[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.
Thank you for reminding me. I guess that was Darwin. I was apparently thinkng about "reef", sensu lato rather than coral atolls.
Ouch! You are right. I forgot to save anything about dating for the Pacific Crustal Plate for the post and have tried to regenerate it. That's why there was a question in that area, I'm sure.
The field is rich with extremely detailed data. What I have summarized here is that the movement of the Pacific Crustal Plate seems not to have been consistent over time. The range of speeds possible are from less than 1cm/year to about 16. At the lower end of speed, Gondwana is still on the map. At the higher end of speed, a sailing ship would be lucky if the islands were still at the destination marked on the map when it arrived. Not that this is any better a story than before, but this time I'll jist list the most salient pointers below for future reference.
Further to the previous post, it looks like the present movement of the pacific plate is generally parallel with the Aleutian Trench and head on to the Kuril and Japan Trenches. Before the shift at the Kammu Seamount, the Plate looks like it headed toward both at a 45 degree angle to each... right into the corner where the Trenches intersect at Kamchatka. Wonder what caused the shift? Maybe its timing was important.
The last 2 probably refute some of what I saw under the name "Sarfatti"
I don't know how to insert a picture from my PC. There are 2 that are significant to this board. The first shows the crustal plates and relative movement. The second shows the glaciated parts of Austrailia, Antarctica, Madagascar, India, Africa, and South America fitted together.
By the way, it was a thrill of a lifetime to drive up the western rim of the Waimea Canyon on Kauai. A little past the ranger station/museum and complex with the unique antennas, one can complete the journey on foot. I followed the knife-edge path to its very end at a peak overlooking the northwest edge of the island. A tree-like plant is there and I had to hang on for dear life because a cloud went through and drenched everything. If you are going to do this, wear sturdy boots, take cowhide gloves, and plenty of water. Along the way, the path is inches wide toward the end with footfalls carved into the hard clay-like surface. On the right is as sheer a fall as gravity will allow for a steep slope covered with volcanically sharp rocks and stones. And, absolutely no vegetation. Nothing to hang on to if you fall that way. On the left is lush vegetation. You might be able to fall through it if you tried, but you would be crashing into limbs all the way down for about 3,000 feet. It was really far down, steep, and breathtaking.
Minnemooseus has already pointed out the flaw in your argument. My point in my earlier post was that since Antarctica did not melt in the last inter glacial, it seems highly unlikely that there were significantly higher sea levels at that time. There is also the lack of similar shorelines on the continents. Which is why the high shorelines in the Hawaiian islands are not explainable by a higher sea level due to a greater ocean volume.
["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.
["There are beaches in Texas with sand dunes on them."]
Yes there are and funny you should bring them up. I was just reading about them, or at least about Mina mounds some of which are in Texas. The most plausible explanation for the formation of Mima mounds is moving water as in sheet flooding or the movement of possibly deeper water. The mounds appear to be ripple mounds and are also found in the area affected by the Missoula floods in Washington state. On beach dunes, their formation is affected by local climate and vegetation, both factors which differ from Texas to Hawaii. My point on the Hawaiian dunes was that Hawaiian islands are tropical and are densely vegetated on the rainy side of the islands, dunes require large open sandy areas to form. A sudden exposure of sandy submerged areas faster than tropical vegetation could cover it, is a good explanation for the dunes. But considering the information contained in the links posted on this page on uplift in the Hawaiian islands, it is now an unnecessarily long winded argument since a more direct route is now available. Check the first link in post 359.
A traditional reference for Darwin's theory of reef formation would be "The Voyage of the Beagle" by Charles Darwin, pages 474-485. (in the Harvard Classics edition ) Very good book by the way. I consider Darwin's reef theory his best work and it is still accepted and referenced. You may also want to check out NeilUnreal's post 360 in reference to Darwin's reef theory.
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. 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. 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.
The 'pocket effect' is real as demonstrated by the range of shorelines on the islands. 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. 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.
["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. 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.
["It is all starting to become an integrated picture, if highly multi-disciplinary. The proof of all this is in the world around us."]
Yes there is much evidence of flooding around the world, and as you point out, due to the highly mulit-discipline nature of scientific research it has yet to become fully integrated. In my book on the flood, ( the subject of this posting ) I put together many of these sperate pieces into one complete whole that explains how the deluge happened. Some of the floods were separate events that occurred at different times of course, but a number of the events have associations that tie them together as part of a larger single event.
Hadn't heard about the "megaliths under 100 feet of water off the island of Yonaguni", sounds interesting. Where did you hear about this?
["did Noah have 2 of each of the dinosaurs on his ark?"]
None, by the time Noah built the ark, the dinosaurs had been extinct for 65 million years. We covered what was and was not in the ark earlier on in this thread. Basically I theorize many animals survived outside the ark, and what was on the ark was mostly a cross section of domestic animals.
On your second post, I loved the information confirming that the coral was deposited by a high stand of the sea and not by a massive tsunami. Good information, I may want to reference their findings if I write a second edition. This fits in very nicely with what I have been saying. I would like to add that under my theory the mechanism behind the uplift was the increased pressure of returning water in the inter glacial followed by subsidence due to withdrawal of ocean water in glacial advances. Which is more workable since the uplift is affecting islands away from the hot spot, showing it is more of a general uplift, whereas uplift caused purely by the hot spot itself would expected to be more localized.
Nice math on flooding the earth, but it doesn't apply since you failed to familiarize yourself with the details of my flood theory. You made the common mistake in your calculations of assuming the earth's surface is rigid. The weight of shifting flood waters would cause shifts in elevations. ( pushing down ocean floors which in turn pushed up land and mountains to higher elevations. ) I also theorize that higher elevations where possibly covered by water in the form of ice, with the extensive ice cover in the ice age this would reduce the required depth of the flood waters considerably. You also made the mistake of assuming that the glaciers were all solidly frozen before the flood. Prior to the flood the climate had undoubtedly already began to warm, which would have created large trapped glacial bodies of water. There is also no reason all the ice had to melt, it only had to displace water to contribute to the depth of the flood waters, surging ice raises sea levels just as well as glacial meltwaters does.
I agree with you on the Pacific plate probably slowing down, but I fail to see the tie in with the flood. The flood was a recent geological event while the events you refer to are not. What does one have to do with the other?
If you would read the first post in this thread, you will see that I accept the age of the earth and have little in common with YEC other than a belief in the deluge.
All I was trying to point out to axial-thingamabob was that the existence of catastrophic flooding in the history of the earth is not the issue with the Biblical account of the flood.
Most of us here accept that it is most likely grounded in a true event, but that it has been turned into a more compact form, suitable for story telling+shouting the power of God story i.e. it has been fictionalised for some purpose or other.
Personally I am happy to accept the idea of glacial meltdowns and ice-dam breaking causeing catastrophic flooding during a several thousand year period starting some 11-12000 years ago. I've read about these things, and interpretations of the evidences seem credible to me.
I think the issue might be that YEC's have a harder time with their faith than the rest of us ... and need to confirm it to themselves.
Now we are getting somewhere. The geological processes being discussed that pertain to the Hawaiian Islands stretch back about 700,000 years for the Big Island. Since there are a number of past shorelines, at least the Big Island is still growing, and since shorelines are not symmetrical in, say, CA, there must be a second component not having to do with sea level at work in the Hawaiian Islands. The time scale is long compared to the proposed 6,000 year old Noah Flood. The glaciers have phased 4 times in the past 160,000 years. Here is an informative link. http://www.hartwick.edu/geology/work/VFT-so-far/glaciers/glacier1.html
If, as you believe,
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.
, then there should be a model that could show this. Hydrostatics and hydrodynamics are very advanced. In Greenland, there is a spot in the middle where the ice is 3410m thick and the elevation is 3270m. This means the weight of the ice has depressed the land by being directly on top of it. We don't know the original elevation, so can only predict the amount of depression. It is probably not 1:1. I would join you except for one matter. The weight of the water in comparison to the weight of the island seem cruxial. If a hundred feet change in the level of the ocean is enough to trigger an up/down movement, the system seems unusually sensitive. There must be a second phenomenon correlated with this. Perhaps the hotspot pressure phases, as well. I didn't see this in any references. Maybe what you are proposing, in connection with earthquake and oil drilling data could expose this phasing. Who knows, maybe that analysis would yield the missing link for predicting earthquakes! Finally, ocean currents can raise the sea level where land forces a change in course. If the land appears faster than the current can change direction, it could be spectacular. Finally, there is a note on the Greenland map in the National Geographic Atlas that if Greenland's and Antarctica's ice all melted, sea level would go up 6m. This is not a biblical number for 97% of the World's remaining ice over land.
When you said
quote:The hyaloclastite nature of the activity also indicates this activity occurred when the islands were more deeply submerged then they are today
, a quick investigation shows that type of rock formation forms with quick quenching under a selected range of water pressure. It seems to me that hyaloclastites form during island building, the seamount stage, not during island sitting. Otherwise there would be old "pillow" rocks as on the Columbia Plateau.
Summary. Beaches must form in only a few thousand years. There is time for the Hawaiian Islands to teeter-totter during their occupation by people. If it happened there, it could happen at other hotspots. I am afraid this unintentionally opens the door for Herodotus' story of Atlantis. Oops.
On the Yonaguni structures: http://www.crystalinks.com/bythesea.html http://www.eaglesdisobey.com/UnderwaterRuins.htm I like this guys multidisciplinary analysis. He makes the point that the last time there was a temperature as high as today's was 130,000 years ago. As that temperature fell once more to lower levels, the glaciers rebuilt and we had the phasing. Essentially, there were 100,000 years where now-flooded coastal plains were habitable. http://www.divernet.com/profs/okinawa799.htm is a divers view of what he saw. http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html is yet another separate view. I somehow can't find my direct link to the page of the Japanese professor who is single-handedly pursuing the investigation. It really is offensive that western mainstrean archeologists and anthropologists are not helping him. I hope someone is keeping tally so people have accountability for their words and actions.
Last on Yonaguni. It is very near Taiwan. The depth of the East China Sea maxes at about 300 feet. No kidding, it was a low-lying coastal plain for most of the 100,000 years before 15,000 years ago. Maybe it was like the piedmont on our East Coast. If so, it would be replete with archeology. Why hasn't there been any news about the structures found on Taiwan? What about looking for more structures underwater around Taiwan in the former coastal plain that encompases yonaguni?
I know the dinosaurs went extinct, but I wanted to dangle some bait. I would like to post a response to the person who said it asking him for chapter and verse. I have read the Bible, too, and have several versions available to me. No dinosaurs. Let's see what he says.
Here is a thought. The dinosaurs did not go extinct at the Cretaceous Boundary event, http://www.athenapub.com/crater1.htm but the climate changed and the big ones could not evolve rapidly enough to acclimatize. The smaller ones evolved even smaller to acclimatize and to compete with the mammals. Maybe they lasted 10M years in pockets while the mammals mutated to fill the void. I think only bats fly among the mammals, so this would be a niche that dinosaurs could fill. The point is that the mammals were small, rugged, and agile, and got bigger and more varied. The dinosaurs were big, brawney, and well-suited to a non-extent niche. Not enough time to evolve smaller. The same dynamics work for small companies looking to overtake big ones in the market. The tactic is simple. Change the market.
I am intrigued by Lake Missoula and the other 2 whose results have been found. I mentioned it in a previous post that would support your position, come to think of it.
Evolution may be like a superfluid in a container. It has an intrinsic rate of mutation that can be surpassed by environmental changes causing extinction. The word in magnetism is hysteresis.
100,000 years of human development is now underwater, maybe including talk about Noah's biblical flood. Hmmm.
quote:Originally posted by wmscott: Minnemooseus has already pointed out the flaw in your argument.
Yes, I got things backward when I wrote the post, but the concept is valid.
quote:My point in my earlier post was that since Antarctica did not melt in the last inter glacial, it seems highly unlikely that there were significantly higher sea levels at that time. There is also the lack of similar shorelines on the continents. Which is why the high shorelines in the Hawaiian islands are not explainable by a higher sea level due to a greater ocean volume.
'k... fair enough.
quote:["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.
Then what is the problem with the coral being above sea level? Well, maybe your reply to edge explains this.
Sir, you take my point out of its context in your curt come-back and presume that the person to whom I directed it must respond with immediacy because you require it. All of us here should be objectively seeking the truth.
There is a step-by-step cause-effect relationship between what has been observed and what wmscott is trying to fit together in his theory. I am asking about specific elements of his process within his context. My questions must also be respectfully posed within the context of existing and potentially related phenomena to get my answer and to help him.
"I hope I get one soon." is not respectful. What are your intentions of making disrespectful demands on someone else's time? Why do you believe that help solve the mystery of biblical floods?
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.
Well, I hope you are not too deeply offended. Whoever runs this crystalink page was the first to pick up on the new archeological finds. Maybe they did that for a reason you dislike, but they helped by giving another source for the information and pictures besides the Japanese professor while western mainstream devoted no attention to the finds and results. They took a chance when there wasn't a bandwagon to jump on. I am not otherwise aware of their reputation. Did you check out the other links and see the same or similar images? If not, here is the professor's, which I found: http://www.summit-okinawa.gr.jp/tokusyu/ruins1.htm