Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Actually I have been posting evidence all along, you have just chosen to ignore most of it, or all of it.

---

Typical creationist ploy. Post stories and call them evidence then protest that the evidence has been ignored. I really expected better than this.

quote:

---

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.

---

Excuse me, but I think that's what I have been asking for all along.

quote:

---

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.

---

Wrong. It is possible to have flooding at lower elevations without flooding at higher elevations. And who said that I did not accept minor sea level changes of up to 1000 feet? You are inventing a stawman, wmscott.

quote:

---

If you are still rejecting the low elevation flooding evidence, we should discuss what your specific objections are, and go over them in detail.

---

No need. Let us proceed. After all these months, I would like to see your evidence.

quote:

---

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.

---

Umm, what did he say about a global flood?

quote:

---

"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.

---

So, if I unload a ship and throw the cargo overboard, the ship will move upward just because I have raised the sea level? No, it moves upward relative to the water because it is lighter. It it simply floating higher in the water. All we have done is increase the 'depth' of the water column. The ship has a real rise because of this and a relative rise because of the lightness of the ship column. The later is what is important. Theoretically, we could pump the mantle up from some other source and it would create no difference in the relative elevations of the ocean and continents.

quote:

---

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?

---

Hmm, so where is this glacial bulging around Antarctica?...

quote:

---

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?

---

I don't. I don't expect the depression of the ocean floor to be very rapid either, however. You seem to want it both ways. The oceanic crust must adjust rapidly to get a flood of short duration, which would leave little evidence behind; but it must also adjust slowly so that the flood waters would encroach upon the continents. And yet every evidence you show is that this all happens slowly. I am simply looking for evidence of what you say happened.

quote:

---

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.

---

Which is my point. How do you get a short flood that leave precious few traces and only at lower elevations when there is not enough time to make these adjustments?You might think of it this way: How many vertical meters of asthenosphere need to be moved to the continental column to compensate for the weight transfer of a vertical meter of water added to the ocean column? It isn't very much. So, how far will the oceanic crust be depressed by the addition of water? Not much. Most of the rise of the continents is related to their change in bouyancy related to loss of mass.By the way, when will we see that evidence of a global flood?

Percipient"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 desirable."Yes I agree, that is what I am planning on trying to do.On the genetic bottle necks, since wipe spread genetic testing of the remains of ice age animals comparing them with modern animals has yet to be done. I was referring to the differences that show up in the skeletal remains which indicates a marked difference in comparison with modern animals. According to the PE theory, such sudden shifts are best explained by the modern animals being descended from a small group of the old animals. Other explanations may work, such as adaptation to the changing post ice age climate. But considering the marked changed in so many different species and the very short amount of time it would of had to of have occurred in, the PE effect on small groups appears to be the best answer. In the case of man, the missing Neandertal genes implies a considerable die off that the DNA is not present in any of the modern population. The concept that Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Neandertals inter bred is very controversial, but is strongly supported by the finds of at least two skeletons displaying features of both. To confirm the cross breeding theory, it would be necessary for DNA to be extracted from these remains and tests done showing DNA unique to each is present. But as far as I know this has yet to be done. Another interesting point is old accounts describing such inter breeding, but I know what you will say to that so I will skip it. Just considering the habits of human mating, I don't think it possible for a sperate human species to form, sex seems to be just about unstoppable, just ask any parents of teen age children. Even if the Neandertals were the most frigid part of the whole ice age, the hot human sex drive would have still melted them.(LOL) Which is why I don't believe that Neandertals would of have a chance to diverged into a sperate species.Yes the effects seen and looked for in glacial bulging are fairly small, but they are real and do happen. The depression of an ocean floor could cause a rise in nearby land, the question is how much it would rise and how long would it take. If there was a sudden depression of ocean floor, there would be a sudden rise in the land, the displacement has to go somewhere. We can argue about rates later, for now I will be content with having shown the effect.In the ice age the temperature was lower which lowered the snow line and the extent to which glaciers could grow down the sides of mountains and from cold regions into somewhat warmer ones. Many areas that were once thought to be ice free are now being recognized as having been glaicated. Even the mountains in the tropics were glaicated. even today Kilimanjaro in Africa is still a snow covered peak. In the Hawaiian islands, Mauna Loa and Moa Kea in the ice age were both glaicated. Due to colder temperatures at higher elevations, all the earth's high points were glaciated in the ice age with very few exceptions. As you point out, there may have been some high elevations in areas so dry that any snow that fell sublimed away long before it could create glaciers. If it can be proved that such high dry spots were NEVER glaciated, and shown that they were at a high elevation at the time, then they could be a problem. Oh, the reason the mountain glaciers are in valleys is the abrasive glacial action on the mountain side cuts into the mountain creating the valley. The valley in turn forms a sheltered refuge for the glacier in the face of rising global temperatures since the end of the ice age. In the colder ice age temperatures these mountain peaks were covered by ice or we would not have many of today's mountain valley glaciers.On the carbon flushing, I have put the papers on my shopping list, but have yet to read them. I also found out that most if not all carbon tests on bones are done using a solvent to remove traces of organic material which is what is actually dated. Tests done in this manner would be extremely susceptible to carbon flushing. Your objection to old sea floor cores not having newer dates overlooked the caulk like consistency of marine mud which prevents water movement, otherwise the cores would all show newer dates. Plus you are forgetting that I am theorizing very different effects in different environments from different causes. Things exposed to modern rainwater or groundwater, would have newer dates, things exposed to glacial melt waters would have older dates due to the great age of the CO2 contained in old glacial ice. The combination of this effect would result in bones found in sheltered places that were exposed to a soaking in old glacial melt waters having old dates, while the same type of bones in exposed areas would have younger dates due to the effects of rainwater. This is why old bones are not found in places where rainwater can reach them, and instead are only found in caves or beneath clay layers or in very dry climates. In two books that I have read dealing with this time period, the authors mentioned this pattern and wondered about its cause.Since writing a good science paper takes months, and I like to post once a week, I will try using a mini paper format with limited references. Since I am working on the writing rather than the subject, I may sometimes use unrelated subjects. Ran out of time this week, perhaps a progressive posting will work better. I am thinking of working on Mima mounds showing how they were formed, but first I will need to read up on the subject.

edgeMy, my, as a geologist you should learn that using the buoyancy of a ship as an example of elevation changes in the earth's surface, is an analogy and not an exact replication of all the relative effects. Some effects that turn up in the earth do not have a direct analogy in the floating boat example. Models have their limits. I did not invent the concept of glacial or Marginal bulging, it is an accepted part of glaciology, even Britannica knows about it. (see post 317 to Percipient ) What is your position as a geologist on glacial bulging? I liked your point on the apparent lack of a glacial bulge around the Antarctica ice sheet. There are several possible explanations that spring to mind, first the bulge may be off shore and undiscovered, (not likely) second ocean floors are more flexible than continental crust and are perhaps too flexible to form a bulge, third a bulge did form only to slowly flatten out over time.On the rates of changes in elevations, I have been arguing in favor of two different types of mechanism, shallow (plastic deformation) and deep (fluid deformation). The shallow slow creeping flow in the asthenosphere is the one you are familiar with and I was talking about in my last post. The rapid deep fluidic movement deep inside the earth is another matter all together and I wasn't referring to it at all in my last post. I am trying to be more convincing in my argument by presenting things one step at a time. So let's concentrate on the shallow effects first before we go into the deep rapid flexing.I am very glad that as a geologist you accept the evidence of a post ice age flooding event of up to 1000 ft above current sea level. One of the obvious reasons for my constantly referring to low elevation evidence, is that there is simply more of it. As we go to higher and higher elevations, we have less and less of the earth's surface to work with. As we go to higher elevations the surface grades increase which also results in increased surface erosion. Combine this with the wide spread glaciation found at high elevations in the ice age, and we have a difficult time finding extreme elevations with an original ice free exposed surface dated to the end of the ice age. Then on these rare surfaces some one has to discover and write about unexplained high elevation deposits, and I in turn have to come across the reference. The combination of these factors puts a severe limitation on the amount of evidence I can refer to. He is a partial listing of evidence that could be what you are looking for.One way of getting around the erosional problem, is using evidence that reproduces itself and survives. Relic lakes containing trapped marine life that has adapted to fresh water, records the occurrence of a recent marine transgression at high elevations. The extent of the post ice sea level rise is indicated by the location of some of the relict lakes which contain sea like which has recently had to adapt to fresh water. "Lakes Titicaca and Poopo in South America have invertebrates which have marine affinities and carp-like fishes which have been claimed to have such affinities." (The Quaternary Era; by J.K. Charlesworth 1957, volume two, p.1418) Lake Titicaca, located in the Andes mountains at an elevation of 12,500 feet above sea level, is a relict lake and is the highest navigable lake in the world. The lake is 120 miles long and 50 miles wide covering 3,200 square miles with a maxim depth of 600 feet. The reason the same marine life is found in both lake Titicaca and lake Poopo is that they were both once part of lake Ballivian which formerly had a level 330 feet above the current level of lake Titicaca. Before it dried up into two smaller lakes, lake Ballivian would of had an elevation of 12,830 feet above sea level and contained marine life recently trapped from the sea.The Arctic Ringed seal turns up in Caspian Sea which is over a thousand miles away from the Arctic Ocean. The only reasonable explanation for finding the Ringed Seal so far to the south trapped in inland bodies of water, is that they were trapped there by a recent rise in sea level. The Caspian Sea not only has sea life from the Arctic Sea, it also has a number of living things from the Mediterranean Sea. Of the life that is indigenous to the Caspian Sea, 6% is from the Mediterranean Sea and 3% is from the Arctic. (The Caspian Sea by A.N. Kosarev and E.A. Yablonskaya 1994, p.122) The fact that at the end of the Ice Age, the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea and the Arctic Ocean were all joined together as shown by the types of marine life found in the Caspian Sea, is undeniable.The Arctic Ringed Seal also turns up in Lake Baikal (elevation 1493 feet) in Siberia is nearly 1,000 miles from the ice covered arctic ocean and also has sponges, herring and salmon (Omul). All of which have adapted to freshwater. There are also beach terraces in the area that are found as high as 4,600 feet above the lake level of 1493 feet or 6093 feet above sea level. (The Quaternary Era; With Special Reference to it's Glaciation by J.K. Charlesworth 1957, volume two, p.1119)High level terraces have been reported in a number of locations around the world. Southeastern Ohio, 1100 to 2580 ft, Connecticut up to 1680 ft, Massachusetts up to 2,250 ft, Pennsylvania at 1,300 ft, Scotland 1150 ft, Alps 6190 ft, Tasmania 4,300 ft, "Carolina bays, Mina Mound, Submarine Canyons and other Topographical Phenomena" by William R. Corliss, Pages 77-83. Beaches with seashells at altitudes between 1,200 and 1,300 ft found in Great Britain and some Pacific islands, (1,250 ft on the Hawaii islands) (1,300 ft on the Marquesas islands) and the Persian gulf area 1230 ft. Pages 66-72.Uplifted Erratics above 1000 ft are found in a number of places around the world, Great Britain 2200 ft, New Hampshire 6000 ft, Alberta Rockies 4260 ft, and Wyoming 6750 ft. "Neglected Geological Anomalies" William R. Corliss, pages 222-6.I have been stressing the lack of erosion a global flood caused by a progressive rise would create in comparison with the YEC type flood models. But that is not to say there would be no evidence at all. As you can see we do have extensive minor surface erosional evidence. We have the raised shore lines and terraces, elevated erractits, marine traces, whales bones far inland, marine transgression in lakes, evidence of super flooding occurring at the end of the ice age and we have the Mima mounds. The Mima Mounds are rounded little hills or bumps ranging in size from a few inches to over a thousand feet arranged in very large numbers on plain surfaces like water ripples. They are found associated with the Spokane flood deposits and are a type of current caused deposit similar to streamlined drumlins created in super flood events. They are not limited to the NW however, they are found throughout out large areas of the American west from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian border and west into the west coast states. The combined area of plains displaying Mima Mounds is larger in extent than the state of Texas. The type of formation and the wide spread distribution indicates a movement of a depth of water across the land surface in the manner one would expect of the whole scale movement of water moving to or from the sea in a recent global flood event. Where the soil conditions were suitable we find evidence of water current effects which may have better preserved in the western part of North America perhaps in part due to the rain shadow of the Rockies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:

​

...

​

There are also beach terraces in the area that are found as high as 4,600 feet above the lake level of 1493 feet or 6093 feet above sea level. (The Quaternary Era; With Special Reference to it's Glaciation by J.K. Charlesworth 1957, volume two, p.1119)

---

Hmm, terraces above a lake as evidence for a global flood? Sorry, wmscott. That won't do it.

quote:

---

High level terraces have been reported in a number of locations around the world. Southeastern Ohio, 1100 to 2580 ft, Connecticut up to 1680 ft, Massachusetts up to 2,250 ft, Pennsylvania at 1,300 ft, Scotland 1150 ft, Alps 6190 ft, Tasmania 4,300 ft, "Carolina bays, Mina Mound, Submarine Canyons and other Topographical Phenomena" by William R. Corliss, Pages 77-83. Beaches with seashells at altitudes between 1,200 and 1,300 ft found in Great Britain and some Pacific islands, (1,250 ft on the Hawaii islands) (1,300 ft on the Marquesas islands) and the Persian gulf area 1230 ft. Pages 66-72.

---

Wmscott, you write this as thought you've never heard of plate tectonics. I also notice that you do not call these "marine terraces," but just "terraces." Why is that? Do you really think the only way to get high terraces is by a global flood? Really, this is not evidence, wmscott. I hope this isn't what you had promised us as evidence.

quote:

---

Uplifted Erratics above 1000 ft are found in a number of places around the world, Great Britain 2200 ft, New Hampshire 6000 ft, Alberta Rockies 4260 ft, and Wyoming 6750 ft. "Neglected Geological Anomalies" William R. Corliss, pages 222-6.

---

Great! Glacial erratics in the Wind Rivers! That's what I call evidence for a global flood! Not yet, wmscott. Not even close, as far as evidence goes.

wmscott writes:

---

Yes the effects seen and looked for in glacial bulging are fairly small, but they are real and do happen. The depression of an ocean floor could cause a rise in nearby land, the question is how much it would rise and how long would it take. If there was a sudden depression of ocean floor, there would be a sudden rise in the land, the displacement has to go somewhere. We can argue about rates later, for now I will be content with having shown the effect.

---

Okay, but don't say I didn't warn you when the paper gets shot down over this. You need either references that contain the data showing the effect on this scale, or you need to supply the data yourself (which would be landmark, deserving of a paper all by itself). Absent either one it's a major hole, and you'd be best advised not to mention this.

---

In the ice age the temperature was lower which lowered the snow line and the extent to which glaciers could grow down the sides of mountains and from cold regions into somewhat warmer ones.

---

Glaciers do not typically form on the sides of mountains. While conditions can be such as to cause a glacier to form anywhere, they typically form in high mountain valleys and flow toward lower elevations from there. Only when the rate of ice accumulation consistently exceeds the flow rate even at higher elevations do they grow over mountain peaks.

---

Many areas that were once thought to be ice free are now being recognized as having been glaicated.

---

Then you need references for this.

---

As you point out, there may have been some high elevations in areas so dry that any snow that fell sublimed away long before it could create glaciers. If it can be proved that such high dry spots were NEVER glaciated, and shown that they were at a high elevation at the time, then they could be a problem.

---

You'll need to argue this the other way around in the paper. Normally one wouldn't conclude glaciation without evidence. This is key. Saying that a mountain was glaciated unless it can be proven it wasn't will kill your paper.About carbon flushing, you're going to get killed here without references indicating the effect. Obviously if dating labs aren't aware of these effects then you should be very cautious. I suggest you forget the whale bones.--Percy

edgeWhat is your position as a geologist on glacial bulging?You didn't really address the evidence, you merely brushed it aside and ignored it. Your rational for dismissing it was also very flawed. On "terraces above a lake", of course they are above the lake, otherwise they would be underwater! And if you raise the level of that lake to that elevation (6093 ft ) it would flood most of the world since the lake drains into the ocean. On raised terraces you replied " you write this as thought you've never heard of plate tectonics." The areas cited are not believed to have subject to significant tectonic uplift in recent geological history. The reason I referred to these terraces as just terraces, and not as marine terraces is because they have not been positively identified as such, and for some of them there may be a none deluge answer that fit their creation. But considering their locations and common elevations, a common global source seems to be a reasonable explanation for most if not all of them. The Glacial erratics cited are unusual in their being found at higher elevations then their sources which are a considerable distance away. For these rocks to have reached their destinations requires ether a much thicker ice sheet with much greater powers of uplift, or the rocks were uplifted by rafting. And much of the evidence I cited you didn't even address. You asked for evidence, but when I provide it, you are unable to handle it. If you really wish to show me the errors of my ways, you should be dissecting this evidence piece by piece, showing me how it all could have been created without a global flood. But instead you didn't even ask for a single reference. Since I know you are capable of much more, I believe you have gone into summer mode and shifted your mind into neutral until fall. OK, but once summer vacation is over and you put your mind back in gear, maybe you can properly address the evidence presented.

PercipientYou are correct on all points of course. Writing a paper is very different than posting and requires a different approach, one in which everything is nailed down very tight and backed up by dozens of solid references. Where as posting is more like a conversation.Getting the information I need on Mina mounds is going to take awhile, state budget problems have the inter library loan program all jammed up for the moment. So it is going to take me a while to put anything together, and I think I am falling under summer's spell as well. the weather is just too nice and I have other demands on my time, like getting back to doing research.

wmscott writes:

---

You are correct on all points of course. Writing a paper is very different than posting and requires a different approach, one in which everything is nailed down very tight and backed up by dozens of solid references. Where as posting is more like a conversation.

---

Uh, why should anyone be more likely to accept something scientifically improbable during a conversation? Is that why you kept expecting us to be persuaded, you figured we shouldn't be picky about the science because this is just a message board?This message board is about science, and I think most us are applying strict scientific standards to the extent we're able in every exchange. From a scientific standpoint your proposals are obviously Biblically, not evidentially, based, as are your interpretations of the data. In fact, your interpretations are way off the deep end. Evidence of large glacial flows to you becomes evidence of a global flood. Unexplained phenomena only make sense to you in terms of a global flood. Any contradicting evidence (dating comes to mind) must be erroneous.Your most frequent error is extreme over-generalization. If subsidence can cause small amounts of reciprocal uplift, then the effect can be multiplied by a few orders of magnitude and applied everywhere. If dropstones occur in the driftless area then dropstones must occur everywhere. If dating errors have occurred, then dating errors must occur everywhere.And your biggest error is thinking that if your theory requires something to have happened then it must have happened, like comets being responsible for the Carolina Bays.

---

Getting the information I need on Mina mounds is going to take awhile, state budget problems have the inter library loan program all jammed up for the moment. So it is going to take me a while to put anything together, and I think I am falling under summer's spell as well. the weather is just too nice and I have other demands on my time, like getting back to doing research.

---

No surprise. You'd be well advised to give up on the paper submission idea. I know no one has been able to persuade you that your views are unscientific, and the persistence and ingenuity you bring to the discussion are admirable, but the measure of validity of your ideas is their power to persuade others. You haven't convinced anyone here that there is any non-Biblical support or evidence for your ideas, and you seem to realize that the standards of a journal would be higher. Though I think you're wrong about this - I think the standards here are much the same, primarily a requirement for evidence rationally and coherently interpreted in a way consistent with already established theories and principles.I'd love to see you and Tranquility Base have a discussion because you both advocate so calmly and rationally for the most outlandish ideas. He could press you on his proposals for paleocurrents laying down countless geologic layers in a month's time combined with God's manipulation of natural laws to cause the appearance of great age, while you could counter with massive sub-glacial melts and cometary fusillades. It would make great theater.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
What is your position as a geologist on glacial bulging?

---

I'm not sure. What do you mean regarding my "position"? It is a natural phenomenon. It exists. You have simply misapplied the concept of glacial bulging.

quote:

---

You didn't really address the evidence, you merely brushed it aside and ignored it. Your rational for dismissing it was also very flawed. On "terraces above a lake", of course they are above the lake, otherwise they would be underwater!

---

I think you are confused. I was talking about terraces above a lake which was once deeper, as opposed to terraces left by a global flood. If we have a lake at an elevation of 5000 feet and there are terraces above it, why conclude that they were left by a global flood?

quote:

---

And if you raise the level of that lake to that elevation (6093 ft ) it would flood most of the world since the lake drains into the ocean.

---

This is utterly silly. I was at a lake last week that had an elevation of over 9000 feet and it drained into a creek. I didn't notice a flood in the parking lot below...

quote:

---

On raised terraces you replied " you write this as thought you've never heard of plate tectonics." The areas cited are not believed to have subject to significant tectonic uplift in recent geological history.

---

Nonsense. Are you saying that the terraces Darwin noted on the west coast of South America are not in a tectonically active area?

quote:

---

The reason I referred to these terraces as just terraces, and not as marine terraces is because they have not been positively identified as such, and for some of them there may be a none deluge answer that fit their creation.

---

And let me guess: most of those that have not been positively identified are at higher elevations.

quote:

---

But considering their locations and common elevations, a common global source seems to be a reasonable explanation for most if not all of them.

---

So, if I have terraces above a documented paleo-lake such as Lake Missoula, you would infer that they were caused by a global flood?

quote:

---

The Glacial erratics cited are unusual in their being found at higher elevations then their sources which are a considerable distance away.

---

Please document. I cannot address this issue withoug knowing specifics. However, I have no problem with erratics at higher elevations than their source. This is because I know that ice can flow up gradient and that tectonics may have shifted the relative positions of the source and present occurrence. I also do not necessarily accept that the source is always known.

quote:

---

For these rocks to have reached their destinations requires ether a much thicker ice sheet with much greater powers of uplift, or the rocks were uplifted by rafting. And much of the evidence I cited you didn't even address.

---

Most of you evidence is either not evidence or has nothing to do with being evidence for a global flood. Whale bones at an elevation of 400 feet is not evidence of a global flood.

quote:

---

You asked for evidence, but when I provide it, you are unable to handle it. If you really wish to show me the errors of my ways, you should be dissecting this evidence piece by piece, showing me how it all could have been created without a global flood.

---

I have done this. Lake terraces, for instance. Wind-born forams for another. Manuported whale bones for another.

quote:

---

But instead you didn't even ask for a single reference.

---

It doesnt' matter if your point does not necessitate a global flood.

quote:

---

Since I know you are capable of much more, I believe you have gone into summer mode and shifted your mind into neutral until fall. OK, but once summer vacation is over and you put your mind back in gear, maybe you can properly address the evidence presented.

---

I seriously doubt that you can evaluate may state of mind. I suggest that this is just another indication of your ability to know all and see all.

edgeedge-"It is a natural phenomenon. It exists." OK, I gather you accept Glacial Bulging. Now, if you understand the mechanism behind it, do you understand that the size of the bulge is proportional to the cause. That the larger the glacier, the bigger the bulge? Do you also see that the depression of any large area under a load could create a similar effect?"terraces above a lake" edge-"if I have terraces above a documented paleo-lake such as Lake Missoula, you would infer that they were caused by a global flood?" Now that would depend on how high above the lake they were and if the surrounding terrain could have locally contained the resulting lake.edge-"Are you saying that the terraces Darwin noted on the west coast of South America are not in a tectonically active area?" Those terraces were not cited in the listing I posted.edge-"I also do not necessarily accept that the source is always known." Best part of your whole post. But if we were to discuss this it would need to be on a case by case basis.edge-"Whale bones at an elevation of 400 feet is not evidence of a global flood" 670 ftedge- "I have done this." Hardly. You have made assertions, but you have failed to substantiate them with references that provide evidence which supports your position. This out cropping or that formation, etc., etc.edge-"this is just another indication of your ability to know all and see all." You flatter me, but I think you have me confused with someone else. (LOL)

PercipientActually I am intrigued by your thought that I should debate Tranquility Base. I have been tempted myself a few times when I have looked at his posts. But I do not wish to destroy his belief system and I respect his motivation even if his science is dead wrong. Having some things in common puts me in a position of knowing where he is vulnerable. But instead of attacking his position in a debate setting I would rather offer him a better position from which to do what he is trying so hard to do, I would suggest that he read my book and consider my flood theory as an alternative since it is scriptural compatible, which would be his main concern. But I doubt he could let go of YEC which is in conflict with scripture anyway. I know you think we are both wrong, but I think you will agree that at least my theory comes much closer to being acceptable than his position. With his, the basic theory is physically impossible, where as with mine, it is a matter of whether or not it actually happened.In referring to the posting here as more of a conversation, I was referring to the quality of all the posts, not just mine. In fact, I seem to be the one doing more of the leg work. Many here seem to sit on their orthodox position like a throne and just snipe snipe snipe.It will be sometime before I can write on Mina Mounds, so in the mean while I will do a brief test paper on a 'reinvent the wheel' type subject. Sort of a test paper like what you might ask a student to write. You can play professor and go over it and let me know where it needs work and suggest improvements."The Non Expansion of Ice"Wm. Scott AndersonAbstractOne of biggest misconceptions people have about water ice is that it expands. As shown in this paper and experiments; water expands as crystallization occurs, not after. Ice is the already expanded form and doesn't expand or shrink aside from normal thermal expansion and contraction.Introduction.Ice floats due to its having a lighter density of 0.917 than water at 1.0, this lighter density is due to ice's crystal structure occupying more space than water in it's polymeric or liquid state. The lighter density of ice is due to it simply taking up more space than an equal weight of water would. This has led to the popular myth that ice expands as the mechanism behind the bursting of frozen water pipes. A detailed examination of a number of frost damaged water pipes revealed a common pattern of rupture.In all cases the pipe had burst due to high internal water pressure, not ice expansion. The rupture was in the form of blister or swelling, which is particularly pronounced in copper pipe. (pretend I have few pictures of pipe blisters here)
In the larger blusters the cross section of the pipe is more than doubled, which is far above the percent expansion of water into ice. If a ice crystal had formed in the center of the blister, lateral growth would have stopped once the ice had come into contact with the pipe walls.The way these blisters have formed is that the water pipe froze at two different places with water trapped in-between. Then as the entire pipe frozen, the ice grew towards each other. With the ice taking up more space than the water, and water is basically incompressible, enormous pressures are generated.. The pipe begins to swell and stretch until it splits. The high water pressure effect turns up as the root cause in all forms of frost breaks, a fitting blows off, closed values leak and form icicles, pressure vessels rupture.Glass unlike copper pipe, has very little stretch in it, so stories abound about ice breaking glass. The most common story is of forgotten soda bottles left to chill in the freezer. The interesting part is that it is the bottom of the glass bottle that breaks. If expanding ice was the cause, the bottles would be split from the top down as the ice formed. Rather it is the hydraulic pressure of the water trapped beneath the ice that blows the bottom out. The soda freezes first in the neck and then ice grows thicker like the ice on a lake with the ice reaching down the cold sides of the bottle. The ice has some tensile strength which results in the area at the bottom of the bottle with little or no ice reinforcement, being the weakest spot once enough ice has formed to raise the internal pressure high enough to break the glass.In theory if a compressible material was present at the bottom of the soda bottle, it would compress under the pressure and prevent it from rising high enough to break the bottle. In his youth the author conducted a series of experiments with glass bottles that demonstrated this effect. (pretend there is a picture of a glass narrow mounted canning jar frozen solid) Glass canning jars were fitted with a 2 by 2 inch square of Styrofoam glued to the bottom of the jars. The jars were filled with cold water and put outside in zero degree (f) weather in a Wisconsin winter to freeze.The pattern of freezing was a from the top down with ice forming first on the water surface and then extending down the inside of the jars sides. The last part to freeze was the space just above the Styrofoam. Instead of the bottom blowing out, the foam compressed under the hydraulic pressure of the trapped water.
(pretend I have some pictures here of glass bottles filled with ice.)In some of the close up pictures the pattern of freezing is clearly visible. The mechanism of water crystallization is along the wet side of the ice, as each water molecule docks into it's place in the forming ice crystal. Since ice is less dense than water, the expansion takes place as each molecule joins the crystal and takes up a little more space than it did a moment before. The pressure resulting from this expansion is located where it occurs, on the wet side of the ice where the crystallization is happening. Due to this, the ice doesn't expand, it is the end product of crystallization. As a result ice is stable and if an outlet is available for the volume increase due to crystal expansion beneath ice, any water filled cavity can be frozen without damage to the container.ConclusionsOnce the way water freezes is understood, it solves many minor mysteries such as how in ground swimming pools survive the winter in cold climates. The pressure beneath the ice results in minor upward movement in the ice, not in the sidewise expansion that many fear would crack their pool. It is due to this unfounded fear that people sometimes put logs in their pools and accounts for the sale of numerous winter pool floats. As long as the ice is free to move upward, pools in cold climates are in no danger of freezing damage. This is why an excellent design for in ground pools in such areas, would have walls tipped slightly outward which would allow free upward movement of the winter ice. Bad designs would have an inward tilt or rims or lips that would block ice movement and result in high water pressures beneath the ice. In theory such a problem design could be corrected by a drain line located beneath the frost line with a overflow relief that would release the pressure.In geological settings of spalling and frost heaving, this results in slightly different effects then what many expect. In the case of 'ice wedging', the ice is just the cap that holes the water pressure in. The expansive force opening the crack is not the ice in the top of the opening, but the trapped water lower down in the opening which can act through pores at a distance away from icing. In the case of frost heaving, the frozen ground traps the top layer of the unfrozen groundwater beneath it. As freezing extends downward, the trapped water below is put under increased pressure, but is held in check by the weight of material above it. This results in an even lifting of the ground surface under ideal conditions. If frost layer has a thin weak spot, more water will rise in that area, the movement of water and soil results in a mud jacking effect more commonly call frost heaving. Dark surfaces with a higher absorption of solar heat such as roadways, are prone to this effect, which is why it is so important to have a well drained road bed, well above the local water table to reduce this effect. This highlights the reason for the need of drain tiles at the base of basement foundations, to allow the water trapped beneath the frost layer to drain away, rather than to apply hydraulic pressure against the wall which could collapse it into the basement space. This illustrates the existence of a pressurized water/soil mixture beneath the ground frost layer that can be prone to movement, resulting in soil profiles in cold climates showing fluidic flow effects such as is seen in the tundra.Even something as simple as freezing water can have very different effects than what we may expect, if we haven't taken the time to really understand how it happens. Even the simplest mysteries can have unexpected large effects.ReferencesIce and Ice Formations: Structure and properties of ice, Britannica 1999 CD.Yes I know I should be referring to various papers here, but I have had difficulty locating and reading the appropriate papers. I use Ingenta and the local university library, but perhaps you could make some suggests on better ways of locating relevant papers. Ingenta for example seems to have listing of less than 5% of what is out there, and their fees are prohibitive and they don't have an individual subscription rate. ( If I had the money I would get the library subscription, I think I have enough books to qualify. LOL)

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
edge-"It is a natural phenomenon. It exists." OK, I gather you accept Glacial Bulging. Now, if you understand the mechanism behind it, do you understand that the size of the bulge is proportional to the cause. That the larger the glacier, the bigger the bulge? Do you also see that the depression of any large area under a load could create a similar effect?

---

And just what has this to do with a global flood that was so brief that it left no traces?

quote:

---

"terraces above a lake" edge-"if I have terraces above a documented paleo-lake such as Lake Missoula, you would infer that they were caused by a global flood?" Now that would depend on how high above the lake they were and if the surrounding terrain could have locally contained the resulting lake.

---

As far as I can see you have not addressed this issue. It is important if it is to be evidence.

quote:

---

edge-"Are you saying that the terraces Darwin noted on the west coast of South America are not in a tectonically active area?" Those terraces were not cited in the listing I posted.

---

You have mentioned them before as evidence of your mechanism.

quote:

---

edge-"I also do not necessarily accept that the source is always known." Best part of your whole post. But if we were to discuss this it would need to be on a case by case basis.

---

Well give us some. With documentation, please.

quote:

---

edge-"Whale bones at an elevation of 400 feet is not evidence of a global flood" 670 ft

---

Same.

quote:

---

edge- "I have done this." Hardly. You have made assertions, but you have failed to substantiate them with references that provide evidence which supports your position. This out cropping or that formation, etc., etc.

---

No, I have shown why your points are not evidence of a flood. We do not have a single piece of data suggesting a flood of the magnitude that you suggest.

quote:

---

edge-"this is just another indication of your ability to know all and see all." You flatter me, but I think you have me confused with someone else. (LOL)

---

Actually, you flattered yourself.

wmscott writes:

---

But I do not wish to destroy his belief system and I respect his motivation even if his science is dead wrong.

---

About the science, he could as easily say the same of you, and I say it of you both.

---

But I doubt he could let go of YEC which is in conflict with scripture anyway.

---

He looks at scripture and concludes the world is young, you look at scripture and conclude the world is old. You both need to look to evidence from the real world instead of to ancient religious books.

---

I know you think we are both wrong, but I think you will agree that at least my theory comes much closer to being acceptable than his position. With his, the basic theory is physically impossible, where as with mine, it is a matter of whether or not it actually happened.

---

Both your theories are equally implausible, and I see nothing to recommend either one. While they differ in the details, they are nearly identical in their lack of any practical ties to the real world.

---

In fact, I seem to be the one doing more of the leg work. Many here seem to sit on their orthodox position like a throne and just snipe snipe snipe.

---

You consider pointing out your lack of evidence as mere sniping? Until you accept the need for a pertinent and persuasive chain of evidence, you're going nowhere. You're proposing a theory of a global flood that left no evidence. No evidence. No evidence. No evidence. How many times do we have to explain there is no scientific basis for your theory? No evidence.Now I know you think you have a ton of evidence, that how could there be over 300 messages if there were no evidence. But reply after reply after reply is telling you that the evidence you're presenting does not lead to the conclusions you're drawing.No one can say why the evidence speaks to you the way it does, but the same evidence speaks to TB in another way, and to Walt Brown in yet another way, and to Michael Behe in yet still another way, and to Henry Morris, God rest his soul, in yet still another way. What you all have in common is the complicated dance you must perform in order to justify yourself to yourself. This dance must be for yourself, because no one in science is buying your dance, or TB's dance, or Walt Brown's dance, and so on and on. The mere fact that looking to scripture for scientific answers yields such a confusion of viewpoints is sufficient to indicate the poverty of the approach to anyone, even the participants, but for some strange reason likely having to do with human nature and the nature of belief, it is least obvious to those caught up in its throes.I urge both you and TB to follow the evidence. If there was truly a flood some thousands of years ago then the evidence will tell us so.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-30-2002]

wmscottI have had quick reads of your posts and, in the interest of time, I have not had a careful read. I plan to however. For now, can you give a succinct paragraph or two on your position (see my succint paragrph on YEC flood geology in my new education thread for an example).What exactly is impossible in the YEC flood stance?

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2002]

edgeI asked: Do you also see that the depression of any large area under a load could create a similar effect?edge-"And just what has this to do with a global flood that was so brief that it left no traces?"The transference of the weigh of water to ocean basins would result in their being depressed would in turn result in uplift in the surrounding area. This effect accounts for part of change in relative elevations after the deluge. And the flood 'left no traces' only in comparison to YEC flood models, otherwise we would have no evidence over which to debate.On highly elevated terraces-edge-"As far as I can see you have not addressed this issue. It is important if it is to be evidence."According to my source, none of the cited terraces are from local lakes, the surrounding terrain is too low to have retained a lake to a high enough elevation to have formed the terraces.On highly elevated erratics far from and/or above their source- Edge-"Well give us some. With documentation, please."Boulders of gray geiss on the summit of Mount Washington, New Hampshire, elevation over 6000 ft. Nearest possible source is several miles to northwest and at 3000 to 4000 ft lower elevation. Rehwinkel, Alfred M. "the Glacial Theory and the Flood," The Flood, Saint Louis, 1951, p. 298. Also cited by Flint, Richard Foster; "Glacial erosion and Transport," Glacial and Quaternary Geology, New York, 1971, P. 111. ( this source has a table of glacial erratics that are elevated above their sources.) Rather than referring to a number of different references, for the moment let's start with the table in this one reference which probably contains many of the same examples referred to by others, and will be easier for you to check up on.