|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,812 Year: 4,069/9,624 Month: 940/974 Week: 267/286 Day: 28/46 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Why can't that magma also raise the island, as is happening in Yellowstone(?) today? {quoteThere are a number of problems with that idea, first the formation of the reef indicates a lengthily stable submergence.][/quote] The ice in Antartica isn't the issue if, as you say it has not changed. (I didn't look it up, but it isn't relevant to my argument anyway) The massive glaciers that formed in the northern hemishere would jerk water out of the ocean causing a low, then during the interstitials as they melted, put water back, causing a sea-level high. These changes are slow enough that coral could form just fine. Now, as the glaciers have once again receeded we have a low ocean and see dead coral above sea level. You seem to go on and explain this effect yourself. quote: But the ocean water would also be pushing down on the islands themselves. I am failing to see a significant bouyant effect. I'm willing to be corrected on this, but right now I just don't see it. quote: Ignoring for a moment the comments I've just made. So you drain off some water and the reduction of pressure on the ocean floor makes the ocean floor rise. At the same time the islands sink, as they are thicker/heavier than the ocean floor. Now, aren't we talking about a change of coral reef height of a few hundred feet? Aren't we then talking about a sea level change of less than that figure driving this island sinking ocean rising behavior? A few hundred feet of ocean is insignificant in that respect. quote: Why? There are beaches in Texas with sand dunes on them. quote: I doubt that hot spots are 100% static. We don't know enough about these things to use them as you are. quote: The great weight of a few hundred feet of water added to an ocean already at 13,000 plus feet. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, you are absolutely right. oooops..... ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I think you've pegged the origins of the various flood myths. In the case of the Bible, probably the Gibralter related flood. But none of these satisfy the Biblical mythology, which is what the dabate is about. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, I got things backward when I wrote the post, but the concept is valid.
quote: 'k... fair enough.
quote: Then what is the problem with the coral being above sea level? Well, maybe your reply to edge explains this. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I've been waiting for a reply to this point. I hope I get one soon. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: quote: I don't get it. What's the problem? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Excuse me? I posed this same question in post # 349 in this thread. My 'curt comeback' was a reminder to wmscott that I never got a response, at least as of my posting the message you chastise me over. This in neither rude nor is it taking your post out of context.
quote: And your post to me is?
quote: Percy is not the one to whom you need to apologize. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: ok. Thanks. I am still not clear though. These changes are due to a change of water level of a hundred feet or so? This is not much water given the depth of the ocean, and the enormous mass of the islands involved. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: But the Hawaian islands are volcanic and are made of the same stuff as the ocean floor-- ie, lava welling up from the mantle through the crust. Yes? That being the case how does this apply?
quote: But if instead of a seesaw, you imagine a piece of plywood balanced at its center and then press down evenly on all sides as water in the ocean would do, then you don't get this seesaw effect. Or for a better example, build a plywood platform say 100' by 100' and float it on some very dense but still liquid material like tar. Build a mountian of rock about six foot tall in the center. That mountain would depress the platform. Ok. Now flood the platform with water to a height of five feet. The platform depresses a bit more. Now vary the water depth by six inches or so. There isn't going to be much change in the amount of deflection.
[quote][b] For example, the sudden flooding of the Black Sea pushed the former lake bottom down an estimated 200 feet. The weight of Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets has depressed parts of the land beneath them to levels below sealevel.[/quote] [/b] Not applicable. You have different materials involved. Dirt is more subject to compaction than volcanic rock. And you are talking about a few hundred feet, not the warping of miles thick crust. But no argument with the general concept of water weight crushing the land beneath it. I just don't understand how a relatively small volume of water can move the oceanic crusts as much as it seems it would have to do.
quote: I think that you are missing the fact that this added weight is distributed over the whole ocean floor. It isn't pushing down at one spot. In my analogy above, it is like applying weight over the entire platform. My platform would have to be a sphere filled with tar to get a better picture and the water would have to surround it and be pulled toward the center. Not easily replicated in the lab. You can't push down at one spot without conpressing the tar or haveing it just out at another spot.
[quote][/b]The effect of this is that even a seemly small increase can cause a shift in the earth's crust. We have the example of the Mississippi river delta in the Gulf of Mexico, the gradual increasing weight of this delta is slowly depressing that part of the Gulf of Mexico. When large dam reservoirs are filled, the weight of the water depresses the earth's crust a bit, bending it and causing earth quakes. Here in the case of the dam reservoir, we see that even a fairly small concentrated weight of water is enough to cause shifting in the earth's crust.[/b][/quote] But in all cases you are adding mass to a specific area, not the entire ocean. You can depress the surface of a balloon with your finger, but that isn't the same as applying preasure to the whole surface of the balloon.
quote: First off, my initial comments concerned a specific mechanism used to describe a specific feature of the Hawaian islands. Now on to the flood.
quote: Ok. Then it seems you are postulating an original pre-flood sea floor covered by 2000 feet of water? Is there evidence of beaches or coral formations around that depth?
quote: Is this not an open forum?
quote: It isn't lighter if the volume is great enough. No problem there.
quote: But the islands sit on top of that crust. Push the crust down the islands go with it. At the base of the island they are tied to the crust via a very substantial footprint. The water would be pushing DOWN on that foot as well as on the surrounding ocean floor.
quote: Resulting is volcanic eruptions perhaps? This seem more likely, as the channel for escape is already there.
quote: Ok. I am sure this is correct to a degree, but don't you think some that elevation is due to volcanos constantly adding material to the top of the islands?
quote: I looked up some ocean floor topology maps at a USGS site and I don't see these pockets. Can you point me to some maps that show these features?
quote: Due to the massive footprints of these islands, I can't see this happening. The preasure would be much too broadly distributed.
quote: But you are not squeezing a plate into mud, you are squeezing hydraulic fluid inside a hydraulic piston-- albiet this piston has leaks.
quote: Again, the maps I found do not show this. Show me maps and I will retract any effected criticisms.
quote: Ok. Small but measurable effect.
quote: The islands being much more massive would be pulled down more than the relatively thin crust (locally). I don't see how this supoorts what you are postulating. Take care. Thanks for the indepth reply. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 08-09-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by wmscott:
[B] John & edge {/b][/quote] And aren't we a cute couple too?
quote: Ok. The keywords help. Now I have a better idea of what you are talking about. I follow you right up to here:
quote: The bubble in question, is this bubble otherwise known as the hot-spot? If so, I am back to disbelief. The weight of a mile of ocean can push around hundreds of cubic miles of crust and mantle?
quote: Yes, I know, which is why I am having such a hard time with the oceans powering the dynamics you describe.
quote: I have no problem with the geologic action. I have a problem with the geological action being powered by a global flood. This is the real point after all.
quote: Gee, plate tektonics, changes in the mantle's convection currents.... Maybe you could point out some specific islands?
[quote][b]The only connecting factor is they are all affected by the level of the sea.[quote][b] So you say. I am waiting for more detail. See above.
quote: Think of it as constructive criticism. Besides, variations in mechanics of the hot-spot could push these islands up and down. Edge pointed this out already.
quote: I'm sure it did, but by how much? The oceans average five kilometers, the crust is between 10 and 40 kilometers. How much flex can the oceans cause?
quote: You are ignoring some elements in your model as well. For example, there aren't any edges-- the crust is continuous. And you are not pressing down on the tile. A better analogy would be pressing down on the surrounding tiles and expecting the central tile to rise. Add to this that the central tile is attached to the surrounding tiles. Also a problem is that the mantle is very thick (as far as viscosity) and thick in depth too. You are moving an enormous amount of material with, as you said, a film of material the relative size of an apple peel.
[quote]
US: "you are squeezing hydraulic fluid inside a hydraulic piston-" "I have two columns in gravitational equilibrium. I catastrophically add a mile of water to each. What happens?" Them: You both are using over simplified models that are totally lacking the effects that raise the islands that I am referring to.[quote][b] Exactly. Furthermore, I posit that my hydraulic ram analogy is much better than "a plate in the mud"
quote: Any liquid can serve as hydraulic fluid. The properties are not a fucntion of the material.
quote: But in many ways it functions as if it were. The crust serves as the walls of the ram. Gravity the force applied. The liquid mantle, the hydraulic fluid. The earth's surface isn't composed of plates in mud or tiles in mortar either.
quote: Why do you think I assume the starting point is in equilibrium?
quote: That, or your model is wrong.
quote: Actually, what Edge said and what I said are not the same thing.
quote: What?
quote: And how does this relate? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I know what you are trying to argue, but you are not addressing the issue of how ocean level changes can move such an enormous mass of rock.
quote: You've just undercut your own argument by taking the driving force AWAY from the sea level changes.
quote: And I have gone to great lengths to show why this is silly.
quote: Not really, and even if they do have common cause you haven't shown why it must be your common cause.
quote: The mass of the volume of water vs the mass of the affected rock is trivial. Really, I have countered everything you posted here and so has Edge. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I know what you are trying to argue, but you are not addressing the issue of how ocean level changes can move such an enormous mass of rock.
quote: You've just undercut your own argument by taking the driving force AWAY from the sea level changes.
quote: And I have gone to great lengths to show why this is silly.
quote: Not really, and even if they do have common cause you haven't shown why it must be your common cause.
quote: The mass of the volume of water vs the mass of the affected rock is trivial. Really, I have already countered everything you posted here and so has Edge. You aren't really addressing the issues we raise, but instead are just restating your theory. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 08-13-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I am amazed at your total lack of ability to understand the multiple counter-arguments we have given you.
quote: This has been done.
quote: I think you are misinterpretting the decision to stop head butting a brick wall with an admission of defeat.
quote: You have totally ignored everything we've said.
quote: ouch.... ohh.... you're hurting me. How I wish this forum were peer reviewed. But I guess you'd ignore that input as well.
quote: Like hell....
quote: Which is not a good explaination, why?
quote: You have never countered various and sundry questions as to how such a miniscule mass as the ocean could manipulate the oceanic crusts.
quote: No we don't. The unworkable-ness of one theory is not dependent upon the veracity of another theory.
quote: You've never shown any kind of significant correlation. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I wish there were a scorecard off to the side so that lurkers could vote on this sort of thing. All I can say is that your comments above are absurd. You've been given numerous examples and counter-examples and you have chosen to ignore them all, even to the point of denying that those arguments exist.
quote: And Edge and I both have argued that such a scenario is unworkable, and we have given you reasons for such belief.
quote: uhhh.... that is because there is an engine under the hood... surely you can't be serious about this analogy?
quote: No problem, but where is the part about the oceanic crust and the mantle being deformed by miniscule water level changes? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Well, there is post 384 and 387 for example. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024