Plate tectonics, mountain building, and the Flood

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
John S

​

I'm happy to psotpone sedemintological aspects (they've been discussed a lot in the past here you realise of course).

---

Thank you. I do realize that this topic has been discussed before. I'll try to go over the existing threads so I can get a feel for the previous discussions.

quote:

---

I agree with everything you've written. I'll just point out that you are yet to come up with any hard data on heights. Your cited 9km is really a theoretical/extrapolated expectation. In our sceanrio these warpings and uplifts happened catastrophically simultaneously with huge flood sruges. So the uplifts could have occurred shattering rock that was catastrophically carried away. It may never have reached the heights you understandably expect even though the left over warping is compatible with such heigths.

---

There are a couple of points that I think are important. The first is that large mountain ranges existed in the Precambrian, which means that large mountains existed before the Flood. This makes it difficult to claim that the earth was smooth before the Flood.The second is that major mountain ranges both in the Precambrian and after show indications of synorogenic collapse. This means that they had to be tall enough to induce synorogenic collapse, and this means that they could have been up to ~9 km tall. Just for argument's sake, let's say that figure is too large by half, making the maximum height of mountains 4.5 km (or ~15,000 feet).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Quite true although I got the impression that on average there may have been fewer high mountains in the Paleozoic/early Mesozoic. I may be wrong.

---

I am curious as to where you got this 'impression.' John has given you the example of at lest three orogenic episodes for the Appalachians alone. And all are in the Paleozoic. It is curious that these mountains actually appear more mature than other mountain ranges that have undergone more recent episodes of uplift. How do you explain this? I would say, 'yes,' you may be wrong. (I can just imagine your subtext, to borrow from Charles Barkley, "... but I doubt it..")

quote:

---

Like I said, I've searched for the data and come up empty handed.

---

Do you think this might be telling you something?

quote:

---

I have learned quite a bit from John S on the issue and that will help me next time I venture out into the geo-lit on this issue.

---

Somehow, I am concerned that your only learning is where you have to come up with more ad hoc sub-theories to fill in the numerous cracks in your flood scenario. At some point, most of us would say that it is time to abandon a theory that so consistently lets you down.

"Of course the depth of the ocean floor changes as the crust cools, that was the point of Joe Meert's article, and I've explained that myself several times in this thread. Of course the ocean floor doesn't stay as hot as it was when it form, I've been over that too. However, if the ocean floor has only been cooling for a few thousand years, then it should only have cooled enough to have a depth of 15 meters. Nothing you've written to this point has addressed this problem.Letting the ocean cool for a couple thousand years won't do it; you'll wind up with an ocean that 15 meters deep. Appealing to isostasy won't do it; you'll wind up with ocean floor that rides on the mantle at a level that results in an ocean that's 15 meters deep. Nothing you've written has explained why this shouldn't be the case.To this point, your answers have been frustratingly low on information. I'd appreciate it if you take the time to write a longer more detailed post explaining your idea."
--These things I know, but I was slightly out of boundaries with my attempted resolutions... I had even written a paper not long ago on this vary thing. I showed that continental inundation isn't the problem but there is still work to be done for latter cooling. So I think my preliminary conclusion right now would have to be just that, theres work to do. I would guess that what would need to be looked at more (on our part) is the cooling of the oceanic lithosphere over time. Only 20% of the earth's heat flux is due to secular cooling and the rest is directly related to radioisotopic heat generation mostly originating in the mantle so that may be a hint.--Its difficult to do these things without hundreds of other scientists even having the interest, things don't get done for us as fast as the mainstream.Edge: "So, don't you think someone would have notice that sea level has dropped thousands of feet in the last 2k years?"
--No they wouldn't because whatever the mechanism, such a rapid deceleration in heat flow hasn't been observed.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Edge: "So, don't you think someone would have notice that sea level has dropped thousands of feet in the last 2k years?"
--No they wouldn't because whatever the mechanism, such a rapid deceleration in heat flow hasn't been observed.

​

---

Sorry? No one would notice because you can't see the mechanism causing it? That makes no sense.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

"Sorry? No one would notice because you can't see the mechanism causing it? That makes no sense."
--No, that isn't what I meant. I meant that the mechanism for cooling wouldn't even be applicable if it didn't explain the fact that we don't see a rapid deceleration in mean surface heat flow. And therefor no one would notice that the sea level has dropped thousands of feet.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Its difficult to do these things without hundreds of other scientists even having the interest, things don't get done for us as fast as the mainstream.

---

Once again, perhaps this is a hint that you should heed.

quote:

---

Edge: "So, don't you think someone would have notice that sea level has dropped thousands of feet in the last 2k years?"

​

--No they wouldn't because whatever the mechanism, such a rapid deceleration in heat flow hasn't been observed.

---

Once again, you make no sense whatsoever. Could it be that since it hasn't been observed that it is impossible?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
No, that isn't what I meant. I meant that the mechanism for cooling wouldn't even be applicable if it didn't explain the fact that we don't see a rapid deceleration in mean surface heat flow. And therefor no one would notice that the sea level has dropped thousands of feet.

---

TC, the level would have dropped thousands of feet very rapidly. Drop the jargon. I don't really care about mean surface heat flow. Focus, man, focus. You are saying that whatever mechanism you cook up will explain why no one noticed that the sea levels dropped? Whatever the mechanism, how can people not notice that the sea level dropped thousands of feet?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

As an excesize, can someone here post a clear summary of the evidence that a Paleozoic mountain chain was entirely uplifted prior to the Mesozoic being deposited? Let us look carefully at the actual data. In our sceanrio the uplift could have been occurring gradually during the flood with its peak being achieved only after the 100% covering. Can we really identify the height prior to the Mesozoic or is it actaully a lot of guess work?

"TC, the level would have dropped thousands of feet very rapidly. Drop the jargon. I don't really care about mean surface heat flow. Focus, man, focus."
--What are you talking about? The surface heat flow is directly proportional to the bathymetry of the ocean floor and hence, eustasy.
--What others have layed out and I have agreed with here is that that is exactly what I cannot show yet, that bathymetry & eustatic levels would drop rapidly after the flood."You are saying that whatever mechanism you cook up will explain why no one noticed that the sea levels dropped?"
--No, I'm saying that if the mechanism doesn't explain this, it isn't plausible."Whatever the mechanism, how can people not notice that the sea level dropped thousands of feet?"
--Well someone obviously would have observed it. Just not in recent times.-------------------

"Once again, perhaps this is a hint that you should heed."
--Heed to who or what?"Once again, you make no sense whatsoever. "
--Read my clarification for John."Could it be that since it hasn't been observed that it is impossible?"
--I don't see evolution taking place on macro scales, and I haven't seen any 'big bangs' lately either. Sure it could be so, any scientist will say this about unanswered questions.-------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Once again, perhaps this is a hint that you should heed."
--Heed to who or what?

---

Well... maybe you need more than a hint.

quote:

---

"Could it be that since it hasn't been observed that it is impossible?"

​

--I don't see evolution taking place on macro scales, and I haven't seen any 'big bangs' lately either. Sure it could be so, any scientist will say this about unanswered questions.

---

You leave out the tiny fact that there is evidence for evolution and there is evidence of the big bang. And, no, not everything is possible.

"Well... maybe you need more than a hint."
--I still don't know what your talking about, heed to what?"You leave out the tiny fact that there is evidence for evolution and there is evidence of the big bang."
--I was being sarcastic, you missed my point. I didn't say there wasn't evidence for it, I said we arent observing it occuring today."And, no, not everything is possible."
--Never said everything was.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
As an excesize, can someone here post a clear summary of the evidence that a Paleozoic mountain chain was entirely uplifted prior to the Mesozoic being deposited?

---

Yes. The Appalachian orogenies were succeeded by Triassic extensional basins.

quote:

---

Let us look carefully at the actual data. In our sceanrio the uplift could have been occurring gradually during the flood ...

---

TC, nothing like this can happen gradually when confined to a one year period. You contradict yourself. A few posts back you were talking about the tectonic plates pulverizing themselves...

quote:

---

.... with its peak being achieved only after the 100% covering.

---

Exactly when was this?

quote:

---

Can we really identify the height prior to the Mesozoic or is it actaully a lot of guess work?

---

To an absolutist, no. However, we can show that there were mountain ranges and they were likely very simlar to those of today. This is a damn site more than you have... Why do you badger us for exact heights of the mountains while you haven't even an iota of data saying that the earth was smooth? This is hypocritical and sophomoric, and I am extremely disappointed in your progress.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Well... maybe you need more than a hint."

​

--I still don't know what your talking about, heed to what?

---

That there is a reason, no one is researching this. It makes no sense to do so.

quote:

---

"You leave out the tiny fact that there is evidence for evolution and there is evidence of the big bang."

​

--I was being sarcastic, you missed my point. I didn't say there wasn't evidence for it, I said we arent observing it occuring today.

---

Let's see, could it be that is because it never happened? Why do you assume that because we cannot see it today that it must have happened and various laws of physics must have been violated before we could have seen them? I am sorry, but if the oceans receded thousands of feet between 4000 and 2000 years ago, we would have some record of it, and possibly a verbal record.

True Creation,Thanks for the link, I appreciate it. If you have any more thoughts about how the bathymetry of the ocean floor can be explained, I'd appreciate it if you'd post them here.