Plate tectonics, mountain building, and the Flood

I can understand not looking forward to doing an intensive search of the existing literature, but I’m not terribly sympathetic because that’s the first step of any research project. I’ve had to do it myself, and I’d be very surprised if any of my colleagues hadn’t. The data on mountain ranges and their ages are available in the literature, undoubtedly it’d take some leg work to track down all the papers, but I don’t think that’s a valid reason to avoid doing it. It’s certainly preferable to making the unsupported statement that the earth was flatter before the Flood.I also don’t really sympathize with the problem that creationists have to refer to mainstream research. For example, Woodmorappe’s databases were built using mainstream data; Woodmorappe searched through the existing literature to build his database. Perhaps I misunderstood your concern.Tranquility Base:
Interesting but are you sure you aren't missing the more obvious methods such as looking at the deformation of strata etc and determining when it occurred by relative deformaiton vertically? But your method sounds interesting - has it been applied?The structures in the Colorado Plateau have certainly been looked at, but the problem is that the amount of vertical uplift is not equivalent to the height of a feature. Determining the total amount of uplift during a mountain building event isn’t too difficult, and for major events it’s on the order of 10s of kilometers. Finding rocks exhumed from depths of ~30 kilometers is pretty common, but that doesn’t mean that the mountain ranges were 30 kilometers tall. The height of a mountain range is limited by the strength of the rocks that the mountain is composed of. The rocks at the bottom of the mountain are weighed down by the overlying rocks, and if you piled up enough rock, the stress would be too great for the mountain to support. The highest a mountain can be is around 9 kilometers. This means that mountains will grow until the hit that 9 km mark, and after that, instead of continuing to grow vertically, they will start to grow laterally. This is what’s going on with the Himalayas today; India and Asia are still colliding, so mountain-building stresses are still being generated, but the Himalayas can’t get any higher, so they’re expanding laterally. This is why there are active extensional faults in the Himalayas despite the fact that the stresses in that region are compressional. Phrased another way, the rocks aren’t strong enough for the mountains to get any higher, but there’s still deformation going on, and so the rocks have to accommodate that deformation somehow, and they do that is that the mountain belt expands laterally instead of vertically (this process has been given the dramatic name synorogenic collapse).There’s evidence of synorogenic collapse of ancient mountain belts too, in particular I’m thinking of the 1.2-1.0 billion year old mountain belt that I’ve mentioned before. This means then, that these mountains were 9 km high at some point, since they’d have to be that tall in order to cause the collapse. Since these mountains are Precambrian, and since to the best of my knowledge most young earthers would place the Precambrian in the time interval before the Flood, this is a pretty strong indication that the earth wasn’t flatter before the Flood.Tranquility Base:
This all presumes unifromitarianism John (in this case of ocean or perhaps atmospheric temperature). At this point we need to know what has already been reliably done. Then we can prpose schemes for pushing the data.I should have been clearer. I was not trying to claim that the isotopic composition of the atmosphere has always been the same, since it certainly will vary. With that said, the same latitudinal dependence of oxygen isotopic composition that exists today should have existed in the past; in other words, the relative change in oxygen isotopic composition from equator to pole that exists today should have existed in the past since the poles are going to be colder than the equator. It’s actually possible to check and see if the same latitudinal variation in isotopic composition that existed today existed in the past since you can determine the age and the latitude of rocks in the past. For example, you could measure the isotopic composition of shallow marine rocks deposited at different latitudes in the Jurassic, and see if the same dependence on latitude existed then.In the case of the Appalachian mountains the major faults there accommodated at least 10s of kilometers of displacement, and when you add up the individual displacement of all the faults it’s not hard to get 100s of kilometers of total displacement. Clearly, these were major mountain ranges.Sure, so when were they uplifted?The Appalachians were formed in the Paleozoic, as the result of three separate events. The first was in the part of the Ordovician and Silurian Periods (called the Taconic Orogeny), the second was in the Devonian (called the Acadian), and the third was in the Carboniferous (called the Alleghanian).We'll see. You all said that the geo-col was consistent with uniformitarianism. When we go and check we find incredible evidence of high energy events. Correlated paleocurrents half way across continents, vast sorted beds, no modern equivalents (in scope) for most Paleozoic marine strata in N. America and Mesozoic marine strata in Africa etc and fossil graveyards.So we take those claims that 'seafloors look like non-catastrophic flows' with a few grains of salt. If you don’t mind, I’d like to postpone discussing the sedimentological aspects of the geologic record until we’re finished discussing mountains. My preferences would be to either wait for a bit to discuss this, or to start a new thread. What do you think?

LRP:
It seems a little odd to me that if you join up all the present continents it forms a good circular land mass with Jerusalem almost at the centre.Jerusalem didn’t exist at that time, and furthermore most of the rocks in Israel are Mesozoic and formed after Pangea broke up, so most of Israel didn’t exist at that time either.LRP:
Now if mainstream science decrees that there were continents before Pangaea where have they gone to now? Subducted perhaps under a plate? If so whence came the continents that made up Pangaea?I think you’ll find the answer to your question if you think about what happened to the landmasses that made up Pangea. They haven’t been destroyed, they’re just arranged differently.LRP:
I still have not been able to find a convincing theory for the origin of the continents-hence I will hold on to what the Bible says on this problem. So no I cannot account for the pre Pangaea history of the Earth. The idea of a crashed planetissimal as the origin of the first and only supercontinent is simple and logical.An interesting idea, but Pangea wasn’t the first and only supercontinent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Solum:
The structures in the Colorado Plateau have certainly been looked at, but the problem is that the amount of vertical uplift is not equivalent to the height of a feature. Determining the total amount of uplift during a mountain building event isn’t too difficult, and for major events it’s on the order of 10s of kilometers. Finding rocks exhumed from depths of ~30 kilometers is pretty common, but that doesn’t mean that the mountain ranges were 30 kilometers tall. The height of a mountain range is limited by the strength of the rocks that the mountain is composed of. The rocks at the bottom of the mountain are weighed down by the overlying rocks, and if you piled up enough rock, the stress would be too great for the mountain to support. The highest a mountain can be is around 9 kilometers. This means that mountains will grow until the hit that 9 km mark, and after that, instead of continuing to grow vertically, they will start to grow laterally. This is what’s going on with the Himalayas today; India and Asia are still colliding, so mountain-building stresses are still being generated, but the Himalayas can’t get any higher, so they’re expanding laterally. This is why there are active extensional faults in the Himalayas despite the fact that the stresses in that region are compressional. Phrased another way, the rocks aren’t strong enough for the mountains to get any higher, but there’s still deformation going on, and so the rocks have to accommodate that deformation somehow, and they do that is that the mountain belt expands laterally instead of vertically (this process has been given the dramatic name synorogenic collapse).

​

There’s evidence of synorogenic collapse of ancient mountain belts too, in particular I’m thinking of the 1.2-1.0 billion year old mountain belt that I’ve mentioned before. This means then, that these mountains were 9 km high at some point, since they’d have to be that tall in order to cause the collapse. Since these mountains are Precambrian, and since to the best of my knowledge most young earthers would place the Precambrian in the time interval before the Flood, this is a pretty strong indication that the earth wasn’t flatter before the Flood.

---

Just a couple of notes here regarding the height of mountains, etc. First, one has to accomodate the fact that there are differences between oceanic and continental crust. Perhaps the greatest reason for topographic relief on the earth is this difference. Of course, I have to assume that there were continents in pre-Noahic times...Second, there is another way of estimating relief for some mountains. Stratovolcanos have a fairly predictable profile that can be seen in some of the ramparts of older volcanic arcs. By projecting them to the known profile we can estimate that some, such as the predecessor of Mt. Lassen, were still on the order of 10-14,000 feet above the current sea level. I can't remember the age or name of this peak, but I'm pretty sure it is quite older than 6000 years (or 4000 years, if the flood supposedly caused the volcanism).I suppose, as John has indicated, that one might look at the amount of crustal thickening in some mountain ranges and calculate how high such a crust might extend above sea level. Certainly we have some information on detachment surfaces that might lead to an idea of total relief. We might also judge the thickness of the crust necessary to generate the metamorphic assemblages that we see and then make some calculations as to how high such a crust might ride on the asthenosphere.Personally, I think that the geological record indicates a constant supply of coarse-grained, terrigenous sediments from large areas of erosional unconformity. This is strong evidence to me that there has been some emergent land mass at all times in the earth's history since formation of the crust (I assume that this happened before the first humans inhabited the earth).As far as we know there is no significant difference in the materials or processes that create mountains today from those that created mountain ranges in the past. I would say the onus is on the smooth earth people to show that there is some reason to think differently.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LRP:
Genesis is not the only book in the Bible which deals with creation matters.

---

Hence the request that you provide references.

quote:

---

No I am not a day age person. Nor am I a traditioinal YEC or OEC but I do believe the earth was fairly recently put together using some extremely old material.

---

You are rather hedgy about telling us exactly what you are though.

quote:

---

It is long because I start at the very beginning of the Universe itself and then trace out the development of the Solar Nebula from which our Solar System eventually formed.

---

Interesting. And all of this is in the Bible is it?

quote:

---

There are on other planets examples of 'crashed planetissimals' which I mention in my book.

---

There is orbitting the Earth just such an example as well.

quote:

---

if the approach direction is almost tangential the planetissimal will inflict a galancing blow at first and then skim on the earths surface breaking up as it did so to form a near circular deposit of its contents.

---

No it wouldn't. A glancing blow is more likely to throw stuff into space, not to deposit it in a circle. You are going to get a crater, not a continent.

quote:

---

The precise nature of the contents we can now determine but it is also predictable from the theory I have used to explain how the Solar System was formed and why the planets have the structure and composition that they do.

---

What?

quote:

---

My theory proposes that the plates are in very slow movement now because of residual frictional and gravitational effects of the crashed planetissimal.

---

They should be slowing down then and at a detectable pace. Can you show this?

quote:

---

Hence I can easily see why the Bible tells us that the pre Flood supercontinent did break up some years after the flood by parts simply sliding off rather than being carried as if by conveyor belt.

---

What?

quote:

---

The mid Atlantic ocean ridge is in my opinion a tearing of the basaltic shell caused by land masses moving east and west by gravitational forces.

---

What gravitational forces?

quote:

---

I would love to quote the relevant scriptures here but then our arguement may centre on my interpretation of scripture against yours or somebody elses.

---

So you won't back up your claims then?

quote:

---

When it comes to interpretation scripture it is my belief that it very much depends on what guiding spirit we have within us.

---

I also believe that we can make up whatever we want when reading scripture.

quote:

---

I hope this answers your queries.

---

Not even close.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

... the request that you provide references.All the explanations with appropriate references from the bible and science are given in my book 'Before the First Day' http://www.btinternet.com/~pimenta/ . I will be happy to send you a free complimentary copy if you wish.You are rather hedgy about telling us exactly what you are though.
Sorry. In simple terms I am a Bible believing Christian but
Not a YEC because they defend a non biblical and non scientific doctrine of instantaneous ex nihilo creation.
Not a OEC because they seem to ignore many relevant scriptures
in order to keep their mainstream scientist members happy
Not a day age creationist because I do not see God requiring thousands or millions of years to do some finishing touches to a creation he began before the first day of the Genesis account.
I am a scientist and geotechnical engineer by profession and can see in scriptures scientific truths where others see poetry or myth or nothing.

quote:

---

It is long because I start at the very beginning of the Universe itself and then trace out the development of the Solar Nebula from which our Solar System eventually formed.

---

Interesting. And all of this is in the Bible is it?
No ofcourse not. God reveals the marvels of his creation in scriptures as well as through science. But the two give clues to the same story.

quote:

---

There are on other planets examples of 'crashed planetissimals' which I mention in my book.

---

There is orbitting the Earth just such an example as well.
Yes and other planets have many moons any of which could be knocked of its orbit and on to the planet itself.

quote:

---

if the approach direction is almost tangential the planetissimal will inflict a galancing blow at first and then skim on the earths surface breaking up as it did so to form a near circular deposit of its contents.

---

No it wouldn't. A glancing blow is more likely to throw stuff into space, not to deposit it in a circle. You are going to get a crater, not a continent.
Yes and no. The 'crater' in this case in my opinion is defined by the 'ring of fire' round the Pacific Ocean.
The planetissimal plunged into the 4000m deep(average) global ocean and being composed partly of ice, granitic rock minerals and sediments of all kinds it broke up some distance from its point of initial contact.

quote:

---

The precise nature of the contents we can now determine but it is also predictable from the theory I have used to explain how the Solar System was formed and why the planets have the structure and composition that they do.

---

What?
Yes thats exactly what I mean. My theory for the formation of the Solar System describes the nature of sediment distribution in what I call the planetary disc. So it is easy to see why each planet has the composition that scientist tell us they have.

quote:

---

My theory proposes that the plates are in very slow movement now because of residual frictional and gravitational effects of the crashed planetissimal.

---

They should be slowing down then and at a detectable pace. Can you show this?
No. We have been measuring plate movements for only about 40 years.
Maybe in another 40 we will know the answer.

quote:

---

Hence I can easily see why the Bible tells us that the pre Flood supercontinent did break up some years after the flood by parts simply sliding off rather than being carried as if by conveyor belt.

---

It stands to reason that if you place a small piece of well chewed chewing gum on a wet egg it will be easy to slide it about on the egg. Magnify this idea a few billion times and you have a supercontinent sliding about on a highly lubricated surface. The egg shell in this case is the basaltic lithosphere and the driving mechanism is simply differences in level of the lubricated surface.

quote:

---

The mid Atlantic ocean ridge is in my opinion a tearing of the basaltic shell caused by land masses moving east and west by gravitational forces.

---

What gravitational forces?
See above but my book goes into this in more detail. In particular the asthenosphere that lies below the basaltic lithosphere is the origin of level differences and isostacy.So you won't back up your claims then?
OK just one scripture for the formation of the supercontinent.
Psalm 24:2
All the scientific facts I have used in my theory have come from standard textbooks in Geology and Astronomy. I simply give a different interpretation of these facts coupled with some collaboration from the scriptures. But scriptures are not at all essential for the theory. It is unfortunate how 'theory' in peoples minds become 'truths' For this reason I dont expect many to be open minded enough to consider alternatives to what they have become used to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LRP:
I will be happy to send you a free complimentary copy if you wish.

---

Hey, if you are serious, I won't turn down a complimentary book.

quote:

---

Not a YEC because they defend a non biblical and non scientific doctrine of instantaneous ex nihilo creation.

---

Strange stance, but ok.

quote:

---

Not a OEC because they seem to ignore many relevant scriptures

---

You might consider posting just a few of those scriptures.

quote:

---

Not a day age creationist because I do not see God requiring thousands or millions of years to do some finishing touches to a creation he began before the first day of the Genesis account.

---

So the six days of creation were in fact six normal days and God did his thing in the order laid out, but there was stuff prior to those days?

quote:

---

I am a scientist and geotechnical engineer by profession and can see in scriptures scientific truths where others see poetry or myth or nothing.

---

I can see valid observations here and there too, but the same is true for all mythology I've read.

quote:

---

Yes and other planets have many moons any of which could be knocked of its orbit and on to the planet itself.

---

And? This isn't terribly contraversial, but forming continents of those crashed moons is a different story.

quote:

---

Yes and no. The 'crater' in this case in my opinion is defined by the 'ring of fire' round the Pacific Ocean.
The planetissimal plunged into the 4000m deep(average) global ocean and being composed partly of ice, granitic rock minerals and sediments of all kinds it broke up some distance from its point of initial contact.

---

This doesn't jibe with your pronouncements elsewhere about Pangea. You appear to have two different stories going on here.

quote:

---

Yes thats exactly what I mean.

---

That wasn't a this-is-insane 'what' but a what-the-heck-does-this-mean 'what'.

quote:

---

My theory for the formation of the Solar System describes the nature of sediment distribution in what I call the planetary disc. So it is easy to see why each planet has the composition that scientist tell us they have.

---

And is this different from the mainstream explaination?

quote:

---

No. We have been measuring plate movements for only about 40 years. Maybe in another 40 we will know the answer.

---

Not an adequate answer. The plates move slowly but at measurable speeds. You've got your continents breakin up only 4000-5000 years ago-- right after the flood. That means they must have started moving at quite a clip and have since slowed to the pace matching the growth of my fingernails. After forty years a speed change like that ought to show up.

quote:

---

It stands to reason that if you place a small piece of well chewed chewing gum on a wet egg it will be easy to slide it about on the egg.

---

Love the analogy. It doesn't help, but you get an A for the imagery.

quote:

---

The egg shell in this case is the basaltic lithosphere and the driving mechanism is simply differences in level of the lubricated surface.

---

1) The lithophere isn't a highly lubricated surface.
2) Have you forgotten about the oceanic plates that the continents must plow through?
3) The continents slide downhill? Is that your mechanism?

quote:

---

In particular the asthenosphere that lies below the basaltic lithosphere is the origin of level differences and isostacy.

---

ummm.... what gravitational forces?

quote:

---

Psalm 24:2

---

ummmm.... wow. That is a real stretch.

quote:

---

All the scientific facts I have used in my theory have come from standard textbooks in Geology and Astronomy.

---

Textbooks? Scary... That'll put you about fifty years behind the curve right there.

quote:

---

I simply give a different interpretation of these facts coupled with some collaboration from the scriptures.

---

What are you calling facts? Raw data? A wee bit of theory? Just curious.

quote:

---

It is unfortunate how 'theory' in peoples minds become 'truths' For this reason I dont expect many to be open minded enough to consider alternatives to what they have become used to.

---

All you need is a good argument.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

"The present bathymetry of the ocean floor isn’t compatible with a catastrophic event a few thousand years ago. The present bathymetry matches remarkably well the bathymetry expected as a result of conductive cooling of basalt erupted at ridges and the conventional age of the ocean floor.
THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANS"
--The vary geophysical processes Meert uses are the ones which the Global Flood harnesses as the reason the continents became inundated. Tell me, what do you think is going to be the effect of a ~150m ocean basin?------------------

"The effects of a collision between a planetissimal and the Earth is very much a factor of the approach direction and velocity. Obviously a head on collision would completely destroy the offending planettisimal but if the approach direction is almost tangential the planetissimal will inflict a galancing blow at first and then skim on the earths surface breaking up as it did so to form a near circular deposit of its contents. The precise nature of the contents we can now determine but it is also predictable from the theory I have used to explain how the Solar System was formed and why the planets have the structure and composition that they do."
--You should take up a thorough study in the field of geochemistry, you will then find that your hypothesis for the creation of the continents is a bit ridiculous. The geochemical compositions of the continents, Ocean Basalts, and hot-spot volcanics are indicative of a fractionation process which defiantly isn't likened to or required that there be any impact event. I have also been studying solar cosmogenesis for the past couple months and your planetismal hypothesis is flawed in this area as well.-------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--The vary geophysical processes Meert uses are the ones which the Global Flood harnesses as the reason the continents became inundated. Tell me, what do you think is going to be the effect of a ~150m ocean basin?

---

Why does it matter?

"Why does it matter?"
--With such an ocean bathymetry, you get continental inundation. This also means that Meerts analysis is relatively correct, but his conclusions are not (ie, that the resultant bathymetry is a 'problem').------------------

The offer for a free copy of my book is still open. Just send me an e mail LRP@newnet.co.uk with an address to foward it to.In response to your comments about the supercontinent being a crashed planetissimal let me be a little more specific.
Before the formation of any land mass the Earth had to have a covering of water with an average depth of around 4000m. This is about the quantity of water present on the Earth today in our oceans.My theory for the sudden appearance of a land mass that covered about a third of the earth's surface is that this was the result of a crashed planetissimal which had within it all the soil and rock minerals found on the continents today. No doubt geological processes worked on this immense deposit and in time produced the geology we have today.
The planetissimal came down into an immense ocean and very probably had a thick coating of ice as well. (my book explains the formation and structure of planetissimals) The immense heat generated by friction on the impact surfaces would have reduced the top of the basiltic lithosphere and the bottom of the continental land mass into a highly pressurized complex fluid-ideal to allow the land mass to slide about on the basaltic shell with only the slightest provocation.I have just posted something on the Book Nook section under a scientific theory for creation which sums up my feelings on this whole issue and I think answers some of you other comments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Why does it matter?"
--With such an ocean bathymetry, you get continental inundation. This also means that Meerts analysis is relatively correct, but his conclusions are not (ie, that the resultant bathymetry is a 'problem').

​

---

Nowhere in Joe's article does he state that the ocean floor was shallow. His point is that if the ocean floor is 6,000 years old then it ought to be a uniform 15 meters deep. Quite clearly the ocean floor isn't 15 meters deep, and so the present bathymetry can't be reconciled with the idea that the ocean floor is 6,000 years old.

LRP,I've entered into this a bit late, but since when has Pangea thought to have been a circular continent?

quote:

---

Originally posted by LRP:
The offer for a free copy of my book is still open. Just send me an e mail LRP@newnet.co.uk with an address to foward it to.

---

'k.

quote:

---

Before the formation of any land mass the Earth had to have a covering of water with an average depth of around 4000m.

---

Why? Where is the common sense science to support this?

quote:

---

My theory for the sudden appearance of a land mass

---

What sudden appearance of a land mass?

quote:

---

that covered about a third of the earth's surface is that this was the result of a crashed planetissimal

---

That exhibited impossible dynamics, like neatly spreading itself into a circular continent that somehow also represents the ring of fire.

quote:

---

which had within it all the soil and rock minerals found on the continents today.

---

You do know that the crash would have to create all of the layers of sediment and rock as well as deposits of salt, oil, etc. that are found in the continents? And this without melting most of it?

quote:

---

No doubt geological processes worked on this immense deposit and in time produced the geology we have today.

---

How much time? 4.3 billion years maybe?

quote:

---

The immense heat generated by friction on the impact surfaces would have reduced the top of the basiltic lithosphere and the bottom of the continental land mass into a highly pressurized complex fluid-ideal to allow the land mass to slide about on the basaltic shell with only the slightest provocation.

---

Except an impact of something the size you propose would destroy the planet.Consider. And bare with me, my math is horrible. The Chicxulub crater was made by an impactor of appr. 10-12 km giving it a volume of about 4200 cubic km. The surface area of the Earth is something near 200,000,000 km. 30% of that-- land mass and hence roughly continental crust-- is 60,000,000 km. Given that continental crust is 50-250 km thick I guestimate about 150 km and calculate volume at 9,000,000,000 cubic km. I am sure some of the smart people here can correct the numbers and maybe bring this figure down. Even if you cut it in half though, the size difference is enormous. Given the damage done by the puny Chicxulub you can't believe that your impactor would lay down rock and sediment in an orderly fashion and then melt only the bottom bits so the new continents could slide over the mantle. Something that size would turn us to rubble.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
Second, there is another way of estimating relief for some mountains. Stratovolcanos have a fairly predictable profile that can be seen in some of the ramparts of older volcanic arcs. By projecting them to the known profile we can estimate that some, such as the predecessor of Mt. Lassen, were still on the order of 10-14,000 feet above the current sea level. I can't remember the age or name of this peak, but I'm pretty sure it is quite older than 6000 years (or 4000 years, if the flood supposedly caused the volcanism).

---

Estimating the height of ancient stratovolcanos sounds like it would work, but it doesn't sound like it would be widely applicable. It would only work with geologically young stratovolcanos since there would have to be some remnant of the volcano preserved to reconstruct its height. This technique can't be applied to the formation of the Appalachians, for example, even though a volcanic arc was involved with the Taconic Orogeny. It sounds like an intersting idea though.