Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,833 Year: 4,090/9,624 Month: 961/974 Week: 288/286 Day: 9/40 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood = many coincidences
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 21 of 445 (491039)
12-11-2008 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Architect-426
12-11-2008 12:25 AM


Oceanic crust comes, and oceanic crust goes
Talking the Pacific Ocean basin, you have 3 varieties of mountains, all volcanic:
1) Islands, such as Hawaii.
2) Atolls, such as the "blasted" Bikini.
3) Gyotes, which are like atolls except they've sunk faster than the coral reef could keep up.
3) Maybe volcanoes that never grew to reach the surface.
I may be over-generalizing, so geologists are welcome to correct me.
Now the Atoll and gyote mountains are flat-topped because they once were above or at sea level, subject to erosion (things don't erode much below the wave action level). Their peaks, however, may now be below sea level. My God, how did this happen? Well, one thing is that sea level has risen since the end of the last ice age. The second is that as sea floor spreading happens (more coming on this below) the sea floor sinks deeper (there is an explanation why, but I'm not going to get into it now).
Also there are several huge submarine calderas (collapsed volcanoes) all over the place.
Example please? I personally don't know of such a thing.
That magic flood can cause anything, can't it?
If you study closely the bathymetry of the ocean floor, it is obvious that the ocean basins are basically giant land wrecks
The ocean basins are totally different from the continental areas. The origins are different and the rock types are (largely) different.
According to mainstream geology, the oceanic crust is ”only’ 200 million years old or so while the continents are a whopping 3.5 billion years.
That's because the oceanic crust is continuously being created new at mid-ocean spreading centers and is also continuously being lost as it is subducted underneath the continents. The maximum elapsed time that has been found for that mid-ocean ridge to subduction zone trip is your 200 million years.
There are examples of oceanic crust having been thrust up onto the continents. Such continental remnants of oceanic crust are called ophiolites. One famous area is in Cyprus. That is fairly young, but ophiolites have been found as far back as the pre-Cambrian.
By the way, the ocean waters are there because the basins are there, not the other way around.
By the way number two - Lake Superior is essentially a lake in a stunted ocean basin. Back about 1.1 billion years ago there was a volcanic spreading center in it's basin.
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Architect-426, posted 12-11-2008 12:25 AM Architect-426 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Architect-426, posted 12-11-2008 4:44 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 34 of 445 (491139)
12-12-2008 12:49 AM


Oldest Oceanic Crust yet found - 3.8 billion years old
I don't know what the age of ocean basin rocks has to do with the reality or lack of reality of "the flood", but here's a tidbit for consideration. The following from Science, March, 23. 2007. The entire abstract:
quote:
A Vestige of Earth's Oldest Ophiolite
Harald Furnes, Maarten de Wit, Hubert Staudigel, Minik Rosing, Karlis Muehlenbachs
A sheeted-dike complex within the ~3.8-billion-year-old Isua supracrustal belt (ISB) in southwest Greenland provides the oldest evidence of oceanic crustal accretion by spreading. The geochemistry of the dikes and associated pillow lavas demonstrates an intraoceanic island arc and mid-ocean ridge-like setting, and their oxygen isotopes suggest a hydrothermal ocean-floor-type metamorphism. The pillows and dikes are associated with gabbroic and ultramafic rocks that together make up an ophiolitic association: the Paleoarchean Isua ophiolite complex. These sheeted dikes offer evidence for remnants of oceanic crust formed by sea-floor spreading of the earliest intact rocks on Earth.
Source
I'll try to get back to message 24, but that a lot a baloney to try to slice. I might get something posted tomorrow.
Moose

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 12-12-2008 10:10 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 78 of 445 (491511)
12-16-2008 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Architect-426
12-16-2008 2:28 PM


Re: The ocean crust - it's a great big bust!
First of all, I think you need to take a clear old Earth vs. young Earth position. As I see it, you have been doing a mixture of both - 200 million year old oceanic crust (old Earth-ism); A few thousand year old "great flood" (young Earth-ism).
quote:
I don't know how you keep going wrong, but once again, no one was telling you there are ocean basins older than around a couple hundred million years. No one was telling you there are ocean basins billions of years old.
We’re obviously going around in circles here. Maybe no one here in this forum is telling me that the ocean crust is ”only’ 200ma, I did not say that. What I am saying is that major scientific/geological publications are telling me (and the general public) this ”fact’.
I'll tell you, Percy misspoke - The ocean basins are considerably older than 200 million years, although not in their current form. It's the current oceanic crust that is generally no older than 200 million years. But there are rocks of oceanic crust origin that are up to billions of years old (message 34). It just the case that that former oceanic crust has since become part of the continental crust.
Fingernail analogy: Your fingernails are probably less than a year old, in their current form (no, I don't know how fast fingernails grow). Still, you did have fingernails prior to that year ago.
Now, for plate tectonic boundaries in general:
1) Mid-ocean ridges (MOR (not MOM), if you must have an acronym) - The spreading centers where new oceanic crust is produced.
2) Subduction zones - Oceanic crust is lost beneath the continents or other oceanic crust.
3) Transform faults (ie the San Andreas) - Plate contacts that are moving laterally relative to each other. There are also tranform faults within the oceanic crust (note where MOR's are offset).
Now I'm no expert, but I suspect that type 2/type 3 hybrids exist. There might even be such a thing as type 1/type 2 and type 2/type 3 hybrids.
And the type of margin at a given location can change. There is currently no subduction zone on the North American east coast, but there once was (real geologists, correct me if I'm wrong). The Atlantic Ocean basin has opened, closed, and reopened. North America and South America were once side by side with Europe and Africa. That's why they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.
Currently the Atlantic Ocean basin is getting wider and I'm guessing the Pacific Ocean basin might be getting narrower. And/or maybe, to some degree, some continents are getting compressed.
Others have answered other things - I leave those at that.
Now I will be pre-selling some of the penthouse units, the floor plans are bright and open and the views of the South Pacific will be terrific!
Peppering your messages with wise-ass little remarks such as this tends to really annoy me. And remember, part of me is Adminnemooseus. You don't want to get the A-moose cranky.
Minnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Architect-426, posted 12-16-2008 2:28 PM Architect-426 has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 225 of 445 (579545)
09-05-2010 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Architect-426
09-05-2010 12:05 AM


Re: Plate Tectonics Is Asinine — In My Own Words.
We must thank God that we have an expert like Architect-426, to point out that people spend so many years of their lives studying and working in geology only to end up as clueless idiots.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Architect-426, posted 09-05-2010 12:05 AM Architect-426 has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 248 of 445 (579967)
09-07-2010 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
12-11-2008 8:06 PM


A correction from 9 months ago (no need for a reply)
Percy writes:
Your claim was that the flood was responsible for many collapsed volcanic calderas spread numerously about the sea floor. Minnemooseus wasn't questioning the existence of collapsed volcanic calderas. He was questioning your claim that they were caused by the flood.
Actually, I was questioning the existence:
Minnemooseus writes:
Architect-426 writes:
Also there are several huge submarine calderas (collapsed volcanoes) all over the place.
Example please? I personally don't know of such a thing.
At the time, the oceanic volcanos I had in mind were the mid-ocean Hawaiian type volcanos (shield volcanos). Architect responded with an overkill of links, which were apparently all calderas in the island arc geologic environment. These are, like Fuji, composed of a more siliceous and more explosive magma composition.
Bottom line: Architect was correct in supplying information that there were indeed oceanic calderas.
You (Percy) picked up on my following sentence, which was actually a little throw away side comment:
Minnemooseus writes:
That magic flood can cause anything, can't it?
This should have been pointed out 9 months ago. I don't know why it wasn't - Perhaps I didn't notice it or the topic was moving so fast that I didn't think it was worth a message.
Anyhow, you largely were mistaken in your jumping on Architects response (or something like that).
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 12-11-2008 8:06 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 308 of 445 (609660)
03-22-2011 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Coyote
03-18-2011 11:30 AM


Re: A test - the "young Earth" vs "old Earth" problem
I must presume that Robert Byers is a young Earth creationist (YEC). If such is actually true, your argument (and any argument against YECism) can be reduced down to some variation of "there is massive evidence that the YEC time frame is very wrong". YEC is wrong starting right at the Y.
As I see it (and this is also the admin-mode perspective), outside of the "Dates and Dating" forum, the old Earth evo side needs to argue from the "presuming the Earth is YEC young" perspective.
Very possibly this consideration deserves its own topic. Alas, the non-admin mode is only capable of doing "Proposed New Topics" (PNTs) that the admin-mode would be inclined to reject.
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Coyote, posted 03-18-2011 11:30 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 387 of 445 (612715)
04-17-2011 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Coyote
04-17-2011 9:10 PM


No "great flood", 4350 years ago, or at any point in human history
The myth of the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago is just that--a myth.
Massive amounts of evidence refute that myth. The evidence includes geology, archaeology, genetics, linguistics, and a myriad of other fields. All show that there was no flood at that time period.
As I had posted earlier in this topic, I find it rather futile to debate things "old Earth timescale" to a young Earth creationist (YEC) who denies that old Earth timescale. I would prefer arguing the point without invoking any absolute timescale.
So, instead of saying "no flood 4350 years ago", I would say "no such flood anytime in human history". It doesn't matter if you try to shoehorn that human history into the YEC time-frame, or put that human history into the modern scientifically accepted old Earth time-frame.
There is no non-dubious evidence for a global flood at anytime in human history. It doesn't matter if that history goes back 5000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000 years, or 1,000,000 years.
As I understand and recall, the most recent remotely global flood happened back in the Cretaceous. That's (incidentally 60+ million years ago on the old Earth timescale) long prior to any human life evidence.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Coyote, posted 04-17-2011 9:10 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by NoNukes, posted 04-17-2011 11:19 PM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 390 by Coyote, posted 04-18-2011 12:45 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 389 of 445 (612724)
04-18-2011 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 388 by NoNukes
04-17-2011 11:19 PM


Re: No "great flood", 4350 years ago, or at any point in human history
And if there actually is evidence of a global flood 60+ million years ago, why wouldn't a dating denier simply suggest that you got the date wrong?
One of the (IMO) better creationist "document the flood" effort was such a thing. It can be found at Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico. One concept they floated was:
quote:
Recent support for a Paleozoic/Mesozoic - Flood/post-Flood boundary was presented in a special symposium within the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (see Snelling 1996). Several articles proposed and defended the Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary as marking the termination of the Genesis Flood.
That boundary is the end of the Cretaceous.
It's been a long time since I've read that article, but as I recall, they had the honesty of admitting that that, or the other concepts explored, failed to support the Noatic flood.
My point is, go ahead and set aside any and all absolute datings of the stratigraphy. All you need is geologic relative dating via stratigraphy. Cretaceous rocks are way below (earlier) than the appearance of humans. So, even if you date the Cretaceous at C. 4350 years ago, it's still a fail.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by NoNukes, posted 04-17-2011 11:19 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 416 of 445 (613144)
04-21-2011 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by Robert Byers
04-21-2011 10:30 PM


quote:
Petrology (from Greek: πέτρα, petra, rock; and λόγος, logos, knowledge) is the branch of geology that studies rocks, and the conditions in which rocks form.
Robert, if it has anything to do with the formation of rock, it is part of geologic study.
Igneous petrology - The study of igneous rocks and their origins. The solidification of a magma is the precipitation of crystals out of a solution (albeit a very hot solution). You may wish to call the study "geochemistry", or call it "igneous petrology", or even call it something else, but it is part of the geological sciences.
Moose - the proud owner of a very rusty geology bachelors of science (BS) degree

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Robert Byers, posted 04-21-2011 10:30 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by Robert Byers, posted 04-27-2011 12:58 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but 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