Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 362 of 460 (14414)
07-29-2002 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by NeilUnreal
07-28-2002 9:57 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by NeilUnreal:
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[/B][/QUOTE]
Thank you for reminding me. I guess that was Darwin. I was apparently thinkng about "reef", sensu lato rather than coral atolls.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by NeilUnreal, posted 07-28-2002 9:57 PM NeilUnreal has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 375 of 460 (14702)
08-02-2002 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by wmscott
07-31-2002 5:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
["Why can't that magma also raise the island, as is happening in Yellowstone(?) today?"]
Yes that is what I am saying happened, see my post to Edge on this.
In fact, the magmatic uplift of the Yellowstone Plateau is about 2000 feet... easily enought to account for wmscott's uplifted beaches (if, indeed, they actually exist!).
Now, the big question is, why do we ignore a process that is KNOWN to exist at other hotspots and make up a fanciful story about topographic 'pockets' (which we do not see) around emergent volcanos? Perhaps wmscott has more in common with YECs than he admits. It might be called science-by-wishing-very-hard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by wmscott, posted 07-31-2002 5:14 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by wmscott, posted 08-07-2002 5:22 PM edge has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 377 of 460 (14789)
08-03-2002 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by wmscott
07-31-2002 5:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
Now I have not been trying to prove a global flood with our little digression here, at least not directly, all I have been trying to do here is show that not all changes in sea level have direct isostatic explanations in terms of weight on or in the lithosphere. There are other effects that come into play that you have not been considering.
Quite to the contrary. I have considered more than one. Please see below to see who is not considering other effects.
quote:
Since modern geology does not accept a recent global flood, the recent shifts that have occurred due to the flood have not been investigated or studied.
I don't suppose you considered the possibility that the flood has not been investigated is because: a)any investigation of the data should eventually turn up evidence of such a flood, and b) No such evidence has yet been found.
quote:
Clues such as the raised shorelines in Hawaii demonstrate that other effects inside the earth do have an effect on the level recent shorelines are found at.
Yes, and you have been given a very reasonable mainstream effect that you simply ignore.
quote:
The 'pocket effect' is real as demonstrated by the range of shorelines on the islands.
I don't suppose that you would consider other effects, such as regional magmatic uplift of the area as described in several posts above. Why do you dimiss other possible effects?
quote:
The high shorelines had to be created when the islands were lower, since the sea level did not reach that level in the last inter glacial as shown by the fact that the Antarctic ice cap did not melt and the lack of similar shorelines on the continents.
Wait! If melting of the continental ice sheets could not raise sea level several hundred feet, then how do you flood the entire globe?
quote:
Ocean islands only have their elevation due to the uplift of the hot magma beneath them. During low ocean volumes, the area of hot magma spreads out over a larger area, which lowers the height of the center below the island. The lack of peripheral confinement also reduces the pressure in the magma which causes the weight of the island center to sink down. Then when the ocean depth increased, the magma is under increased pressure which squeezes it toward the center by pinching off the edges which had expanded under the reduced ocean pressure. This effect forces the hottest magma back under the island from the surrounding ring, which lifts it and causes the late volcanic activity which also is noticed to have occurred with or under water. The late resurgence of volcanic activity and in some cases from deeper sources, after the hot spot had moved away, clearly indicates a pressure surge caused by an increase in ocean volume. The hyaloclastite nature of the activity also indicates this activity occurred when the islands were more deeply submerged then they are today, which is also supported by the island landforms such as the dunes and valley formation.
Do you have any references to this? Where is this actually observed? Sounds like a convoluted just-so story to me.
quote:
e: ["You have to show a blanket of water-lain deposits of identical age, present everywhere in the world."]
That is the aim of the research I am presently engaged in.
I'm sure you will get the results that you want...
quote:
That is also the reason why I have been asking you what evidence you would accept as evidence of a recent global flood. I have been using this board to scope out what it would take to convince people who don't believe in the flood. Hopefully if my research works out, I will publish a scientific paper on the results. Since I will not be able to supply definitive evidence of the deluge until I finish my project, I for now have to rely on partial proofs. Which taken together, all points towards the recent flooding of the earth.
"All points to the recent flooding of the earth?" LOL! Are you talking about the oceans being 300 meters higher? Then okay, but if you are talking about a biblical flood, you have not presented a shred of evidence for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by wmscott, posted 07-31-2002 5:17 PM wmscott has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 385 of 460 (15112)
08-09-2002 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by wmscott
08-09-2002 12:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
The weight of returning water of even only a few feet of increased ocean depth is enormous because the increased pressure is felt across the entire ocean. every square foot on the ocean floor is under that much more pressure, adding up the entire square footage of the world's ocean bottoms adds up to a huge weight.
Still makes no sense, wmscott. Surely the weight of a foot of water added to the ocean basins is immense, but the pressure increase is negligible. A foot of water in the ocean exerts the same pressure as a foot of water in my bathtub. I think I'm beginning to see where your problem is, though.
You go on to say:
quote:
Now in the case of ocean islands and the deluge, one of my estimates for the depth of the flood waters is 4,000 ft. If all this water was taken up by deepening ocean basins, this would have resulting in a ocean depth increase in the range of 6,000 ft.
Are you saying that adding 4000 feet of water to the land surface and 4000 feet of water to the ocean would result in instability? I don't think so. If you have an equilibrium situation and add 4000 feet of water to both sides of the equation, there should be virtually no effect.
And if you are saying that the ocean basins had that much freeboard and could drop as quickly as you say due to the weight of water, then there is no flood.
quote:
Now the bone we have been fighting over in this argument that you have jumped into, is that water has only less than a third the density of rock, so how could the lighter water push the heavier islands above the water?
You seem to ignore the fact that the water placed in the ocean basins has to displace (in your scenario) lower mantle material at a SG of 3.8 to raise the continents. As I read it that means the continents could not have been raised more than about 1000 feet by the addition of 4000 feet of water to the ocean basins. That does not indicate enough runoff from a flood of truly global proportions, especially since you have not even given us evidence for 1000 feet of water covering the existing land surface.
By the way, this argument is really a red herring... I am still waiting for evidence of a global flood.
quote:
I have been invoking the fact that the total pressure felt by the large area of the ocean floor is much greater than the small area supporting the islands.
Why is that? I have two columns in gravitational equilibrium. I catastrophically add a mile of water to each. What happens?
quote:
...This is why the islands are often in a deep pocket surrounded by a rise.
Could you point out where this deep pocket is?
quote:
With a increase in ocean depth, the water pressure on the pocket squeezes shut the edges that in the lower glacial period it had spread out in.
This doesn't do much for the 'deep flexing' argument. Just what are you squeezing shut?
quote:
this causes the bulge to be forced back into a smaller area which raises the island. Like pushing a plate down into the mud, the mud squeezes out and up around the edges of the plate. the depression of the ocean plate has similar effects. Areas where the trapped plastic material beneath the plate can ozoo out are uplifted.
So all that material oozes radially inward to form the Hawaiian Islands, eh? Why don't we see a ring of volcanos around the islands? Seems to me that magma would flow to lower pressure areas and escape up any structure available.
quote:
Another effect that comes into play is depressing the ocean floor moves it closer to the center of the earth and slightly increases the effect of gravity. This would also increase the amount of island uplift by magnifying the density difference between the hot material below the island and the surrounding sea floor.
Nonsense. Did you ever hear of terrain corrections in gravity surveys? That's where you account for the gravity of material ABOVE your reference plane. Do you really think that material above you simply has no gravitation and can be ignored? Then think of it this way: there is less mass beneath you as you get closer to the center of the earth and gravity should be less... I think we are seeing another conceptual problem that you have in formulating a viable flood theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by wmscott, posted 08-09-2002 12:56 PM wmscott has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 388 of 460 (15202)
08-11-2002 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by wmscott
08-10-2002 2:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
If we look at the earth itself we find evidence of large scale uplift of ocean islands. "Successive elevations of an island above sea level by geologic action have created a variety of "raised" coral formations. The northern half of , for example, is a coralline limestone plateau rising to 850 feet, ...
Hmm, not a global flood yet...
quote:
hile the mountains in the southern half of the island, formed by volcanic activity, reach elevations up to 1,300 feet.
Not yet...
quote:
...and (Ocean Island) are raised coral islands that stand at elevations of about 210 and 265 feet, respectively." Britannica.
Nor yet!
quote:
Now obviously these raised coral formations were not formed by a higher sea level, or else they would be located at a common elevation.
Why should they be at a common level? You continue to disregard any geological processes other than the ones you select.
quote:
As you can see from the quote, they were raised by 'geologic action'.
Agreed.
quote:
Here we have islands scattered around the world which show evidence of recent uplift.
Yes, we also have evidence of recent uplift of the Yellowstone hotspot. What is your point?
quote:
Hummm, what force in recent geological history could effect far flung islands? The only connecting factor is they are all affected by the level of the sea.
However, you just said:
Now obviously these raised coral formations were not formed by a higher sea level, or else they would be located at a common elevation.
I am having a hard time following your logic here. Which is it?
quote:
The swings in ocean volume due to the ice age is the best answer for shifts in island elevation. Yours attacks would be much more effective if you could show a different explanation that works better. Otherwise you are just nay saying which is something anyone can do about anything.
This is getting to be exceedingly tedious, wmscott. No one here has said that glaciation and ice ages do not affect the sea level. We have said that they do not result in a global flood. The reason we say this is that you have not given us such evidence. Furthermore, you have been given a mainstream explanation from a known hotspot, with observed processes. You have conveniently ignored . To say we have given you no explanation and deny the effects of the ice ages, is misleading on your part.
quote:
Your model is over simplified and is lacking key effects.
LOL! This from someone who prefers to dismiss plate tectonics and other KNOWN effects! I feel like Alice in Wonderland.
quote:
The depression results in the movement of magma that raises the island while the sea floor sinks. Like stepping on a freshly cemented floor tile can push the tile down into the cement, the cement can squirt up around the edges to a level higher then the title had to begin with.
Very bad analogy. Your magma in this case has to move to the center of the tile and then erupt under your foot.
quote:
You both are using over simplified models that are totally lacking the effects that raise the islands that I am referring to.
They are simplified in an attempt to show you the error of your logic. Apparently we have failed to do so. However, you still cannot explain the effects of these 'simplified' models.
quote:
The earth is not filled with hydraulic fluid nor is it's surface composed of hydraulic cylinders or columns.
Of course not. These are called analogies. Please explain why your model does not account for the effects that have been described.
quote:
Plus why do you assume the starting point was in equilibrium?
I would be glad to start somewhere else if you gave me a starting point. It would seem to me, however that if 'deep flexing' were so efficient at moving mantle material around, then equilibrium would be achieved in very short order. Or did this only occur during your flood? That would be very convenient.
quote:
Perhaps the glacial pull down of ocean volume was faster or greater than could be compensated for. The models you two are referring to have their uses, but they are limited by their simplicity. The effects I am referring to are not included in your basic models, so it is no surprise they are unable to account for the uplift.
Wmscott, this borders on an out and out fabrication. You have simply ignored any other processes that we have presented you. I am very disappointed in your arguments that you have to resort to this.
quote:
As you love to point out, water is much less dense than rock, this results in much less of the effect you point out. If you take a gravity meter in a submarine and descend to the ocean floor, you will find an increase, while at a comparable depth in a mine you may begin to see a decrease. This increase in gravity is felt by the buoyancy of the hot magma that the island is sitting on, which is greater than the mass of the island above it. This is like when clay of different densities are layer and centrifuged to model mountain development. The lighter material is forced to the top by the increased 'gravity'.
I have no idea what your point is here. How does this contribute to a global flood? Besides, I thought we were looking at the lower mantle here, not they atmosphere or the hydrosphere...
It would seem to me that you should be working to collect evidence for a global flood rather than making up mechanisms for nonexistent processes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by wmscott, posted 08-10-2002 2:48 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by wmscott, posted 08-13-2002 5:51 PM edge has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 391 of 460 (15398)
08-13-2002 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by wmscott
08-13-2002 5:52 PM


I really don't have time for this, so just a few comments. First I notice that you still do not provide evidence for a global flood.
quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
Another mechanism to explain large scale island uplift in the face of rising sea levels is the effects large ocean volume increases can have on hot spots. Ocean islands owe their existence to the hot spot that created them. Located deep beneath the islands magma chamber and feeding it by means of a long connecting thread. A large and possible sudden increase in ocean volumes would result in a direct pressure increase on the hot spot magma.
Then the hotspot should slow or stop growing, shouldn't it? Do you see such evidence? Perhaps you could explain how this 'tremendous pressure' actually affects the lower mantle-core boundary where the hot spots such as Hawaii originate. I think you will find that the added pressure of several km of water is insignificant.
quote:
This results in some of the hot spot's rising magma being sucked up (by the comparatively lower pressures) the thread into the magma chamber, filling it like a balloon. This swelling of the magma chamber lifts the island.
You still have not explained why all of the magma flows inward toward the center of the pressure. Please do so.
quote:
The magma was rising anyway, the increased pressure merely speeds it on it's way.
And you have evidence of this, no doubt?
...
quote:
We all agree that the uplifted shorelines found in the islands are caused by uplift, there is no other explanation. My argument is that changes in sea level can act as the trigger for that uplift.
Then why are there any submerged shorelines at all?
quote:
Uplift caused by ocean volume increase is the only reasonable explanation considering just how wide spread island uplift is.
An usuported assertion. You have not actually addressed any other mechanisms proposed to you. You have simply dismissed them with a wave of the hand even thought they are observed mechanisms, operating at known hotspots. YOu are losing credibility here, wmscott. I daresay that is why some no longer respond to your posts.
quote:
Here is a link to a partial listing of raised coral islands.
http://www.unep.ch/islands/Tityper.htm
These islands are far too wide spread and common for any explanation that is not ocean wide in its effect. Some of the islands in the listing have elevations listed as well. Checking a few sources I come up with my own list on the elevations of uplifted coral reefs on islands.
Arakii 237m
Guam 850ft
Naura 210ft
Banaba 265ft
Johnston 44ft
Kirwina 100ft
Caroline 20ft
Tongatary 270ft
Rennell 500ft
Muyua 1,200ft
New Caledona 330ft
Niue 208ft
Papua New Guinea 400m
Such wide spread uplift must have a common cause.
Why? What is your logical train of thought that yields this conclusion? Simple showing that they exist? Nonsense. By the way, none of these look like a global flood. Can you tell us why? Then tell us why this information is pertinent to this discussion.
quote:
On raised shorelines, Britannica noted "Each Greater Antillean island has an encircling coastal plain, backed on the north coast of Cuba, Jamaica, and Hispaniola by Pleistocene-raised shorelines that reach heights of 1,000 feet."
Oops, still not a global flood...
quote:
The plains are raised coral which seems to be the rule on islands. Clearly considering the nearly universal raised coral found on nearly all islands, we are dealing with an effect that is ocean wide.
Okay, then where are these uplifted reefs on the Canadian Shield, for instance.
quote:
The raised shoreline shows the size of the recent uplift that has occurred in some areas. In other areas we have the guyots which are sea mounts that have been planed off by wave action and now are found thousands of feet beneath sea. We live in an inter glacial, a time of high sea levels, we should expect to find lots of guyots submerged to a depth equal to the estimated sea level rise associated with the ending of the ice age plus normal subsidence due to island age. But instead guyots are typically submerged to much greater depths of 6,000 ft. The amount of subsidence that has occurred with guyots, some having coral dating from the end of the ice age, shows a massive amount of ocean floor subsidence has occurred since then. The subsidence also occurred so rapidly that the coral died, there is no coral reef reaching up towards the surface.
But shouldn't these guyots be uplifted? You had me convinced then changed your mind...
quote:
The guyots were submerged suddenly to a depth below which coral can live at a rate faster than coral can grow at.
Ooh, ooh, maybe no one has noticed this before! You don't suppose there is a mainstream explanation for this, do you?
quote:
We are looking at a post ice age combination of large sea floor depression combined with large and wide spread uplift of islands.
All of which is handled nicely by maistream geology and plate tectonics.
quote:
The book "Sea Level Change" stated "We do not know if this is evidence of accelerated Holocene tectonic movement or an artifact of the short sampling interval . . . If the rapid uplift of the last 5500yr had continued for as long as the last 28,000yr the interstadial terrace of that age would be far above the Holocene terrace [it is not] . . . Much of the total movement was concentrated in brief interval of 5,500yr or less. . . . we cannot disprove that those average rates consisted of shorter intervals of alternatively fast and slow vertical movements." Here a detailed examination of the ages of raised coral reefs reveals that there has been a sudden surge of wide spread uplift in the last "5,500yr or less". First this uplift was all over the oceans and it was a sudden and brief event that has occurred since the end of the last ice age.
But why do you suddenly ignore the ones that have been down-dropped since the last ice age? This is really getting silly.
quote:
Frankly if just a bit more was known about this uplift event, I would not even be able to lay a claim to discovering it.
You actually claim to have discovered this?
...
Still waiting for evidence of a global flood...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by wmscott, posted 08-13-2002 5:52 PM wmscott has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 392 of 460 (15402)
08-13-2002 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by wmscott
08-13-2002 5:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
I was planning on just doing another combined post for the two of you again, but it appears I first need to give you some remedial instruction first.
Good, I'm ready.
quote:
Now Edge, I have not been trying to prove a global flood in my recent posts, I have lately been discussing non isostatic elevation changes.
Oh, I thought the subject of this thread was the global flood.
quote:
Just as I stated to you in Post-365 "Now I have not been trying to prove a global flood with our little digression here, at least not directly, all I have been trying to do here is show that not all changes in sea level have direct isostatic explanations in terms of weight on or in the lithosphere."
Seems to me that is exactly what you are talking about. Weight on the lithosphere.
quote:
I am explaining a theory on the effects of sea volume changes on ocean island elevation. These shifts have occurred with the glacial cycles a number of times and is not limited to just the sudden end of the last stage of the ice age and the resulting flood.
Good, please give us a chart showing this relationship. Handwaving is nice, but to defend your flood model you need more than that.
quote:
This is something I found in examining the details of how the deluge occurred, and how the earth was able to recover. My contribution to island theory solves the mystery of the raised shorelines.
Good, then I'd like to see it in the peer-reviewed literature. Can you give me a reference?
quote:
I wanted to clear this up for you, (again) before I go into more detail on this in my next post to the two of you. Later, we can return to our main topic, the deluge.
I can't wait. But I'd like to see some documentation of your island theory first. So far, all I have is your word that these things correlate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by wmscott, posted 08-13-2002 5:51 PM wmscott has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 397 of 460 (15975)
08-23-2002 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 395 by wmscott
08-21-2002 5:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
I am just amazed by your total lack of counter arguments. You need to cite specific problems with my theory and offer a better explanation for the evidence.
Well, I suppose if you ever presented any evidence for your flood scenario we could discuss it, but you haven't. You have simply presented a half-baked mechanism for an event that there is no evidence for. There is really nothing to respond to. You have also been given alternative explanations which have modern, observable analogs, but you simply pass them of with a wave of the hand.
quote:
Failure to offer a better explanation is a tactic admission of defeat.
You have been given alternatives. You have chosen to ignore them. That is perhaps the most frustrating part of this discussion.
quote:
Judging from the quality of your posts, I have totally blown you guys away.
I will admit to not having put much work into my reponses since it didn't seem to be called for. Now, if you actually presented some evidence for a global flood and something other than your own word regarding you model, then we might have something to discuss.
"Blown away?" Well, I guess that could be one way of looking at it, but probably not in the the way you'd like to think. But then I'm sure you can't see anything from a point of view other than your own.
quote:
Maybe you just need to get your thoughts together, because I know you want to make a better showing than you did in your last posts. Otherwise as it stands, I have demonstrated my theory on island elevation as being a very workable theory that it's detractors are unable to find specific fault with. The only part of either of your posts that came close to counter argument was a brief reference to increased hot spot activity. The problem with that is that is what I am saying happen, only that it was caused by an increase in ocean volume. If you wish to argue against my theory, you need to come up with another explanation for what caused the surge in activity that raised ocean islands at the end of the ice age and explains the periodness seen in the uplift.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry, wmscott. For someone who has made up an ad hoc theory with absolutely no evidence to back it up and no experience in the field, you are incredibly self-assured. You have never answered, for instance, why the 'magma' should flow inward, toward Hawaii, when it would appear that this avenue of escape should have been cut off in short order. Your example of stepping on a tile in cement has exactly the opposite effect, but when this is pointed out to you, you ignore us.
In fact, I would say that not only is your understanding of geological processes confused, but as these examples indicate, you are disrespectful to anyone disagreeing with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by wmscott, posted 08-21-2002 5:48 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by wmscott, posted 08-28-2002 5:36 PM edge has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 400 of 460 (16197)
08-28-2002 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by wmscott
08-28-2002 5:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
I am not ignoring your alternatives, how can I ignore something you haven't posted. Your post, like your pervious one, fails to offer an alternative. Come on, what is your great alternative explanation for the cause of the surge of island uplift?
It is something that we know happens at hotspots elsewhere and have actually observed. Can you guess?
Both John and I have mentioned this to you. It appears that my observation suggesting that you really do not respect other posters is accurate.
quote:
As for me being disrespectful to anyone disagreeing with me. I would suggest you take some of your own posts and read them as if they were addressed to you. If you want more respect, you should show it to others and then perhaps you will receive more of it in return. But if you don't show it to others, isn't it hypocritical to expect it?
I don't expect it. I was just making a point. You could have started this whole discussion on a better note. When I started responding to you, it was in the spirit of helping you improve your understanding of geology and the second edition of your book. You have spurned everyone here and some will no longer even respond to you.
quote:
My theory is also not 'ad hoc' since it is based on an interpretation of the evidence, even if you don't agree with it.
Once again, the point is that you have NOT provided evidence. You have taken a piece of information and turned it into a fantastic story.
quote:
As for evidence, I have been citing evidence such as the raised shorelines, just because you disagree with my interpretation doesn't make it disappear.
The raised shorelines are evidence for a host of explanations. They are not diagnostic of your scenario. In return, we have given you actual observations and you simply ignore them and go off on your merry way.
quote:
You need to over come my theories by providing a better explanation of the evidence, then you can dismiss it, not before.
You have been given this on a number of occasions for a number your stories. For instance, to you, finding diatoms at an elevation of 600 feet means there was a worldwide flood. For us it could mean many things such as a rise in sea level related to melting glacial waters. But a global flood is one of the LEAST likely explanations.
quote:
As for having no experience in the field, writing a book on the geology of the flood must count for something, not to mention the on going success of this thread.
Long lived thread are not necessarily a testimony to quality of a thread. You will notice that very few people participate because of your unrelenting bull-headedness. And yes, experience in the field is an absolute necessity, especially when lecturing to a university professor. I don't care what you have written. I can tell when a geology book is written by a non-professional.
quote:
As for the example of stepping on a tile in cement having exactly the opposite effect, of course it does if you change the model as you did in your argument.
I quoted your statement exactly. How did I change the model?
quote:
The purpose of any model or example is to illustrate a point so the student can understand it and grasp the concept. If the student has problems with the illustration it is generally best to drop it and use another that he hopefully will be able to grasp. Since you do not want to understand and try very hard to reject what I am trying to say, this requires that any illustration I use with you be extremely simple.
I think you will have a hard time disabusing anyone here of the notion that you use simple examples because that is all you understand.
quote:
The point I was trying to get across was that a rising sea level results in the mass above the island displacing water which reduces the island's weight at the same time an increasing ocean depth increases pressure on the surrounding ocean floor which also results in island uplift, due to the island's pressure is in comparison to the surrounding sea floor is now less.
It couldn't have anything to do with heating of the upper mantle and increasing the buoyancy of the lithospher, I don't suppose. Now, what was that arcane explanation you gave, again?
quote:
(pressure on sea floor has increased due increased ocean depth, while the portion of island beneath the part that sticks above water does not increase.)
It has been explained to you why this is insignificant several times, but you have ignored those posts.
quote:
I wish I could show this to you with a nice little animation with moving arrows.
I don't think you get it. I understand the kinematics of your model. It simply will not work.
quote:
The possible uplift due to these two factors is also only part of the total that I am looking for. Don't look at it as if I were saying that one effect all by its self explains everything, this kind of misconception will only make it harder for you understand.
Nonsense. What you are saying is that the weight of water will displace basaltic material upward thousands of feet. Why don't we see mantle diapirs penetrating the earth's crust due to simple loading? Why is it always a light material, like salt, that has risen under the influence of gravity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by wmscott, posted 08-28-2002 5:36 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by wmscott, posted 09-02-2002 5:39 PM edge has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 404 of 460 (16458)
09-03-2002 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by wmscott
09-02-2002 5:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
No I can't guess (at least with any high degree of accuracy) what your counter argument is, nor can I read your mind. So, could you please post it so we can make it a part of this discussion? I honestly don't know if you are referring to a real counter argument, or if you just don't have an answer, but are too proud to admit it.
That is the point. You can't guess, but you have been told. It is a measure of your stubbornnes, disrespect and pride that you have chosen not to listen.
quote:
On my finding diatoms at an elevation of 600 feet, it was 1,000 feet, and I am saying that it was due to a rise in sea level related to melting glacial waters. Now if there was a 1,000 ft meltwater flood at the end of the ice age, who is to say it wasn't deeper.
That is fine. Just give us evidence to that effect.
quote:
I am hoping to be able to examine high elevation locations for marine traces. Now positive findings from such locations would put this discussion on a different footing.
Perhaps, but it would seem to me that there is a generation of work ahead of you. You need some grad students to do all the footwork.
quote:
If a long lived thread is not necessarily a testimony to quality of the thread, then why do they keep posting?
They?? You mean John and me. Joe has given up. Pat has given up. Others have ignored this thread for weeks.
quote:
A number of people have dropped out because they couldn't hold their own.
I don't hold up very well against a brick wall either, but I refuse to admit that it is more clever than I.
quote:
No one has yet to post evidence that would be fatal to my theory on how the flood happened.
But then you have never posted any evidence either. Refutation of a just-so story is impossible.
quote:
That is why I keeping posting, I want to see what the best arguments against my theory are, so I can find out what needs to be corrected or discarded.
I this you will fail, because you refuse to listen.
quote:
Thank you very much for the complement on my "unrelenting bull-headedness." I count it as a virtue to be stubborn for the right reasons.
Do you mean 'wrong for the right reasons?'
quote:
It would be foolish to change my understanding on something just because it disagrees with yours, you have to convince me with solid evidence. Which I believe is also your position as well, and is that of any experienced person with any wisdom. Am I really lecturing to a university professor?
You were until he decided it was a waste of time.
quote:
If you really want people to look up to you when you announce this, perhaps you should try standing on a chair when you do it. I am not impressed by decrees nearly as much a good argument based on even better evidence.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
quote:
On the model, you changed the model by moving where the person was standing, which of course changes the weight distribution.
Well, I disagree. The person is actually the volcanic edifice. Your 'model is completely unclear.
quote:
No that is not what I am saying, no wonder you don't think this will work. The weight of the water accounts for perhaps one third of the movement due to water having roughly a third the weight of rock.
Actually more like a quarter.
quote:
Then we have other effects such as changing the profile of the magma chamber the island sits on. The main uplift comes from the action of the hot spot activity, the weight of water pushing the ocean floor down into the earth causes a surge of hot magma to move up the connecting thread to the chamber beneath the island that feeds the island's volcanoes, which is why there was a post ice surge in volcanic activity on the islands, particularly resurgent volcanic activity. The cycles of glacial activity results in a modulation effect of the on going uplift due to hot spot activity. The shifts in ocean depth cause what would otherwise would have been a slow steady uplift, to turn into a stepwise pattern as seen in the pattern the uplifted shorelines are found in.
Why can't it just be related to magma intrusion and uplift of the crust? We know this happens. And there is basically no reason why the water would have a measureable effect. Why all the byzantine machinations?
quote:
I do have one confession to make about 'my theory' on changes in ocean volume affecting island elevations due to isostatic adjustments, it isn't my theory. "During each Glacial stage, a weight of water scores of meters deep was removed from a wide area of the crust around each island.
So, the glaciers reached Hawaii?
quote:
That lowering of water pressure removed some support for the volcanic mass. Hence, the island tended to sink" (The Changing World of the Ice Age by Reginald Aldworth Daly 1934, p.155) This is part of what Daly called his theory Glacial Control theory.
1934??? Got anything a bit more recent? Like since plate tectonics has been accepted?
quote:
Basically that changes in sea level effected island subsidence and reemergence and was a factor in the creation of coral islands. Since you guys attack everything I post, I though I would let you chew on a somewhat obscure mainstream geological theory for a while before I revealed its source.
Sorry, but I'm not sure that this can be called mainstream. Daly didn't even know about the asthenosphere.
quote:
I have merely used an existing theory as part of my overall theory. Poor Daly, you guys have really given him a rough time. But, since you have yet to post a better explanation for the periodness seen in island uplift and depression, Daly's theory seems to have stood the test of time.
So uplift and depression are periodic? Please provide evidence for this. By the way, he's talking about depression of the islands after glaciation, while you are talking about uplifting of the beach terraces. Not exactly a supporting document.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by wmscott, posted 09-02-2002 5:39 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by wmscott, posted 09-06-2002 5:33 PM edge has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 408 of 460 (16810)
09-06-2002 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by wmscott
09-06-2002 5:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
quote:
you have never posted any evidence
Incorrect.
I reiterate that you have not posted any evidence for a global flood that is diagnostic of your mechanism.
quote:
...Daly's Glacial Control Theory is still referred to today, so it is still current and most definitely mainstream.
Being 'referred to' and being mainstream are different things. I ask you once again to provide something that is post-Plate Tectonics on this theory. In the reference you provided to John, I noticed that the mechanisms discussed did NOT include Daly's theory. In fact, the preferred mechanism is still increased magmatism at the oceanic ridges. There are several others, but you have not discussed any of them or given us evidence why your model is so much better.
Added by edit: I'm not exactly sure if this discussion is even close to being on topic. It seems we have slipped far from the biblical flood discussion and into debating the reasons for island uplift of 70 meters by various mechanisms. Even if Daly's theory were correct, we are still far from a global flood. There could be any number of minor players in this degree of fluctuation, but they just don't add up to the major effects of crustal buoyancy, spreading ridge rates, or simple addition of water. I don't really want to get bogged down in minutia that really has no implications for a global flood. So, I'm wondering, just what is the point?
[This message has been edited by edge, 09-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by wmscott, posted 09-06-2002 5:33 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by wmscott, posted 09-11-2002 5:35 PM edge has replied
 Message 422 by jimmy, posted 09-29-2002 6:35 AM edge has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 412 of 460 (17219)
09-12-2002 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by wmscott
09-11-2002 5:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
You may have to explain what you mean by including the phrase 'diagnostic of your mechanism,' does that mean that you accept the fact that I have posted evidence for a global flood, but I have only failed to provide evidence that shows that the flooding occurred in the manner that I theorize?
You have to give evidence that precludes the prevailing theory and shows that the flood is truly global in extent. You have done neither.
quote:
...So far I have mainly been discussing whether or not it happened, a discussion with someone who already accepts the flood takes entirely different form, since there is a different basis for discussion.
I seriously doubt this. You have accepted the flood completely and without reservation. You are bending every possible geological fact to make them fit your preconceived notion of a flood.
quote:
On Daly's Glacial Control Theory, the reference cited referred to it by name, they only talked about part of the mechanisms for his theory, it was only a brief reference. So what part don't you believe? Do you think there is more than one glacial control theory and they were referring to a different one? If so, just post a reference on the other theory with the same name by a different person. Otherwise in the context of the reference, it is still a current theory.
I don't believe that this is a significant effect, if it exists. Second, I don't believe it is in any way, evidence of a global flood. It is a inadequate mechanism for a phenomenon that there is no evidence for.
quote:
Just arguing in generalities proves nothing, it ends up sounding like a 'yes it did' 'no it didn't' argument repeated endlessly.
Agreed. However, the details must be shown to be relevant.
quote:
Only by going into the details can you prove or disprove anything. Now the point of island elevation in connect with the flood is this, in nearly all flood models the flood covers all the land including the islands and then the flood recedes by the oceans getting deeper, so the question is, how is it that we have islands today if that happened? Any flood theory that can't answer that question is dead at the starting line.
Agreed. The generally accepted YEC theory is untenable.
quote:
I have noticed that people arguing against the flood always miss this the most obvious of points. Forget the Himalayans, the ocean islands have far greater relief and today stand above all the water that was in the flood. So how were they once under the flood waters?
It seems to me that you are assuming there there were flood waters. How about some evidence? You seem to have a mechanims that could give us a minute amount of uplift, but you still don't have a flood to apply it to.
quote:
According to most YEC flood theories there shouldn't be any ocean islands. Say 'Aloha' to those theories. So that is the point, even though most people don't recognize it, explaining ocean island elevation is key to any plausible global flood theory.
This is but one problem with the YEC theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by wmscott, posted 09-11-2002 5:35 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by wmscott, posted 09-18-2002 5:00 PM edge has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 416 of 460 (17747)
09-18-2002 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by wmscott
09-18-2002 5:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
quote:
evidence that precludes the prevailing theory
Huh? What prevailing flood theory would that be? What are you talking about? Are you referring to YEC flood models like the rapid subduction Plate theory? You have to be kidding! I have already disproved that dead duck theory, and more than once. Or are you referring to the current geological viewpoint that there was no flood? That would make more sense then YEC, but then all of the evidence that I have posted in support of the flood would be in support of my 'mechanism.'
That is all you have. A minor mechanism for an event that there is no evidence for.
quote:
I am beginning to think that you just tripped over your tongue earlier, but are now unable to admit it. Since the evidence that I have been posting for a flood, would be by default, be evidence for what I have been saying.
You have not presented any evidence for a global flood. I'm not sure what you are talking about here.
quote:
All I am after up to this point has been that you see the mechanism for the uplift, that it works, now we can go on to argue about the amount of uplift.
You have presented a possibility as far as I can see. A far-fetched possibility of a mechanism.
quote:
Now when we first go started on this, I had posted a list of greatly elevated shorelines in post 390. The relative elevations will reveal the amount of movement that has occurred.
Arakii 237m
Guam 850ft
Naura 210ft
Banaba 265ft
Johnston 44ft
Kirwina 100ft
Caroline 20ft
Tongatary 270ft
Rennell 500ft
Muyua 1,200ft
New Caledona 330ft
Niue 208ft
Papua New Guinea 400m
Hmm, nothing global yet, so what's the point?
quote:
And then deep beneath the waves are the drowned islands called seamounts. Many of these seamounts are over 5,900 feet under water and are called guyots because they have flat tops which were once cut by waves. On some of these guyots coral remains have been found.
Yes, we know how that happened, or at least we have a very good theory supported by evidence.
quote:
With elevation shifts of such magnitudes, it would take even greater swings in sea level to have produced them. These large changes in sealevel point towards large removals of water as having taken place in the Pleistocene ice age. The sudden return of much of this volume to the oceans in a short period of time, and you have a global flood on your hands.
Nonsense, you ignore the systematics. More later. But this still has nothing to do with a global flood. Where is your evidence for a global flood? Why are we even discussing something that never happened?
Added by edit:
By systematics, I mean the general, orderly decline in seamount elevation away from the mid-oceanic ridges. Doesn't this suggest even the remotest possibility that the wave cut beaches and terraces might have something to do with the tectonics of the spreading centers? Or with the tectonics of hot spots, as the case may be? There is a line of evidence here that you ignore completely in your single-minded pursuit of a mechanism that is a minor factor at best.
You have provided us with no evidence that your mechanism even exists, just a story based on partial knowledge of geotectonics, backed up by a 70-year old theory. In other words, since plate tectonics theory has been developed, there is a better explanation of the beaches and terraces.
In fact, since you bring up seamounts, it would seem to me that if you were correct, the seamounts should rise with distance from the spreading ridges because the water depths are greater there and the increased weight of sea water should push the seamounts up and not down. It would appear to me that John is correct in his comment that the islands (and seamounts) are attached to a relatively rigid oceanic crust. You have made his point well.
[This message has been edited by edge, 09-20-2002]
[This message has been edited by edge, 09-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by wmscott, posted 09-18-2002 5:00 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by wmscott, posted 09-25-2002 6:12 PM edge has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 420 of 460 (18307)
09-25-2002 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by wmscott
09-25-2002 6:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
We have been discussing islands showing signs of having been raised in recent history. In my original post on this I posted the following link to a site with a list of raised coral islands. Their list includes islands from around the world. The majority are found in the Pacific, which is to be expected since it covers half the globe.
http://www.unep.ch/islands/Tityper.htm
Their listing is incomplete in that it doesn't include volcanic islands with raised shorelines. So even as extensive as their list is, it covers only part of the evidence of raised islands.
On the flat topped sea mounts called guyots, if they had slowly subsided due to lithospheric cooling, the coral would have easily kept up with the slow rate of descent and we would have a coral island today instead of a deeply submerged sea mount.
That's an interesting observation, expecially since some seamounts have dead coral reefs on them. It seems to me that you are selecting the data that you wish to address and disregard the rest, nah, nah naaaah....
quote:
Only if they had been rapidly submerged far faster than coral can grow, would we find guyots on the ocean floors.
Hmm, what about the evidence that submergence is related to disance from the divergent plate boundaries? Another relationship that you ignore...
quote:
...
Since the above evidence is found through out the oceans of the world, and since islands only occur in water, I don't know how you can get more global than this.
No, wmscott, that is not the point. The point is that these raised beach terraces are not high enough to indicate a global flood. I thought we had been over this before.
quote:
On expected sea mount elevations, I am invoking the normal theories of sea floor spreading and cooling, with the addition of large swings in ocean volume due to ice sheet formation. The sea mounts and particularly the guyots, are too old and cold to have been significantly affected by elevation changes due to changes in local pressure on the lithosphere.
But wmscott, most of the sea floor is 'old and cold'. Are you saying that your mechanism didn't even affect most of the oceanic crust? Then what is the point?
quote:
In most cases these former islands were beneath the waves even at the height of the last glacial advance and hence did not experience a pressure differential due to a change in sea level, only a even increase in pressure that resulted in an even depression.
But then where did all that magma go? To the edges of the ocean basin?
quote:
Which is why these areas were pushed down along with the surrounding sea floor with little or no uplift. Which is why I would not expect the find the pattern you suggest. As for a 70-year old theory, relativity is older, do you have a problem with it as well?
The problem is that your theory was pre-plate tectonics. They didn't even know about the asthenosphere back then.
quote:
Old theories that are still cited have stood the test of time and form the foundation of modern science. To challenge a theory just because it is old, would be to challenge the very progression of scientific advancement of building on the past.
Yes, those have withstood the test of time. And I do not challenge a theory because it is simply old.
quote:
On islands (and seamounts) being attached to a relatively rigid oceanic crust, under Darwin's reef or atoll theory, over time the island sinks. This sinking is due to local cooling, which results in local sinking, it doesn't pull the whole ocean floor down with it. So the rigidness of the oceanic crust is very 'relative' since the crust around a volcanic oceanic island is the most flexible part of the crust of the earth.
That's another interesting observation since the ocean basins seem to get deeper as the crust gets older. Now which is it? Are the islands attached to a rigid plate or not? YOu contradict yourself.
quote:
(More evidence for fluctuating shorelines, but no evidence for a global flood)
Wmscott, you are wasting your time if you consider this to be evidence of a global flood. Everything is within a short distance of present sea level. Just like your whale bones and your glacial erratics, and your pollen, and your raised beaches. These are not evidence of a global flood. You have failed once again to provide evidence for your phantom global flood. Where is the evidence that your flood covered even the elevation of my house? You have none.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by wmscott, posted 09-25-2002 6:12 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by wmscott, posted 09-30-2002 6:36 PM edge has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 429 of 460 (18665)
10-01-2002 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by wmscott
09-30-2002 6:36 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by wmscott:
...
Some of the evidence already cited in this thread is from higher elevations and as I have stated before, I am currently involved in on going research on plotting the extent of the post glacial marine transgression. [/B][/QUOTE]
Good. When you find some evidence for a global flood, please let us know. In the meantime, I see little use in discussing a mechanism for an event for which there is no supporting evidence.
Until then, this is a colossal waste of time. You have convoluted the entire science of geology creating shallow water where there is deep water, and denying what we actually observe happening at volcanic centers all over the world. Mainstream geology has explanations for EVERY observation that you make, but you simply ignore all of the work done in the past and cling to your myth of a flood. You have no problem forcing data to conform to your forgone conclusion of a global flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by wmscott, posted 09-30-2002 6:36 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by wmscott, posted 10-02-2002 6:50 PM edge has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024