Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 3:02 PM
30 online now:
AZPaul3, Hyroglyphx, kjsimons, PaulK, PsychMJC, ringo, Stile, xongsmith (8 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,303 Year: 9,339/19,786 Month: 1,761/2,119 Week: 521/576 Day: 116/80 Hour: 0/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
2728
...
31Next
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood
edge
Member
Posts: 4605
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.4


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 yet responded

wmscott
Member (Idle past 4414 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 378 of 460 (14978)
08-07-2002 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by edge
08-02-2002 12:51 AM


edge

["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!)."]

Yes, that explanation would work great if the beaches were located on the Yellowstone Plateau, however they are not, they are in Hawaii and I am saying that the islands were uplifted. As for whether or not they exist, why don't you check my cited source? To sum up the score here, you first cite irrelevant evidence from another part of the world and then question the validity of evidence from a cited source. Sounds like a home run to me. Unless you are willing to do some home work and come up with a better explanation, you might as well concede the point.

["a fanciful story about topographic 'pockets' (which we do not see)"]

If you want to see the pocket I was talking about, try looking at a detailed map of the ocean floor of the area of Hawaii. Look for names such as 'Hawaiian Swell', 'Hawaiian Deep' and 'Hawaiian Arch'. There is a nice map of this in the book "Volcanoes in the Sea; The Geology of Hawaii" 2ed, page 341. Perhaps you do not see these things because you don't take the time to look, your eyes are already closed to everything you don't accept.

On your second post, many times the significance of some types of evidence is not realized until it is known what to look for. Since the deluge is considered a non event, evidence supporting it is currently interpreted in terms of other accepted geological events. There is nothing wrong in this, just a case of people going with what appears to be the most reasonable explanation. Now if someone were to provide convincing evidence of a world wide flood, some of the existing evidence would be found to be better explained by a global flood.

On other effects affecting the uplift of the Hawaiian islands, I am not ignoring them, there aren't any that have a significant effect in recent geological history. If you know of any please list them in your next post and list them in order of strongest effect to weakest and explain how they have acted on island uplift.

["Wait! If melting of the continental ice sheets could not raise sea level several hundred feet, then how do you flood the entire globe?"]

Timing, a slow melt down would only raise sea level to what we have today, after all the ice age ice sheets are gone and we have no flood today. Only if the water entered the sea faster than isostactic adjustment could occur would there be a sea level rise to any levels significantly above what we have today. Out of the various retreats of the ice sheets, only the last is know to have been very abrupt. Also the coral implies a lengthily submergence, which is not possible due to a flood caused by a quick surging event, as isostactic adjustment will lower the sea level before high level coral reefs could form.

["Do you have any references to this? Where is this actually observed? Sounds like a convoluted just-so story to me."]

All the referenced evidence is from the cited source listed in the post. Since you are so overwhelmed by this evidence that you question it's validity, you really should check it and read it for yourself.

["I'm sure you will get the results that you want..."]

I don't share your confidence. The findings will be the foundation for a scientific paper, no evidence, no paper. I don't know if things will work out until I actually do my tests. Your attitude highlights the fact that I will need very solid evidence, I will have to wait and see if my findings will turn out to be of that caliber.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by edge, posted 08-02-2002 12:51 AM edge has not yet responded

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 4414 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 379 of 460 (14979)
08-07-2002 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by axial soliton
08-01-2002 1:38 PM


axial soliton;

Yes, I view the ocean volume changes associated with changes in glacial ice volume as the secondary effect for elevation changes in ocean islands. The effect would probably come into play with smaller ocean volume changes as well, which would mean that if the remaining glacial ice were to melt, there is a possibility some of the ocean islands would literally rise above the rising waves and expose their current shorelines above water. There could be a minimum depth increase to trigger the shift, a threshold, rising sea levels below the threshold would start to submerge the islands. Then if the level of increase passed the threshold, a shift could occur uplifting the island. Or there may not be a threshold and the shifting is very responsive. But I would expect some sort of threshold due to the resistance to flow found in cooling magma. This up and down movement is visible in the effects created on the ocean floor around Hawaii. "The Hawaiian island chain . . . The island themselves are the projecting tops of a volcanic mountain range known as the Hawaiian ridge. . . . Partly surrounding the ridge is a moat like depression known as the Hawaiian Deep, and beyond is a broad upbowing of the ocean floor which is called the Hawaiian Arch." "Volcanoes in the Sea; The Geology of Hawaii" 2ed, page 341. Think of this area as a sort of bellows, a area of flexing. With each swing in ocean depth caused by glacial cycles, there was depression and uplift with this area taking up the slack in the middle. The mainstream explanation is to explain this away by hot spot uplift, which is not very good considering the generalness of the uplift compared to the location of the hot spot and the raised shorelines are too well preserved to date from remote enough time periods in the past to make this a reasonable explanation. The highly erodeable geology of the islands and their young age point towards this flexing being more recent. The above cited source on page 342 noted "the amount of actual subsidence measured far exceeds that which should occur by isostatic adjustments of the islands alone." My point in bring this discussion up is to show that not all land-sea shifts can be explained through strictly isostatic explanations, which is obviously true whether one believes in the deluge or not.

My apologies to the National Geographic Atlas publishers, but their figure of a 6 m rise from the possible melting of the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets is off the mark by quite a bit, or they may have gotten their facts crossed. The book "Glaciers & Glaciation" by Douglas I. Benn and David J.A. Evans, 1998, on page 11, states ". . . the Greenland ice sheet may have completely disappeared during the last inter-glacial, accounting for a 6 m rise in global sea-level at that time (Chappell and Shackleton, 1986)." Greenland by itself has enough ice volume to rise the sea level by 6 m, Antarctica has enough glacial ice to rise sea level by 60 m. (according to Britannica) Both of these ice sheets are minor and survived the end of the last ice age when the truly huge ice sheets of the Pleistocene came to a sudden end. I estimate the flood resulting from that to be in the range of several thousand feet deep.

On the hydroclastic volcanic activity in Hawaii, it is for real, check it out for yourself. Much of the late volcanic activity that occurred at the end of the last ice age in the islands was hydroclastic. Some of the locations and examples include Diamond Head, and on top of Mauna Kea at 14,000 ft. The mainstream explanation for the last one is eruption under glacial ice. ("Volcanoes in the Sea; The Geology of Hawaii", 2ed, page 258.) In the areas too low to have been covered by glacial ice, 'ground water' is invoked, possible perhaps but it still raises the question of why at the time of the late volcanic activity there was so much more 'ground water' than today. Considering the islands were greatly uplifted at the end of the flood by magma being forced up beneath the island, late hydroclastic is exactly what is to be expected.

On the Yonaguni structures, after checking the links, I would have to say that they appear to me to be of natural origin. The cuts look faceted and crystalline with a geometric beauty far beyond ice age stone age design and considering they are found in a naturally fracturing sandstone deposit, I vote for natural formation unless human artifacts can be closely tied with its creation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by axial soliton, posted 08-01-2002 1:38 PM axial soliton has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 380 of 460 (14981)
08-07-2002 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by axial soliton
08-01-2002 6:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by axial soliton:
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.

Excuse me? I posed this same question in post # 349 in this thread. My 'curt comeback' was a reminder to wmscott that I never got a response, at least as of my posting the message you chastise me over. This in neither rude nor is it taking your post out of context.

quote:
"I hope I get one soon." is not respectful.

And your post to me is?

quote:
Editorial Note: Sorry Percy.

Percy is not the one to whom you need to apologize.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by axial soliton, posted 08-01-2002 6:54 PM axial soliton has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by wmscott, posted 08-08-2002 1:27 PM John has responded

wmscott
Member (Idle past 4414 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 381 of 460 (15034)
08-08-2002 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by John
08-07-2002 6:12 PM


John

See posts 365 and 379.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by John, posted 08-07-2002 6:12 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by John, posted 08-08-2002 4:10 PM wmscott has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 382 of 460 (15035)
08-08-2002 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by wmscott
08-08-2002 1:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
John

See posts 365 and 379.


ok. Thanks.

I am still not clear though.

These changes are due to a change of water level of a hundred feet or so? This is not much water given the depth of the ocean, and the enormous mass of the islands involved.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by wmscott, posted 08-08-2002 1:27 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by wmscott, posted 08-09-2002 12:56 PM John has responded

wmscott
Member (Idle past 4414 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 383 of 460 (15099)
08-09-2002 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by John
08-08-2002 4:10 PM


John

Let's see, more clearly, humm. Think of the isostatic balance of land and sea. The crust of the earth that makes up the land has a lower density than the ocean crust. This is why the land rises above the level of the ocean floors. The lighter a material is, the higher it floats. The land and sea can be compared to two kids on a seesaw. At the moment the seesaw is balanced with the land kid raised a little bit higher than the sea kid. But then the sea kid's mother walks by the seesaw and hands him a large glass of water. This extra weight causes his side of the seesaw to sink while the other side rises. This happens when at the end of an Ice Age large amounts of water is returned to the oceans, the ocean floors are depressed and adjoining land areas are correspondingly raised. For example, the sudden flooding of the Black Sea pushed the former lake bottom down an estimated 200 feet. The weight of Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets has depressed parts of the land beneath them to levels below sealevel.

Shifts in relative elevations like this are possible due to the fluid and plastic nature of materials beneath the earth's crust. As one area is pushed down into the earth, there is a sideways movement out from underneath the depression. The weight of an ice sheet depresses the land beneath it, pushing material beneath the earth's crust down and out to the sides, where a surrounding glacial bulge is created. This is a plastic movement, not a fluid one, in this example.

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. The effect of this is that even a seemly small increase can cause a shift in the earth's crust. We have the example of the Mississippi river delta in the Gulf of Mexico, the gradual increasing weight of this delta is slowly depressing that part of the Gulf of Mexico. When large dam reservoirs are filled, the weight of the water depresses the earth's crust a bit, bending it and causing earth quakes. Here in the case of the dam reservoir, we see that even a fairly small concentrated weight of water is enough to cause shifting in the earth's crust.

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. (There is another effect that may have come into play with the Pacific that could have resulted in it taking up a majority of the returning waters, but to keep things simple we will ignore this possibility for the time being.) 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? 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. Using plastic movement caused by the general depression of the ocean floor, a resulting local uplift in the hot material beneath the islands is possible that a strictly fluid explanation would be unable to account for. The islands only have their elevation due to the fact that the hot material beneath them is lighter than the surrounding cooler material. the islands themselves are cold, and sit on top of hot bulge like a rock on a hot air balloon. This is why the islands are often in a deep pocket surrounded by a rise. 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 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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by John, posted 08-08-2002 4:10 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by John, posted 08-09-2002 7:47 PM wmscott has responded
 Message 385 by edge, posted 08-09-2002 8:14 PM wmscott has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 384 of 460 (15109)
08-09-2002 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by wmscott
08-09-2002 12:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
The crust of the earth that makes up the land has a lower density than the ocean crust. This is why the land rises above the level of the ocean floors. The lighter a material is, the higher it floats.

But the Hawaian islands are volcanic and are made of the same stuff as the ocean floor-- ie, lava welling up from the mantle through the crust. Yes? That being the case how does this apply?

quote:
This extra weight causes his side of the seesaw to sink while the other side rises. This happens when at the end of an Ice Age large amounts of water is returned to the oceans, the ocean floors are depressed and adjoining land areas are correspondingly raised.

But if instead of a seesaw, you imagine a piece of plywood balanced at its center and then press down evenly on all sides as water in the ocean would do, then you don't get this seesaw effect.

Or for a better example, build a plywood platform say 100' by 100' and float it on some very dense but still liquid material like tar. Build a mountian of rock about six foot tall in the center. That mountain would depress the platform. Ok. Now flood the platform with water to a height of five feet. The platform depresses a bit more. Now vary the water depth by six inches or so. There isn't going to be much change in the amount of deflection.

[quote][b] For example, the sudden flooding of the Black Sea pushed the former lake bottom down an estimated 200 feet. The weight of Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets has depressed parts of the land beneath them to levels below sealevel.[/quote]

[/b]

Not applicable. You have different materials involved. Dirt is more subject to compaction than volcanic rock. And you are talking about a few hundred feet, not the warping of miles thick crust.

But no argument with the general concept of water weight crushing the land beneath it. I just don't understand how a relatively small volume of water can move the oceanic crusts as much as it seems it would have to do.

quote:
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.

I think that you are missing the fact that this added weight is distributed over the whole ocean floor. It isn't pushing down at one spot. In my analogy above, it is like applying weight over the entire platform. My platform would have to be a sphere filled with tar to get a better picture and the water would have to surround it and be pulled toward the center. Not easily replicated in the lab. You can't push down at one spot without conpressing the tar or haveing it just out at another spot.

[quote][/b]The effect of this is that even a seemly small increase can cause a shift in the earth's crust. We have the example of the Mississippi river delta in the Gulf of Mexico, the gradual increasing weight of this delta is slowly depressing that part of the Gulf of Mexico. When large dam reservoirs are filled, the weight of the water depresses the earth's crust a bit, bending it and causing earth quakes. Here in the case of the dam reservoir, we see that even a fairly small concentrated weight of water is enough to cause shifting in the earth's crust.[/b][/quote]

But in all cases you are adding mass to a specific area, not the entire ocean. You can depress the surface of a balloon with your finger, but that isn't the same as applying preasure to the whole surface of the balloon.

quote:
Now in the case of ocean islands and the deluge,

First off, my initial comments concerned a specific mechanism used to describe a specific feature of the Hawaian islands. Now on to the flood.

quote:
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.

Ok. Then it seems you are postulating an original pre-flood sea floor covered by 2000 feet of water? Is there evidence of beaches or coral formations around that depth?

quote:
Now the bone we have been fighting over in this argument that you have jumped into

Is this not an open forum?

quote:
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?

It isn't lighter if the volume is great enough. No problem there.

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.

But the islands sit on top of that crust. Push the crust down the islands go with it. At the base of the island they are tied to the crust via a very substantial footprint. The water would be pushing DOWN on that foot as well as on the surrounding ocean floor.

quote:
Using plastic movement caused by the general depression of the ocean floor, a resulting local uplift in the hot material beneath the islands

Resulting is volcanic eruptions perhaps? This seem more likely, as the channel for escape is already there.

quote:
The islands only have their elevation due to the fact that the hot material beneath them is lighter than the surrounding cooler material. The islands themselves are cold, and sit on top of hot bulge like a rock on a hot air balloon.

Ok. I am sure this is correct to a degree, but don't you think some that elevation is due to volcanos constantly adding material to the top of the islands?

quote:
This is why the islands are often in a deep pocket surrounded by a rise.

I looked up some ocean floor topology maps at a USGS site and I don't see these pockets. Can you point me to some maps that show these features?

quote:
this causes the bulge to be forced back into a smaller area which raises the island.

Due to the massive footprints of these islands, I can't see this happening. The preasure would be much too broadly distributed.

quote:
Like pushing a plate down into the mud, the mud squeezes out and up around the edges of the plate.

But you are not squeezing a plate into mud, you are squeezing hydraulic fluid inside a hydraulic piston-- albiet this piston has leaks.

quote:
the depression of the ocean plate has similar effects. Areas where the trapped plastic material beneath the plate can ozoo out are uplifted.

Again, the maps I found do not show this. Show me maps and I will retract any effected criticisms.

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.

Ok. Small but measurable effect.

quote:
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.

The islands being much more massive would be pulled down more than the relatively thin crust (locally). I don't see how this supoorts what you are postulating.

Take care.

Thanks for the indepth reply.

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

[This message has been edited by John, 08-09-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by wmscott, posted 08-09-2002 12:56 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by wmscott, posted 08-10-2002 2:48 PM John has responded

edge
Member
Posts: 4605
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.4


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 yet responded

wmscott
Member (Idle past 4414 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 386 of 460 (15162)
08-10-2002 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by John
08-09-2002 7:47 PM


John & edge

You two seem to be on the same track so I have decided to combine my response to the two of you here in this one post.

If you want to see the pocket I was talking about, try looking at a detailed map of the ocean floor of the area of Hawaii. Look for names such as 'Hawaiian Swell', 'Hawaiian Deep' and 'Hawaiian Arch'. There is a nice map of this in the book "Volcanoes in the Sea; The Geology of Hawaii" 2ed, page 341. The term 'pocket' I have been using is, as far as I know, not the official designation for these island centered sea floor depressions. These depressions are part of basic ocean island geology and are not something I came up with. As you hopefully know, ocean islands are formed by the action of a hot spot. Now the hot spot before it melts through the ocean plate, creates a uplifted area on the ocean floor, a broad rise. Once it melts through, the island is built on top of this rise. As the mountain grows in size and weight, it begins to depress the center of this rise. (the 'pocket') At this point the island is floating on the buoyancy of the hot spot magma and the island elevation is very responsive to changes in the profile of the magma body. As ages pass, the hot spot feeding the hot magma body moves away which results in cooling. The bulge subsides and the island sinks beneath the sea and becomes a sea mount. The weight of the sea mount will tend to push the ocean floor down resulting in a depression centered on the sea mount.

"build a plywood platform say 100' by 100' and float it on some very dense but still liquid material like tar. Build a mountain of rock about six foot tall in the center. That mountain would depress the platform."

Yes the mountain would depress the platform, it would continue to sink until the weight was compensated for by forming a pocket which would displace some of the dense liquid. The mountain could continue to maintain it's position if it's weight was supported by a warm bubble of hot liquid beneath it, the lower density of the warmer liquid would offset the density of mountain itself. Now there is a natural tendency for the hot bubble to spread out from beneath the mountain, which results in the mountain sinking down a bit. If we flood the platform with six feet of water, it will put pressure on the bubble and will change it's profile. Depending on the dynamics of our model, the pressure can cause the bubble to be squeezed back into it's original position of being centered beneath the mountain. The addition of the weight of the water to the platform also causes some of the hot tar like liquid beneath the top cold layer, to move up a connecting thread to the hot bubble of tar beneath the mountain, making the hot tar bubble grow larger. This increase in size results in lifting the island. The out come of any model like this is highly dependent on the way they are constructed. One has to remember the extreme small vertical scale we are dealing with here, if the earth was the size of an apple, the oceans would be thinner than the peal. On the scale of the size of the earth, the shifts in elevation I an talking about are very small.

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, while the mountains in the southern half of the island, formed by volcanic activity, reach elevations up to 1,300 feet. and (Ocean Island) are raised coral islands that stand at elevations of about 210 and 265 feet, respectively." Britannica. Now obviously these raised coral formations were not formed by a higher sea level, or else they would be located at a common elevation. As you can see from the quote, they were raised by 'geologic action'. Here we have islands scattered around the world which show evidence of recent uplift. 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. 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.

"Then it seems you are postulating an original pre-flood sea floor covered by 2000 feet of water? Is there evidence of beaches or coral formations around that depth?"

No. My most far out flood model would reduce average ocean depths only by half and the draw down was probably far less. I assume you two are already familiar with the lower shorelines of the ice age. Around the world the continental shelves were exposed. Now in calculating the volume of water removed to create the low sea level, one doesn't treat the earth's surface as rigid, one has to allow for the flexing that occurred. As water was removed from the oceans the ocean floors flexed upward and land areas sank. This greatly reduced the apparent drop in sea level. Evidence of just how much flexing occurred is shown by wave erosion found on the tops of deeply submerged sea mounts. I have even heard of this type of erosion being found on areas of the Mid Atlantic Ridge. Due to this flexing effect, large removals of water from the world's oceans does not result in extreme low shorelines some think would occur.

"But the islands sit on top of that crust. Push the crust down the islands go with it. At the base of the island they are tied to the crust via a very substantial footprint. The water would be pushing DOWN on that foot as well as on the surrounding ocean floor . . . Resulting is volcanic eruptions perhaps? This seem more likely, as the channel for escape is already there."

Your model is over simplified and is lacking key effects. 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. It is all in how you build your model, they all have their limits and their faults. And yes this did result in volcanic activity, there was late glacial and post glacial volcanic activity that occurred in the islands and areas throughout the world associated with the sudden end of the ice age.

"Ok. I am sure this is correct to a degree, but don't you think some that elevation is due to volcanos constantly adding material to the top of the islands?"

How does that raise a coral reef shoreline?

"you are squeezing hydraulic fluid inside a hydraulic piston-" "I have two columns in gravitational equilibrium. I catastrophically add a mile of water to each. What happens?"

You both are using over simplified models that are totally lacking the effects that raise the islands that I am referring to. The earth is not filled with hydraulic fluid nor is it's surface composed of hydraulic cylinders or columns. Plus why do you assume the starting point was in equilibrium? 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.

"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." "The islands being much more massive would be pulled down more than the relatively thin crust (locally). I don't see how this supports what you are postulating."

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'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by John, posted 08-09-2002 7:47 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by John, posted 08-10-2002 6:49 PM wmscott has responded
 Message 388 by edge, posted 08-11-2002 12:38 PM wmscott has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 387 of 460 (15168)
08-10-2002 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by wmscott
08-10-2002 2:48 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by wmscott:
[B] John & edge {/b][/quote]

And aren't we a cute couple too?

quote:
Look for names such as 'Hawaiian Swell', 'Hawaiian Deep' and 'Hawaiian Arch'.

Ok. The keywords help. Now I have a better idea of what you are talking about.

I follow you right up to here:

quote:
Depending on the dynamics of our model, the pressure can cause the bubble to be squeezed back into it's original position of being centered beneath the mountain.

The bubble in question, is this bubble otherwise known as the hot-spot? If so, I am back to disbelief. The weight of a mile of ocean can push around hundreds of cubic miles of crust and mantle?

quote:
One has to remember the extreme small vertical scale we are dealing with here, if the earth was the size of an apple, the oceans would be thinner than the peal.

Yes, I know, which is why I am having such a hard time with the oceans powering the dynamics you describe.

quote:
As you can see from the quote, they were raised by 'geologic action'.

I have no problem with the geologic action. I have a problem with the geological action being powered by a global flood. This is the real point after all.

quote:
Hummm, what force in recent geological history could effect far flung islands?

Gee, plate tektonics, changes in the mantle's convection currents....

Maybe you could point out some specific islands?

[quote][b]The only connecting factor is they are all affected by the level of the sea.[quote][b]

So you say. I am waiting for more detail. See above.

quote:
Otherwise you are just nay saying which is something anyone can do about anything.

Think of it as constructive criticism. Besides, variations in mechanics of the hot-spot could push these islands up and down. Edge pointed this out already.

quote:
As water was removed from the oceans the ocean floors flexed upward and land areas sank.

I'm sure it did, but by how much? The oceans average five kilometers, the crust is between 10 and 40 kilometers. How much flex can the oceans cause?

quote:
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.

You are ignoring some elements in your model as well. For example, there aren't any edges-- the crust is continuous. And you are not pressing down on the tile. A better analogy would be pressing down on the surrounding tiles and expecting the central tile to rise. Add to this that the central tile is attached to the surrounding tiles. Also a problem is that the mantle is very thick (as far as viscosity) and thick in depth too. You are moving an enormous amount of material with, as you said, a film of material the relative size of an apple peel.

[quote]
US: "you are squeezing hydraulic fluid inside a hydraulic piston-" "I have two columns in gravitational equilibrium. I catastrophically add a mile of water to each. What happens?"

Them: You both are using over simplified models that are totally lacking the effects that raise the islands that I am referring to.[quote][b]

Exactly.

Furthermore, I posit that my hydraulic ram analogy is much better than "a plate in the mud"

quote:
The earth is not filled with hydraulic fluid

Any liquid can serve as hydraulic fluid. The properties are not a fucntion of the material.

quote:
nor is it's surface composed of hydraulic cylinders or columns.

But in many ways it functions as if it were. The crust serves as the walls of the ram. Gravity the force applied. The liquid mantle, the hydraulic fluid.

The earth's surface isn't composed of plates in mud or tiles in mortar either.

quote:
Plus why do you assume the starting point was in equilibrium?

Why do you think I assume the starting point is in equilibrium?

quote:
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.

That, or your model is wrong.

quote:
"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." "The islands being much more massive would be pulled down more than the relatively thin crust (locally). I don't see how this supports what you are postulating."

Actually, what Edge said and what I said are not the same thing.

quote:
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.

What?

quote:
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'.

And how does this relate?

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


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by wmscott, posted 08-13-2002 5:52 PM John has responded

edge
Member
Posts: 4605
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.4


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 responded

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

wmscott
Member (Idle past 4414 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 389 of 460 (15385)
08-13-2002 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by edge
08-11-2002 12:38 PM


Edge

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. 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. 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." 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. 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. 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by edge, posted 08-11-2002 12:38 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by edge, posted 08-13-2002 10:59 PM wmscott has not yet responded

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 4414 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 390 of 460 (15386)
08-13-2002 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by John
08-10-2002 6:49 PM


John & Edge

The 'bubble' I was referring to in my last post is the hypothetical magma chamber located in the upper crust just beneath the island from which the erupted material comes. I my last post I was focusing on changes in the profile of the magma chamber caused by large changes in sea level which in turn would affect the resulting island elevation. Think of it this way, if an island was sitting on top of a large shallow magma chamber, a major reduction in local sea level will result in the island becoming comparatively heavier, as the surrounding weight of water is reduced. This results in the island appearing to be heavier, then there is the effect of more of the island rising above the falling sea level which means this part of the island mass is no longer submerged and is no longer supported by the sea, rocks weigh less under water. ( rock - weight of displaced water = less weight.) This can cause the weight of the island to depress the top of the magma chamber resulting in the island subsiding. In the case of a large rise in local sea level, the reverse effects come into play. The uplift do to this type of action is more dependent on the chamber and island factors than on the size of sea level change, which is why the uplift or depression can be far larger than isostactic forces can account for.

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. 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. The magma was rising anyway, the increased pressure merely speeds it on it's way. The location from which the increased water pressure forces up the magma from, is anywhere from just beneath the chamber, somewhere along the thread (a rising mass of magma), down to possibly the top of the hot spot itself. The isostact pressure increase caused by increased depth of the ocean water can act as a trigger that releases a upward surge of rising magma that lifts the island far more than direct isostact adjustment of the island would predict.

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. Uplift caused by ocean volume increase is the only reasonable explanation considering just how wide spread island uplift is. 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.

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." 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. 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. The guyots were submerged suddenly to a depth below which coral can live at a rate faster than coral can grow at. We are looking at a post ice age combination of large sea floor depression combined with large and wide spread uplift of islands.

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. 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.

To sum up, I am saying that at the retreat of each glacial advance there was a large increase in ocean volume and depth which resulted in sea floor depression and resulting uplifting of the islands. Then as the next glacial staged advanced and sea levels and ocean volumes dropped, many of the islands sagged into the crust due to their weight and the reduced pressure on the surrounding ocean floor. Some islands may not have subsided as much due to being smaller and hence lighter, this resulted in a progressive uplift with each glacial cycle creating a 'staircase' of raised coral reefs with the oldest on top and the youngest on the bottom. (found in a number of areas) The difference between conventional uplift and what I am saying, is the periodness and the cycles of uplift. Normal uplift due to tectonic movement or increased hot spot activity is slow and progressive, while the factors I am citing will produce sudden uplift with periods of little or no uplift in-between. This will create distinct raised reef series with no reefs in-between. Which is exactly what we find. The conventional uplift would produce a continuous series of one reef leading into another, but in nearly all areas, this is not what is found. The evidence of island uplift and subsidence indicates that much of the movement has occurred in a stop and go pattern.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by John, posted 08-10-2002 6:49 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by edge, posted 08-13-2002 10:51 PM wmscott has not yet responded
 Message 393 by John, posted 08-13-2002 11:26 PM wmscott has not yet responded
 Message 394 by John, posted 08-13-2002 11:27 PM wmscott has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4605
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.4


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 yet responded

RewPrev1
...
2425
26
2728
...
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