Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Essential dynamics & mechanisms of sea-level fluctuations
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 5 of 19 (20444)
10-22-2002 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
10-20-2002 10:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
See my 'EDIT' to Edge as well as Moose's coment. I have mixed up the terms for trench and rift valley/ridge!
I'm glad we got that cleared up. Do you see now why I needled you so? My next question is, 'where does this frictional resistance occur, if you thought that the rift valley was a deep sea trench?'
quote:
All I am syaing is that the bulging at the ridges would generate sea-level increases if this bulging were variable.
Which is exactly what mainstream geology proposes. The point gets to be what is your evidence that this caused a global flood, runaway subduction or any other fantastic consequences?
quote:
We empirically know that sea-levels have risen and fallen and so it is natural to ascribe these long-term fluctuaitons to such tectonic effects.
Since you respect empirical evidenc so much, then why do you go off on a fantastic search for strictly non-empirical results?
quote:
This is agreed mainstream. I am simply trying to tease out the essential dynamics.
So have you lost your confidence? Tell us what you think. We say that yes, this mechanism probably caused major transgressions that conform to the modern observations, but there is no evidence that there was ever a global flood and no evidence that the ridges could inflate hundreds of times in one year.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-20-2002 10:10 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-22-2002 9:17 PM edge has replied

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


Message 9 of 19 (20531)
10-22-2002 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
10-22-2002 9:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Since I kept talking about spreading from trenches I would have thought someone else would have picked up my misuse of terminology!
I'm not sure why I have to spell everything out for you, TB. We DID detect your misuse of terms. Your whole story made no sense at ll and that is why we badgered you to explain yourself so.
quote:
The bulging I am talking about is the well known bulging either side of the rift valleys.
See how much easier it is to communicate when you actually know something about subject?
quote:
I'm not saying any of this prove the flood etc. I just like to be clear baout what's going on.
The main thing that was clear is that you didn't really understand what you were talking about.
quote:
Some form of runaway subduciton and/or radioheating is still conceivable as demonstrated by Baumgardner's simulations.
Okay, once again: the there is no evidence for runaway subduction; in fact if it had occurred, the geological record would look completely different. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-22-2002 9:17 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-23-2002 2:52 AM edge has replied

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


Message 12 of 19 (20599)
10-23-2002 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
10-23-2002 2:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Why is it that you think the tectonic changes were always so slow?
1. They're slow now[/quote]
Not at all. In fact some rates are quite high. However, there is no evidence that they were ever as extreme as you suggest. If virtually all Paleozoic and Mesozoic volcanism occurred within one year, this would be clearly documented in the geological record.
quote:
2. You presume that sediments alwyas collect at today's rates
No. I do not. That is a creationist assumption as far as I know.
quote:
3. You assume that radioisotopic decay has been constant
Not an assumption.
quote:
So we're really down to radiodating. Apart from radiodecay there are no real reasons that these processes couldn't have happened much more quickly than you assume. And on the radiodecay front we have evidence of excess helium retention suggesting accelerated decay.
TB, be aware of what is happening around you. This idea is turning out to be an embarrassment. See the other thread on this.
quote:
For us of course we even have the Bible telling us in plain language that the doubters will 'willing forget' that the flood occurred.
I have some Heinlein that I really think we should all take literally, too. So, are you telling me that this is all that you have for your scientific foundation?
quote:
I completely understand your point of view. If there was no flood, no accelerated decay then of course it happened over millions of years.
Wrong again. Since there is absolutely no evidence of accelerated decay and plenty of evidence that the geological record represents millions of years of depostion, then we can assume that no biblical flood laid down the geological record. (You have it backwards.)
We're simply sharing an alternative way of looking at it that is unashamedly Bible inspired.[/B][/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-23-2002 2:52 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by John, posted 10-23-2002 5:29 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 16 of 19 (20647)
10-23-2002 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tranquility Base
10-23-2002 8:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
My statement that mainstream geologists assume slow sedimentation rates is a very accurate generalizaiton.
Your statement would be incorrect. Geologists do not adhere to a simple process of sedimentation as you seem to suggest. Or do you think that they never noticed storm deposits, debris flows or olistostromes until you came along? Now, don't tell me this is another case where you misunderstood something...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-23-2002 8:52 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-23-2002 11:49 PM edge has replied

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


Message 18 of 19 (20660)
10-24-2002 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
10-23-2002 11:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm talking about anyone taking a look at any arbitary local wall of strata. It will be assumed to have been formed slowly.
No. Some 'arbitrary local walls' would be deemed rapidly deposited if the sedimentary features (evidence) suggested so. Some are slowly deposited, others not. Just because you might automatically assume something because the bible tells you so, does not mean that we all react this way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-23-2002 11:49 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024