reason to assert this anyway. I recommend that you limit yourself to the evidence and drop the assertion that water or glaciers covered all parts of the earth. I know this is important to you, but save it for another time if you want your paper published. You don't need to accomplish everything in a single paper, and in fact a sequence of papers gradually revealing your complete theory is more desireable.
Because of the misunderstanding, the references you provided aren't relevant.

"Unaware of contrapuntal depression due to adjacent rise. Please provide primary references."
You misstated the question,...

You misstated the statement - there was a grammatical error, leaving me guessing which way you meant it. But it has no real effect on the discussion.
There's no dispute about any of the evidence you mention about rebound from glacial weight. In fact, if you read Message 308 you'll see I describe an example of the same thing.
This is what is questionable:

Also that the depression of a tropical ocean area, will due to displacement can cause a rise in adjoining areas.
What you need is for ocean floor depression off, say, the coast of South America to cause a rise of a mile of two in the nearby Andes in a very short period of time. The kind of effects that http://home.comset.net/aaman63/glacial/ is talking about are very small and very slow in relationship to your requirements.
The need to accelerate processes by orders of magnitude in time and effect is a common YEC issue, and you're going to have to justify not only the process but the reason for the requirement for the process. Because this again traces back to Biblical requirements for a global water cover I recommend that you leave it out of the initial paper.

What about the Galapagos tortoises? They are quite large (500 lbs) and obviously were rafted to the islands from at least South America.
Though it's not relevant, their average size is well less than 500 lbs. More relevant is that, unlike mammals, tortoises do not care for their young, and young tortoises survive on their own. Weighing less than half a pound at birth, and probably less than 10 lbs for a number of years after birth, they would have little trouble rafting to the islands. Perhaps it's even possible for eggs to be swept from mainland to island and from island to island. Genetic analysis hints at more than one colonization event (http://members.tripod.com/~dcarson/galapagos_tortoises.html).
You're going to need some strong references to support your contention that large land mammals rafted. This is all so obviously Biblical that I recommend leaving it out of the paper.

I would suggest referring to the works of Stephen Jay Gould who had a theory called Punctuated Equilibrium. The following link is about this, and appears to possibly have been written by you or at least by your long lost twin since the author has similar background and interests. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/punk_eek.html[/b]
Hmmm. I don't think I've said anything about my background or interests, but thanks for the compliment! I'm not Don Lindsay, but I've visited his website several times and I think his writing is very clear and succinct.
Of course I'm familiar with PE, and perhaps PE explains some post ice age changes, but you're confusing process with evidence. If there is any evidence of a genetic bottleneck 10,000 years ago then you need to reference it in order to support your contention that all land species were decimated to very small populations at that time.

On the total lack of Neanderthal genes in Homo Sapiens Sapiens despite the fossil evidence of such in the past. A news link on this,...
I'm already familiar with the Neandertal information, and you misunderstood the portion I was objecting to. You said, "We have direct evidence of this genetic bottleneck in the results of genetic testing with ice age genes that do not appear in modern populations such as the total lack of Neanderthal genes in Homo Sapiens Sapiens despite the fossil evidence of such in the past." It was the last part about fossil evidence of the presence of Neandertal genes in Homo sapiens that you're going to need a reference for, if it's really true.

First none of what is posted here is planned to go into my paper...Also if we want to use this format, I should only cover one point as I would do in a paper. Also this post and its references were thrown together, where as a paper has to have the precision of a Swiss watch. Perhaps in my next post I can do more of focused paper type approach.
Great! Looking forward to it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by wmscott, posted 06-06-2002 7:21 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by wmscott, posted 06-12-2002 9:53 PM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024