Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2019 7:59 AM
26 online now:
Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), vimesey (3 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,247 Year: 5,284/19,786 Month: 1,406/873 Week: 302/460 Day: 2/52 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
2526
...
31Next
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood
edge
Member
Posts: 4521
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 347 of 460 (13743)
07-17-2002 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by wmscott
07-17-2002 5:48 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by wmscott, posted 07-17-2002 5:48 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by wmscott, posted 07-24-2002 6:49 PM edge has responded

wmscott
Member (Idle past 4359 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 348 of 460 (14071)
07-24-2002 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by edge
07-17-2002 10:56 PM


edge

[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?

[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.,] [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.]

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. 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. 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? It is unlikely that the sea level attained a stable high level in the last inter glacial so high above what we see today. 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, indicates another effect is at work that can raise as well as lower. The recent time period in which these up and down shorelines have been created is obviously connected with the changes in sea level associated with the comings and goings of the glaciers. Some of the shorelines can be explained by simple changes in sea level due to fluctuations in ocean volume. Imagine the islands at the LGM, the sea volume is greatly reduced with so much of earth's water tied up in the glaciers. Low shorelines are created the world over, but on the islands something unexpected happens. The islands sink down into the sea, creating some of the highest shorelines when the seas are lowest.

As you know, ocean islands unlike the continents, are composed of the heavier ocean floor material and only maintain their elevations due to the hot buoyant magma beneath them, and sink as the magma cools. Now this magma is not confined to the foot print of the island, it extends out under the surrounding sea floor and the pressure the depth of the ocean waters exerts upon it affects its shape and the resultant elevation of the island. Let me illustrate this effect with a little thought experiment. Take the Hawaiian islands and the Pacific ocean as they are now, if I were to remove almost all the water from the pacific, imagine what the effects are. The island mountains suddenly become the mountains with the highest relief in the world. They rise so far above dry the pacific ocean floor and yet are made out of dense ocean floor material, and they lack the former buoyant effect of the surrounding ocean and the ocean waters no longer are pressing down on the surrounding ocean floor. 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.

At the end of the flood as the flood waters drained into the deepening oceans, the increased pressure raised the Hawaiian islands to a higher elevation than they have today. The area of the newly exposed shoreline was devoid of plant life, and as the winds blew across a newly exposed sandy beach area, they created sand dunes. Then gradually over the thousands of years that have passed since the flood occurred, the hot lava beneath the islands continued to cool, and the islands slowly sank to the level they are found at today. The old sand dunes still exist covered over with vegetation and extent down the sides of the islands and out beneath the sea. To create these dunes would require the sudden exposure of land faster than tropical vegetation could cover it. These dunes are found on nearly all of the Hawaiian islands and are evidence of a sudden reemergence above water, followed by subsidence.

"Additional problems remain to be resolved for the hot spot hypothesis; one of the most serious involves the origin of rejuvenated volcanism. For instance, how can the hot spot hypothesis explain the generation of magmas of the Honolulu Volcanic series on the island of Oahu after a period of volcanic quiet of more than a million years, some 500 kilometers or more away from the probable position of the hot spot, and apparently from a depth in the mantle considerably greater than that at which the earlier Koolau magmas were formed?" (Volcanoes in the Sea; The Geology of Hawaii, second edition 1983, p.344) According to current geological theories, the late volcanic events on Oahu should not have happened and certainly not with lava from such great depth. This mystery is solved when we take into consideration the effects of the weight of the flood waters. Their great weight put a tremendous pressure on the asthenosphere and forced magma up into remains of the cooling magma chambers deep beneath the island of Oahu and forced lava to the surface while the island was still rising or had just risen from the waters. This resulted in the late volcanic activity (a number of these events were also hydromagmatic ) seen in the Hawaiian islands. Similar events have occurred through out the oceans on islands similar to the Hawaiian islands. The submerged seamounts and guyots are the remains of older islands, their magma chambers and their descending pipes or threads connecting them to the asthenosphere having already cooled and hardened, their elevators were in effect broken, and even with the increased pressure of the flooded oceans on the asthenosphere, magma was unable to flow into the solidified chambers beneath the islands to lift them above the water. This effect due to age has resulted in much of the stacking in elevation by age that we see in the islands and seamounts.

In ocean islands such as the Hawaiian islands we see the effects of changes in global sea level having effects on elevations beyond the simple expected rising or lowering of local shoreline and beyond the shifts buoyancy can account for, with larger shifting being evident in elevations former shorelines are found at. Just as buoyancy alone can not account for island elevation, nether is it a complete answer for the relative elevations of land and sea in connection with the shifting of water at the time of the flood.

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

Vertical tectonic movement is essential to what I have been saying and I discuss it at length in my book. The shorelines are recent and can not be accounted for by uplift that may have occurred in the distance past, and some occur in passive areas that have not had any tectonic uplift in a very long time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by edge, posted 07-17-2002 10:56 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by John, posted 07-24-2002 7:51 PM wmscott has responded
 Message 352 by edge, posted 07-25-2002 12:23 AM wmscott has not yet responded
 Message 356 by edge, posted 07-26-2002 6:57 PM wmscott has responded
 Message 358 by axial soliton, posted 07-27-2002 9:24 PM wmscott has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 349 of 460 (14074)
07-24-2002 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by wmscott
07-24-2002 6:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
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.

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:
They rise so far above dry the pacific ocean floor and yet are made out of dense ocean floor material, and they lack the former buoyant effect of the surrounding ocean and the ocean waters no longer are pressing down on the surrounding ocean floor.

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:
At the end of the flood as the flood waters drained into the deepening oceans, the increased pressure raised the Hawaiian islands to a higher elevation than they have today.

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:
To create these dunes would require the sudden exposure of land faster than tropical vegetation could cover it.

Why? There are beaches in Texas with sand dunes on them.

quote:
For instance, how can the hot spot hypothesis explain the generation of magmas of the Honolulu Volcanic series on the island of Oahu after a period of volcanic quiet of more than a million years, some 500 kilometers or more away from the probable position of the hot spot, and apparently from a depth in the mantle considerably greater than that at which the earlier Koolau magmas were formed?

I doubt that hot spots are 100% static. We don't know enough about these things to use them as you are.

quote:
This mystery is solved when we take into consideration the effects of the weight of the flood waters. Their great weight put a tremendous pressure on the asthenosphere and forced magma up into remains of the cooling magma chambers deep beneath the island of Oahu and forced lava to the surface while the island was still rising or had just risen from the waters.

The great weight of a few hundred feet of water added to an ocean already at 13,000 plus feet.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by wmscott, posted 07-24-2002 6:49 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-24-2002 8:16 PM John has responded
 Message 364 by wmscott, posted 07-31-2002 5:14 PM John has responded

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3709
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 7.8


Message 350 of 460 (14076)
07-24-2002 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by John
07-24-2002 7:51 PM


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.
(my bolds)

I'm really not into the debate on this specific topic, but I thought it would be good for someone on the evolution side to point out the above quirk in your statement.

Wouldn't the glacial recession result in a high sea level?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by John, posted 07-24-2002 7:51 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by John, posted 07-24-2002 8:34 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 351 of 460 (14079)
07-24-2002 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Minnemooseus
07-24-2002 8:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:

I'm really not into the debate on this specific topic, but I thought it would be good for someone on the evolution side to point out the above quirk in your statement.

Wouldn't the glacial recession result in a high sea level?

Moose


Yes, you are absolutely right. oooops.....

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-24-2002 8:16 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

edge
Member
Posts: 4521
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 352 of 460 (14095)
07-25-2002 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by wmscott
07-24-2002 6:49 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by wmscott, posted 07-24-2002 6:49 PM wmscott has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by axial soliton, posted 07-25-2002 2:44 AM edge has not yet responded

axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 353 of 460 (14109)
07-25-2002 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by edge
07-25-2002 12:23 AM


What flood mystery?
Scientists have now documented over 600 flood myths from disparate cultures world wide. Noah's flood is one of them. About 9,000BCE, the glaciers covering North America began quickly melting. Check the University of AZ site for the latest, but much of this melting may have taken place within 1 human lifetime. There were 3 episodes of superflooding now demonstrated in North America associated with this melting. The Ice dam of Lake Missoula was estimated to be 2,000 feet high when it broke west. The flow of water is estimated to be greater than all rivers now flowing, as the 176 mile-long lake quickly drained. There is another eastward flow from a glacial lake that flooded east producing the spectacular gorges in Ottowa. This 1 Missoula event would do 2 things. Raise the level of the ocean within days and reduce its salinity where the fresh water poured in. If you lived on a beach in Yonaguni, near Okinawa, watch out. The reduced salinity changes the thermal layers which direct ocean currents and this changes the global weather. I am wondering if the lakes that burst through their ice dams weren't even more horrendous. About 12,000 BCE, water the Atlantic Ocean burst through the Gibralter ridge and flooded the Mediterrannean plain. At about 9,000 BCE, the waters broke through the mountain ridge at the Bosperus and flooded the plains around the Black Sea. This raised the level of the Black Sea fully 600 feet. Investigations are now going on to determine if this is "Noah's Flood". If so, the myth was passed down from the Assyrians to the Hebrew. Their myth is the same as the one in the Bible and is older. This Bosporus flood was so enormous that the former Black Sea lake spread a half-mile per day in all directions. The result is the ultra-strange border at 600 feet depth in the Blach Sea where the salt water that rushed in, sank, and became anoxic. That is why even wood and leather from Noah's time has survived. The top 600 feet is the fresh water. Then there are the megaliths under 100 feet of water off the island of Yonaguni (near Okinawa). Either we have to believe that the structures were above water, which dates the builders to 10,000 years before now, or thousands of people could hold their breath for weeks at a time and decided to build under water. It is looking like there was a thriving global commerce and culture before 10,000 years ago and that, like us, they built almost everything along the seashore. Then the 300 foot rise in ocean level over what may have been 1 human lifetime forced all of them to move fast. Incidentally, foot-worn paths have been found under water off the coast of washington state. If the level of the ocean went down 300 feet, Japan would not be a group of islands. Australia would be connected to Malaysia via Sumatra. Before the superfloods, land bridges and large coastal plains. After the superfloods, lots of islands. No more simple walking

It is all starting to become an integrated picture, if highly multi-disciplinary. The proof of all this is in the world around us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by edge, posted 07-25-2002 12:23 AM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Peter, posted 07-25-2002 5:27 AM axial soliton has responded
 Message 355 by John, posted 07-25-2002 9:23 AM axial soliton has not yet responded

Peter
Member (Idle past 2035 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 354 of 460 (14122)
07-25-2002 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by axial soliton
07-25-2002 2:44 AM


The debate is not really on whether or not catastrophic flooding
ocurred, but whether the Biblical account is accurate.

I have read articles that suggest there were three major flooding
events between about 20000 years ago and 8000 years ago (haven't
looked up the exact times quoted so might be a little off), and
that this was related to glacial melt-downs, ice-dams breaking
etc.

That there was a single, global flood that lasted one year is what
is being disputed.

YEC's try to find theories that allow this, so that they can
support their faith. To me this suggests that they have little
faith or else why go to such great lengths to shore it up ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by axial soliton, posted 07-25-2002 2:44 AM axial soliton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by axial soliton, posted 07-27-2002 7:12 PM Peter has responded
 Message 367 by wmscott, posted 07-31-2002 5:23 PM Peter has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 355 of 460 (14136)
07-25-2002 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by axial soliton
07-25-2002 2:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by axial soliton:
What flood mystery?

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.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by axial soliton, posted 07-25-2002 2:44 AM axial soliton has not yet responded

edge
Member
Posts: 4521
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 356 of 460 (14244)
07-26-2002 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by wmscott
07-24-2002 6:49 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by wmscott, posted 07-24-2002 6:49 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by wmscott, posted 07-31-2002 5:17 PM edge has responded

axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 357 of 460 (14260)
07-27-2002 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by Peter
07-25-2002 5:27 AM


Thanks for your reply. So it seems. In the case of Noah, this flood myth is just 1 of over 600. Just because there are a lot of Christians and Jews and some of those 600 other cultures have since passed into history does not make the story of Noah the only one, the correct one, or even relevant. Maybe the one told by the Aborigines is more accurate. We need to look at all of them in the light of geological, meteorological, and cosmological (sun activity)evidence.

Two things.
1- The ancestors of Noah may have lived on the Black Sea Plain before the Bosporus broke. If so, The National Geographic team that found the ancient settlements under 600 feet of water on that former plain have estimated a flow rate of about 100 Niagra falls. If Noah lived there, he would have lost everything not on his arc. These people might have been able to outrun the water, but sooner or later, they had to sleep. As far as the mountain where the ark came to rest, we know they were lifted 600 feet into the air, just by reaching sea level.
2- The people living along the coasts all over the world suffered through a 300 foot rise in the level of the ocean at the end of the last ice age. The newest information continues the trend of shortening the time it took for the sea levels to rise. Within a person's lifetime is REALLY short. These people must also have lost everything. If you make your living from the sea, you live near the seashore. Maybe they had to build new houses every 10 years to keep ahead of the rise in ocean level. Wouldn't that be a catastrophic and life-altering thing? I just looked up the elevation where I sit at the moment... 300ft. I live west of Washington DC. It is 200 miles to the Atlantic from my house.

By the way, in the Christian version, did Noah have 2 of each of the dinosaurs on his ark?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Peter, posted 07-25-2002 5:27 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by Peter, posted 07-29-2002 3:18 AM axial soliton has not yet responded

axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 358 of 460 (14266)
07-27-2002 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by wmscott
07-24-2002 6:49 PM


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.

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.

Finally, the Earth was not flooded. The surface area of the Earth is about 200,559,589 square miles. let's say 5,280 feet of water is considered flooding everything, even though the real figure is more like 16,000 feet. Also, lets use a simple multiplication of the surface area times 1 mile thick to determine volume of surface water to cause a global flood. I say this because it is an underestimate by a huge factor of 3.5X. So we are being 3.5X too conservative in the following first order calculation. So, there are over 200,600,000 cubic miles of seawater missing!!! 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. so 200,600,000/5,000,000 means the ice pack would have to be over 40 miles thick on top of the World, melt 100%, and do it in a flash so that the Biblical story would be supported. I don't think they have weather 40 miles up there. If they did, I think the water would be frozen, period. On the other hand, maybe the Biblical story could be satisfied if 200,600,000 cubic miles of rock were taken away and then put back in a flash.

If anyone is still with me here, the record of science is even more complete. The island of Midway is the northernmost seamount sporting an island in the Hawaiian chain. Notice on page 47 of the National Geographic World Atlas that there is nearly a straight line of seamounts and atolls tracing the activity of the hot spot back over 100M years between Midway and Hawaii. The plate over the hot spot is shifting in a straight line during this period. Page 128. About 1000 miles west of midway the atolls and seamounts trace a path that shifts north at Kammu Seamount. The seamounts in this line trace all the way to the Kamchatka Peninsula at the very location where the Aleutian and Kuril trenches also intersect. This means the plate has been moving for about 500,000,000 years and has changed course once. I'll bet the plate is slowing down and that is why the Hawaiin Islands are big and the seamounts get bigger going from Kamchatka to Midway.

There are specific answers in the 2 references and the Atlas to negate Mr. wmscott's many hypotheses, but It is better to provide the above summary for public view and urge him to review the detailed references.

There was no global flood.

For people living in small villages on the 10,000 year old Black Sea Plain, or any coast on the planet, their world was destroyed by water. We should celebrate their will to live.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by wmscott, posted 07-24-2002 6:49 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by edge, posted 07-28-2002 1:36 PM axial soliton has responded
 Message 366 by wmscott, posted 07-31-2002 5:21 PM axial soliton has responded

edge
Member
Posts: 4521
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 359 of 460 (14307)
07-28-2002 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by axial soliton
07-27-2002 9:24 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by axial soliton, posted 07-27-2002 9:24 PM axial soliton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by axial soliton, posted 07-29-2002 11:18 PM edge has not yet responded

NeilUnreal
Inactive Member


Message 360 of 460 (14336)
07-28-2002 9:57 PM


>Darwins theory of reef formation?
>I didn't know there was such a thing...

Like Einstein after him, Darwin's other research was lost in the glare of his "one big theory." Darwin was the first, or among the first, to propose that atolls originate as fringing reefs surrounding sinking volcanoes. I've been out of the physical geography business for a few years, so I'm not sure how important the theory is to modern oceanography. Project Gutenberg has Darwin's monograph on coral reefs available for download.

-Neil


Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by edge, posted 07-29-2002 7:32 PM NeilUnreal has not yet responded

Peter
Member (Idle past 2035 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 361 of 460 (14365)
07-29-2002 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by axial soliton
07-27-2002 7:12 PM


I agree with that.

Dunno about the dinosaurs though ... perhaps TB or TC
could elaborate that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by axial soliton, posted 07-27-2002 7:12 PM axial soliton has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
2526
...
31Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019