Polar ice caps and possible rise in sea level

Hey all,Creationists (namely riverrat, in mike's "Judge not least ye be judged" thread) have said that the water needed for the Flood was frozen in the polar ice caps. The question is, how much water is there actually in the ice caps, and how much of an effect would their melting have on the global sea level?Let's say that you have a glass of water with an ice cube in it. If the ice cube melts, the level of water in the glass should stay the same because the amount of water frozen in the ice cube is the same as the amount of water displaced by the ice cube.So, if you think of the oceans as the glass of water and the ice caps as the cube, the melting or freezing of any floating ice in the ocean effectively doesn't change the sea level by any appreciative amount. Only ice on land will make a difference because water is being added to or removed from the oceans; the floating ice is actually water that is already part of the oceans.So, if we would like to work out how much the sea level would rise in the event of the polar ice caps melting, floating ice would not be counted. Only land ice would contribute to rising sea levels. Is this actually enough to flood the world? I don't think so, but I would like to know how to work out the equations to find out. Also, if that volume of water is insufficient, where does the additional water needed come from?As a side note, I find that the Snowball Earth hypothesis is still the best phenomenon I know of that even vaguely resembles a global flood (or rather its aftermath is). I wonder why creationists have not researched it more thoroughly, seeing as it is possible that the Flood is a metaphor for such an event. A discussion of the correlations between the two whould be interesting - but that might be for another thread.CheersThe Rock HoundThis message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 09-14-2004 03:38 PM{Topic promoted to "Geology and the Great Flood" forum by Adminnemooseus}

---

Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do.

That really isn't the point. 82 metres isn't enough to flood the Earth. We're down to "god made more water appear" or "the land wasn't as high back then". Both are essentially goddidit scenarios, so is there any options that the creationists aren't telling us about?Changing life as we know it isn't entirely relevent; the Flood was supposed to cover all the land. If there are no suggestions as to where the hell all the water came from, and where it went to afterwards, then the Flood's credibility takes yet another nose-dive.

---

Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do.

Well-said; I would think that that is the likely and possibly the sensible explanation. But where are the creationists who insist that the Flood happened exactly as it is in the bible?Buz? Mike? Anyone?

---

Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do.

BumpAnyone?Watch, as I hover over the coffin of Noah's Flood, ready with my hammer and yet another nail...The Rock Hound

If the only explanation left is 'goddidit', then how do you get non-believers to take you seriously?It's a bit like saying that the Flatulent Pink Unicorn is all-powerful, and therefore made it happen. Same difference to anyone who doesn't buy into it to start with.I declare another nail hammered into the coffin of the Flood.The Rock Hound

I think that Rei has really said everything pertinent already, but something has occurred to me...Exactly what timescales are we talking about here? All the processes you mention operate on geological time, which is much, much slower than normal human time.

quote:

---

On the Pleistocene Extinctions which occurred at the end of the ice age, I am greatly encouraged by the new reports that are beginning to show that many of the extinctions occurred in narrow time windows, of course I am disappointed that the windows don't all line up.

---

"Narrow time windows" for a geologist means about 100,000 to a million years. I may be assuming too much about your particular view here, but that's a whole lot longer than forty days and forty nights.Kudos for taking up the gauntlet, anyway (and thanks to Bill for his excellent input).The Rock Hound

I have to ask the obvious question: do we see any geological evidence of such an event?

From the article:"So it now appears that there were two distinct extinction episodes. Each event took less than 100 years."Thank you for the correction; however the point still stands. This still does not equate to a single event lasting forty days and forty nights.

Dude, the geology of Ireland in its entirety refutes your theory, because it's inconsistant with the Flood.I also take offence at being called a jerk scientist. Be civil or stop posting in this thread.The Rock Hound

Hey, you said "any jerk scientist". I am a scientist, so I'm entitled to take offense - especially when you're talking about my particular field (i.e. geology).The reason that Ireland's geology is not consistant with the Flood story is that in all the time I've gone on field trips and done field studies, I've never seen any deposit or structural feature that might support it. Yes, I've seen flood deposits - representing local floods. In the context of the Flood story, everything about Ireland is a total anomaly.Ok, a quick run down on Irish geology... The thing about Ireland is the variety of different deposits from different time periods, all of which are chopped and mashed together by faults and folding from several major tectonic events. If you're determined and have a degree in geology, you could spent a good while looking through the maps on your own, working back through every event and period, and eventually you'll have a general idea of the geological history of the country - needless to say, it's very, very complex.The point is, Ireland screams 'millions of years', with no trace of any large-scale flooding event that occurred over the entire country. Evidence that might support the Flood just isn't there. For a start, 6000 years just isn't long enough for several tectonic events to occur in this small area of the crust. And if you say that I'm just interpreting the evidence differently, I will be very insulted - and I will post a summary of one of my field studies for your consideration.Listen RR, you can't start knocking scientists just because you disagree with them. It's also just a bit arrogant to say that your common sense is better than a degree; what a degree essentially is, is several years of learning and studying one subject, aided by people who have already spent a decade or more in learning and studying. Common sense can't be applied to that subject the same way that superior knowledge of it can.I suppose Isaac Newton said it best: "If I see further than you, it's because I'm standing on the shoulders of giants."(I know he actually meant something different, but who cares)The Rock Hound

---

Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do.