Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

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?

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?

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
I 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.

---

The depression would not be as much as you suggest. I have asked before about equilibrating the continental and oceanic columns by moving water from one to the other. How much mantle material do you displace from the ocean column to the continental column for a kilometer of water? Think about it. This is a simple displacement problem. It isn't very much.

quote:

---

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.

---

Examples, please. 'My source' is hardly something that I can verify. And, by the way, have you heard of tectonics? There are ways of raising terraces other than by lowering of water levels.

quote:

---

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.

---

First of all, let it be known that I have no problem at all with glacial erratics being found higher than their source, so this is not really evidence for a global flood to me. Only in alpine glaciation would this be exceedingly rare. However, I will try to check out your reference.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 07-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Since water has about one third the density of rock, if it was a simple displacement problem, the answer would be about one third of a kilometer. The land was also the source of the water that ran into the sea which would also double the shift to two thirds of a kilometer in your question. That would leave only about one third of the uplift unaccounted for. (the rock being underwater and displacing one third of it's weight in water, may also have accounted for part of the uplift.) But it isn't a simple displacement problem, it is more of a hydraulic problem due to the inside of the earth being a closed system. Small local shifts are just displacement due to their small size compared to the size of the earth. But considering the fact that the oceans cover nearly three quarters of the earth, shifts of this size will have big effects on the small amount of land on the earth. I have also been stating that there are two difference mechanisms involved, the shallow one would account for the part you are already aware of. The deeper one related to the closed volume of the earth acting with a hydraulic effect would account for the other. The shallow plastic deformation of the earth's surface is well studied. But the deeper fluid deformation is not as well studied but has been noted by a number of geologists. Perhaps you remember reading about plastic verus fluid changes in some of the old geology books. On a large scale the earth can behave like squeezing a water filled rubber ball.

---

Actually, the average specific gravity of the mantle is 3.8. And since the land was the source of the water you would be spreading the water out over more of the ocean basins so there would actually be less water added per square kilometer of the ocean. You would also get some rebound of the land by removal of the ice, so that you need to make that difference up as well. Remember, your deeper effect (which remains undocumented, by the way and I do not accept it) has to uplift the land as well. Sorry, wmscott, it doesn't work.By the way, I am still asking for evidence that the entire world was covered by water at one time. All these months and you have really given us nothing on this.

quote:

---

"Examples, please. 'My source' is hardly something that I can verify. And, by the way, have you heard of tectonics? There are ways of raising terraces other than by lowering of water levels"

​

The source was cited in the first posting on this. If you want the individual papers the original material appeared in, let me know which ones you want and I will post them or you can look it up in the book I cited yourself. Tectonics explanations were considered inadequate to explain the elevated terraces by the authors involved.

---

Well then, you need to provide us with the evidence that tectonism was an insufficient mechanism. We will not necessarily just accept your word for it. This is all really rather vague, but then I guess it has to be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
What exactly would you accept as proof that the post ice age flooding was global anyway? I have been supplying evidence that shows very high levels of flooding. You seem to be demanding Noah's ark parked on Mount Everest. What exactly do you expect to find? I would like to know just what it would take to convince you.

---

I would accept as evidence something that told us the entire world was covered by water at one time. The geological record does not support this.

quote:

---

We both agree on glacial rebound and hydro static depression as being two effects that would help raise the level of the land at the end of a global flood.

---

Actually, we don't agree on this, but it is irrelevant as evidence for a global flood.

quote:

---

I would also like to point out that due to the scale these events took place on, hydrostatically depressing most of the ocean floors on the globe will result in a compensating rise in the land, and wide spread glacial rebound will result in a lowering of other areas such as the sea floors which are thinner and more flexible.

---

The amount of depression of the sea floor is exagerrated. To depress the sea floor 1 km, you would need to add about 4 km of water. The deeper the 'flexing' occurs the more water necessary.

quote:

---

You want documentation of deep flexing? Short of a video of it happening in the flood I doubt you will believe any evidence I present.

---

The deeper the flowage, the longer it will take to manifest on the surface and the broader the area effected.

quote:

---

I think what I will do is ask you a question. Please explain the formation of the following. "On Lanai fossileferous marine limestone as much as 45 meters thick extends up 165 meters altitude containing many shell fragments and foraminifera is found as high as 167 meters, these deposit are believed to mark a former shoreline at about 170 meters altitude. . . . Kahoolawe . . . shoreline 240 meters" then there are the submerged shorelines "One of the most remarkable features of the submarine topography around the Hawaiian Islands is a broad shelf at a depth of 900 to 1,100 meters. It surrounds all of the islands except the south end of the island of Hawaii, where is may have been buried by lavas of Mauna Loa, Kilauea and Hualalai. . . . there appears to be no other reasonable explanation for it except wave erosion," "Volcanoes in the Sea; The Geology of Hawaii" 2ed, 279-281. The submerged shorelines are easily explainable, they show what is expected to be found in the Hawaii Islands. But the elevated shorelines and particularly the elevated limestones are interesting, and no I am not saying the limestones were created in the flood, it was far too brief for that.

---

So then it is not evidence for a flood. What is your point?

quote:

---

So when and how was the 170 meter shoreline formed?

---

My guess is that the island underwent a period of uplift due to intrusion of a new magma body at some time in the past. Just a guess. I am sure that you call upon some kind of rise in sea level due to glaciation, increased spreading rates, etc., and that is fine. The problem is that a rise in sea level (especially one of 240m) does not necessarily indicate a global flood. That is what I am asking you for. Something that says, 'Aha, there is no other explanation!' You have not come close yet.

quote:

---

That is my question for you, I know the answer, I want to see if you know as much about geology as you think you do. This relates directly to how changes in ocean volume can affect relative sea level changes on coasts and islands in ways we might not expect.

---

I am sure that I do not know as much as you think you know, wmscott. How about a little more information, such as the age of the deposits, their shape, etc.? Are they interflow? Geologists hate getting questions about rocks out of context. There is always something that the questioner knows but won't tell you.You keep harping upon the validity of your evidence, but that is not the point. Your evidence is fine. The point is that it is not evidence for a global flood, and it does not negate any mainstream mechanism. This is your problem, but you seem caught up in the trivia of whether a whale bone is transported or not. In this case, you have to not only prove that it was not transported, but that it is found above a significant portion of the land elevation. Then you need some corroborating, independent evidence to support your conclusions. You have unfortunately failed to do this in every response over the last year.

quote:

---

The reason the authors didn't view tectonic uplift as a explanation was some examples were in areas that have not have recent tectonic uplift, passive areas and others where the amount of elevation was far above the amount of uplift that has occurred from recent tectonic movement.

---

As to how much vertical tectonics can be expected, you have to know that most of the uplift of the Colorado Front Range has occured since the Pliocene. That's more than 5000 feet in some places.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott: [quote]e: I would accept as evidence something that told us the entire world was covered by water at one time. The geological record does not support this.

​

You didn't answer the question. What kind or type of evidence would you accept as proof of a recent global flood?

---

Actually, you just misunderstand my answer. I would accept ANY type of evidence as evidence for a global flood, so long as it met the requirment of showing that the entire world was covered by water at a single point in time. As to whether it is PROOF, I think your question tells us more about you than any answer would tell you about me.

quote:

---

No I am not going to call on a rise in sea level in this case. If you want the information I have on this deposit, check my cited source. The point here is that the Hawaiian islands are geologically recent islands with a number of shoreline lines above and below current sea level. According to Darwin's theory of reef formation, they should only have then below sea level as the island slowly sinks due cooling in the hot magma beneath it.

---

Hunh? Darwins theory of reef formation? I didn't know there was such a thing and even if there was, why would I even know it? I don't think he was very widely known as a carbonate geologist.

quote:

---

In the book I cited they theorize that perhaps the raised reef was formed during a high stand of the sea in the last inter glacial period. There are a number of problems with that idea, first the formation of the reef indicates a lengthily stable submergence.

---

And what is wrong with that?

quote:

---

Where did the extra water come from? From cores in Antarctica we know that the glaciers there did not disappear in the last inter glacial just as they haven't disappeared in our time. Where are the other reefs at this elevation we should find around the world?

---

Yes, if it were a global flood, this would be important evidence.I will try to continue tomorrow, or later. It's been too long of a day to handle this meandering line of logic.

quote:

---

wmscott: According to Darwin's theory of reef formation, ...

​

The fact that we see a number of old shore lines above and below sea level in the islands rather than just the expected progressive underwater staircase predicted,...

​

According to current geological theories, the late volcanic events on Oahu should not have happened....

---

Wmscott, I get the impression that you are just making this up to support your idea that there is some mystery behind higher sea levels along with your belief in a ancient flood myth. First, please give us a reference on Darwin's theory of reef formation and then tell us why you do not address modern theories of reef formation. You seem to have the same fixation on Darwin as the typical creationist.Then please show us where only paleo-shorelines below sea level are permitted by any model. Just because there is a general sinking of the oceanic plate and decline of the hot spot does not mean that we cannot explain why there might be other shorelines above current sea level.Then please show us what geological theory specifically forbids volcanism on Oahu. That would be like saying that geologists cannot explain recent volcanism west of the Yellowstone hotspot.

quote:

---

...This would result in the islands sinking down in the crust as the batholith beneath them spreads out, due to fact that the hot magma spreads out over a larger area, the amount of depression beneath the island is greater than buoyancy alone could account for. The islands end up sitting in a deep pocket which if we had left enough water in our ocean, would cover the islands to a higher level than the oceans do today.

---

Nonsense. The islands cannot be force upward more than what it would take for the mantle to displace the water you have removed. There would be no 'deep pocket'. You also have not explained how this is affected by 'deep flexing.'This reminds me of how geologists used to explain difficult concepts regarding origin of magmas, etc. to the laymen: "... it came from great depth..." As you can see, this really explains nothing, it just sweeps important details under the rug.But this is all just a side show. In the opening paragraph you, asked what evidence would I accept for a global flood. You then proceeded to give us a nice story, but absolutely no evidence for a global flood. Perhaps I could give you a partial answer by saying none of what you have provided so far, especially in this post is evidence for a global flood. You need to show that the entire world was submerged at one point in time, just as the bible says. You have to show a blanket of water-lain deposits of identical age, present everywhere in the world. This does not mean only at elevations below 1000 feet asl, or just in the midwestern US. It does not mean that you can explain ancient Hawaiian shorelines. All this stuff is interesting, but it is not evidence of a global, biblical type flood.

quote:

---

Originally posted by axial soliton:
Some research on the Lanai marine limestone fossil record produced 2 good summary references:
http://starbulletin.com/98/02/10/news/story5.html
http://starbulletin.com/2000/01/31/news/story3.html

​

The true experts have a decent handle on the evolution of the Hawaiian Islands and it does not support Mr. wmscott. As the Big Island has been growing in mass, the smaller and slightly older islands of Maui and Lanai have been pushed up. Teeter-tooter, they called it. Different ocean levels have also helped to produce underwater beaches. Reference 1 has a nice picture of a lake that is now under water that they want to transform into a botanical protected area. No mystery.

---

Hey, great reference. So they think that the oceanic crust has acted as a 'beam' and the older islands have been levered upward by the weight of Hawaii. Sure beats wmscott's suggestion that the islands have effectively floated up on the rising sea level.And the highest deposits are caliche, as well. Well, wouldn't you just guess that there was some missing information about these deposits that would move the whole scenario back to the mainstream interpretation. I wonder what wmscott has to say about this.Thanks for the refs. All new to me.

quote:

---

The ice covering Antarctica is ancient and has not participated in the glacial phasing. Cores at Lake Vostok amply speak to this. The Ice in Greenland is up to 11,000 feet thick and has been stable for at least 100,000 years. Unless Noah was a Neandertal, it is too old to count, too.

---

I think this bears repeating. Wmscott's sources of glacial melt-water are disappearing fast...

quote:

---

... Lets say this salt water (it had to be salt water, not fresh water else the remaining water would be worse than the Dead Sea) was stored in a glacier over Greenland, Alaska, and Northern Canada. I'll even include all of Quebec because it is French. The areas of those places is Alaska-656,425, Greenland ice sheet- 1,041,657, Northern Canada- 3,278,277 equals about 5,000,000 square miles.

---

Even more conservative numbers because large parts of Alaska were never subject to continental ice sheets during the ice age.

quote:

---

... This means the plate has been moving for about 500,000,000 years and has changed course once. ...

---

You may want to check this number. I don't think there is any oceanic crust that dates to 500 Ma.