|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When the flood waters receded, where did they go ? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Well... yes. It isn't a good starting point. That is a large part of the problem. A good starting point would not require radically modifying, or outright ditching, the major theories of all the relevant sciences.
quote: Interesting. It seems to me that the logical starting point for an analysis is an investigation of the premises-- the gross issues, as you say. This is not OK?
quote: You could always demonstrate the validity of your starting point.
quote: Do you want me to list objections? ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Ok. This is where the details start to be important. What mechanisms drive these rapid techtonic processes? Or, first off, what evidence is there that the process was rapid rather than sluggish?
quote: How are the marine and freshwater floods seperated? In other words, over the time frame, why aren't the fresh and salt waters mixed even if just by the rapid switching of one to the other? How do you account for the order of fossils in the sediments? And assuming Noah is afloat on this surging ocean, what keeps him from smashing into the ground between these surges? Or pounding his brains out against the hull of the ark as it rushes back and forth in the sea? The forces generated in such an ocean could easily sink anything mere mortals could build.
[QUOTE][b]The continetnal drift also occurred during this time and the associated sea-floor spreading would have caused the sea-level changes.[/QUOTE] [/b] Again, what drives this rapid continental drift?
quote: Mechanism? It seems to me that to accomplish what you propose you would have to postulate the release of energy comparable to an asteroid the size of the moon crashing into the Earth. The effects would be catastrophic in the extreme, resulting in far more than a year long flood. We'd still be in the midst of the chaos ( in spirit anyway, because the flesh wouldn't have made it) I can guess at some of your responses based upon your past posts in other threads, but humor me. Take care. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]The basic evidence of tectonics does not particularly argue for rapid or slow. [/QUOTE] [/b] It seems to me that it does. The mechanisms of plate techtonics are moving massive lumps of rock around the planet. Accelerate them quickly, as you would have to do, and those big lumps will be pulverized. We do not observe this. Once you get them moving you have to stop them. More pulverizing. Try putting the brakes on a few zillion tons. Essentially, any pre-flood sediments would be scrambled. This is bad for the hypothesis. Then there is the temperature of the semi-liquid mantle upon which the continents float. Heating that rock to a temperature high enough for the continents to move across it/through it at these accellerated rates would perhaps heat it to a high enough temperature that the continents would sink into it and disappear. If I am not mistaken, the continents float on the mantle because of density differences. Increase the heat of the mantle, decrease the density. Also, increase the heat, melt the continents. Then there is the problem of cooling it all down.
quote: Am I mistaken in thinking that accelerated radio-decay is otherwise known as a thermonuclear explosion? I imagine that you have studied Joe Meert's web-page concerning the effects of accelerated radio-decay. It isn't pretty.
quote: No it isn't. I am not the first to point out that there are full grown forests represented in the sediments between your flood surges.
quote: If you are postulating that this vulcanism corresponds to the flood, where is the lava now? A few thousand years is not enough to erode it away and/or cover it with what 30 feet to a few hundred feet of sediment? And what about the air quality?
quote: The sheer volume of the ocean should wash out the freshwater contributions, yes? And shouldn't you see a global band of salty sediment?
[QUOTE][b](The 40 days of rain were also tectonically hgerneated - condensed steam from vast trenches of hot magma).[/QUOTE] [/b] Again you have an atmospheric temperature problem.
quote: A question about surging? When the ocean surges onto land and then retreats, where does it go until the next surge?
[QUOTE][b]The order of fossils we put down to biogeography, differential mobility and hydrodynamic sorting.[/QUOTE] [/b] But the fossil records don't support this. I have seen this debated before on hte forums and I am unconviced.
[QUOTE][b]The ark was big.[/QUOTE] [/b] Not that big. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]How can you say so confidently that 'The mechanisms of plate tectonics are moving massive lumps of rock around the planet. Accelerate them quickly, as you would have to do, and those big lumps will be pulverized. We do not observe this.' In our scenario we are probably talking about a much hotter, and therefore less viscous, mantle as well as perhaps a more pliable crust.
[/QUOTE] [/b] Still, you have to accelerate huge masses of rock. I didn't intend any hubris in making the comments I did. It seems pretty obvious to me, but let me try again. A continental mass is, well, a very big mass and prior the flood (correct me if this isn't what you postulate) if would have been more or less at rest. It would take a tremendous amount of energy to get this mass moving and then to accelerate it to speeds enough to get the continents into their current positions from thier pre-flood positions. You mentioned pangea. I'm not sure if you meant this to be your start. Assuming we have the energy and apply it to the continents, I postulate that the forces generated would be greater than the forces that hold the rock together. Every rock, or composite of rock, has a breaking point. I don't have the background to calculate what those forces would be exactly. Nonetheless, I think it is a problem worth considering.
quote: No, I do not believe this, but I do believe the origins of most rock can be deduced.
quote: How do you cool a superheated planetary mantle in a matter of months? That energy has to go somewhere-- into the atmosphere? Then you superheat the atmosphere. Very bad for living organisms. Back into the mantle? Not quick enough? Into the continental crust? Serious melting issues.
quote: So I can't comment on your model? Seems to be the gist of this paragraph. Yeah, I fitted the data. So did you. Is there something irrational about what I've said that would lead you to dismiss it?
[QUOTE][b]And the continents did sink! It is known by mainstream science that vast areas of continents sank at the same time[/QUOTE] [/b] This is confusing as mainstream science doesn't have a 'same time as when the flood occurred'
[QUOTE][b]Without performing any detailed calculations passive cooling may have been sufficient.[/QUOTE] [/b] This I doubt seriously, but the burden is on you to do the calculations.
[QUOTE][b]What do you mean by 'accelerated radio-decay is otherwise known as a thermonuclear explosion'.[/QUOTE] [/b] Well, this was mostly a joke. Note the smiley face.
[QUOTE][b]The decay constants are linked to parameters that are known to be changing at the ppm level.[/QUOTE] [/b] It took me fifteen seconds to find an article stating that evidence suggests that the constants have changed at most 1 percent over the lifetime of the universe.
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/constant_evidence.html quote: Ok. What changes? What combinations? What experimental evidence have you?
quote: Do you have mainstream links to support this?
quote: But are you not depending upon massive volcanism? Volcanism and bad air go hand in hand.
[QUOTE][b]If catastrophic rains deposit a 100o feet of non-marine sediments from the highlands into a basin in between marine surges then why would a marine surge wash it all away?[/QUOTE] [/b] I didn't mean wash away, more like mix. Have you actually calculated how much water you are talking about? There is a limit to how much can be suspended in the air. A thousand feet of sediment? You are washing whole mountains away in a matter days or weeks.
quote: You've missed the point I made of all the sediments mixing due to the incredible forces involved in the flood.
quote: Back to moving masses chunks of continent very rapidly. Once you clear that up, I'll consider this.
quote: Timeframe is critical. It isn't the same model if you change the timeframe from one year to 500 million.
quote: If you can model this, I'll consider it.
[QUOTE][b]Since this is a such a different paradigm your statements primarily amount to 'I don't think it would work'.[/QUOTE] [/b] Please, TB. What I've said is far beyond 'I don't think it would work.'
quote: Just a thought really, not exactly an arguement. I had a flash of being in a boat on those chaotic seas. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yes. squashed pounded twisted crushed powdered broken warped mashed
quote: and like the big bang, it should leave a trail
quote: ummmm..... mass times (velocity squared)
quote: No, TC. I meant mud. I believe this was a comment on the layering of sediments.
quote: This is not a weird as you seem to think. If the mantle were hot enough this is exactly what would happen. Of course, no one has yet to risk giving an actual postulated temperature for the mantle during this time.
quote: Correct. That and some research. I hate being wrong-- makes me look things up.
quote: Interesting, but that doesn't seem the mesh with this very well. Also reference this link for the continental crust melting argument above.
[QUOTE][b] Your statement, 'Increase the heat of the mantle, decrease the density', it just isn't that simple. Chemical differentiation gave the forming continental crust buoyancy (see: principal of isostacy).[quote][b] Yes, I realize this. Still you do decrease density as the temperature goes up. The bouyancy is partially dependent upon temperature. Is this a problem? Could be. This has to be taken into account.
[quote][b]"Then there is the problem of cooling it all down.--To be honest, when I make assertions of this likeness, I get picked at for details. ie, the mathematics.[/QUOTE] [/b] I am not making the iconoclastic claims.
[QUOTE][b]"I imagine that you have studied Joe Meert's web-page concerning the effects of accelerated radio-decay. It isn't pretty."--That would be a good idea. Do you fully understand the theoretical geodynamic applications in his reasoning? --You just can't have the mind-set that I 'just know enough to know it is a problem', thats where Hovind messed up.[/QUOTE] [/b] ad hominem thanks... If I said I do fully understand it, I'd be lying. It doesn't matter if I fully understand it. What matters is that it is a problem for this theory.
quote: Sounds like a formula for acid rain.
quote: .... from the problem of having alternating fresh and salt water deposits in rapid succession.
quote: hmmm...... This was a response to the idea that the mantle convected its extra heat into the atmosphere as it cooled. So, the mantle is very hot and very large-- orders of magnitude larger than the atmosphere. It stands to reason that the atmosphere under this scenario would have to absorb a lot of heat. Ergo, the it gets really really hot.
quote: Am I right in thinking that there is never a 100% global flood? Seems like we always have a bit of dry land somewhere. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I think you are missing or avoiding the point I am trying to make. Perhaps this is due to my highly technical language. I don't see the continents remaining intact under these stresses. It seems they would have been destroyed. Is this an argument from incredulity? Well, sort-of. But it is less of an argument than it is a challenge. Explain to me why this would not happen. I also don't see the oceanic crusts sinking quietly into the deep. Shouldn't this crust buckle and break from the movements? Pile up in some areas and rip open in others? Do we have any oceanic crust mountains?
quote: How about filling in some details? I am guessing at most of your logic.
quote: The article primarily concerns the formation of the Earth's crust. Seems to have not been so simplistic as you implied. Perhaps you were talking down to me. If you notice, in the early days of the planet the crust was unstable as the TEMPERATURE WAS TOO HIGH. Recall: the crust wouldn't melt. The crust solidified later, as things cooled. Recall: the crust floats because it solidified when the mantle was very hot.
quote: You think creationism and flood geology isn't iconoclastic?
quote: Oh come on, TC. Do you fully understand anything? Your best subject, do you fully understand it? If someone asked me this question, I'd say no. There is no other answer. Hiding behind your assessment of another's understanding is an ad hominem tactic. The person doesn't matter. The argument does. If I don't know what I'm talking about, it should be easy enough to demonstrate that.
quote: So doesn't this have negative effects on the ecology and hence on the flood survivors (who, I suppose would pretty much be the ecology)
quote: This perhaps stems from a difficulty understanding, or misunderstandign of how this flood model works. We have the oceans surging inland and then receeding. Then surging. It is raining all the while. While the ocean has receeded, this rain results in freshwater deposits of sediment. The problem I see is that the surges and the freshwater deposits will have to be so close together in time that they should be practically indistinguishable--- blurred.
quote: Ok, but much of this model creates conditions that would trap heat in the atmosphere-- volcanic dust, large amounts of water vapor.... ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I had this thought too actually. It does make the flood scenario easier to swallow, but also makes it substantially less Biblical. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: All of which are well explained by the formulas of plate tectonics using values for plate speed that are a fraction of the speeds necessary in your theory. Insert larger values and you should get different results.
quote: Again, all explained by formulas using much smaller values for speed.
quote: Sure it would. This is called momentum, and a mass this size would have a lot of momentum. First, you haven't how the mantle could cool quickly. If you could cool it quickly, the friction you speak of would be where the continental crust touches the mantle. The lower bits would slow, the upper bits would slow more slowly. You should sheer the continents in half, among other effects.
[QUOTE][b]Right, the 'forming crust' would not melt. So there is no contradiction here.[/QUOTE] [/b] The point is that the forming crust did melt, several times. Remember that you are proposing that the mantle temperature goes up. If it goes up high enough, the plates would melt just like in the early Earth. Do you propose that the temperature goes up this high? I don't know. You haven't given me a mantle temperature.
quote: This is a quote:
quote: Maybe you can understand how I could make this mistake?
quote: I didn't mean that the sediments rain down, but that rainwater is the source of the freshwater that deposits the sediment- presumably washed off of the highlands.
quote: So they are attributed as eolian?
quote: As they would be if the sediments were airborne? There seems to be a contradiction here. Care to clear that up?
quote: How many surges are you postulating?
quote: Do you mean that the particles of dust seeded clouds and protected Earth? ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024