The Flood- one explanation

Without Noah, why do you need a flood?

Yes, Eta, as Nosy said, we know it's nonsense, we just don't know the details. I've actually never heard this argument before. Put us out of our misery... please.

Well, I'm no expert in Andean geology, but my gut feeling is that Lake Titicaca is not an oceanic remnant. Geologic information of that area is pretty slim and mainly concentrates on paleoclimatic studies and paleoelevation studies.In order to support my idea, I attempted to find, online, stratigraphic data for the Altiplano, specifically for what underlies Lake Titicaca. I would expect oceanic material to be somewhere near the surface or at least not too deeply covered by recent lake sediments. Nothing I read suggested such a thing. Stratigraphy in the Altiplano intermontane is dominated by lithologies shed from the bounding highlands and relatively recent magmatism. The minimal amount of salt in the area is easily sourced by underlying marine lithologies as well as abundant volcanic rocks in the area.From my own limited knowledge of that area, it seems that Lake Titicaca as well as the other dried lakes in the region are the result of wrench-faulting within the Altiplano resulting in basin formation - similar to the formation of Death Valley. That area is extremely structurally complex and there are many components for ultimate formation and uplift of the Altiplano itself, which spans approximately 60 million years. I'm not sure anyone here is THAT interested.If Tiahuanaco was indeed built when the Altiplano region was at sea level and at the time JP postulates (4,000 years???), then that means you've had approximately 3 feet of uplift per year for 4,000 years. That's quite significant. To some that might not sound like a lot, but it is. That sort of uplift would seem to highly and significantly impact drainage patterns, lake morphology, buildings, quality of life, etc., and it would definitely leave evidence in the geologic record. It does not appear to have left any such evidence as all geologic studies to date suggest, on average, millimeter scale rate of uplift (no more than about 3 mm/year).[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-17-2003]

I agree, I don't think the ocean was preserved as Lake Titicaca or anything else.

JP, I get the feeling you don't really understand what it is you are arguing. Or maybe I'm just not understanding what exactly you are trying to defend/prove.If it wasn't uplift as much as water level change, then why did you post:

quote:

---

Tiahunaco- don't just ignore it. A port/ habour city that now sits at 12,000 ft. above the sea it was once connected to. Its agricultural fields now at an altitude where barely anything will grow never mind support a civilization.

---

Obviously you have a problem with the elevation of Tiahuanaco implying that it wasn't that high when it was built, but rather at sea level where it acted as a *real* port city.Now you seem to be implying that it was the water level that rose, not the land.What exactly are you postulating here?

Ah, I think I understand. You're saying that the water bulges at the equator, correct? And therefore if Tiahuanaco (South America) was at the equator (how long ago?), then the water, because it's bulging, would reach the docks of Tiahuanaco. Then, some cataclysmic event caused the plates/crust to suddenly shift, moving South America to its current position where the water does not bulge. Thus sea level drops and Tiahuanaco is left high and dry... so to speak.Is that what you are proposing?

JP, the problem with that scenario is that Tiahuanaco is still at the same elevation - 12,500'. The only thing that has *risen* and *fallen* is sea level. That means you still have your agricultural problem.

Yes, SEA LEVEL change was 12,500 feet, but that still leaves Tiahuanaco at 12,500 feet. All you're doing is moving where 'sea level' is defined at. Sea level is arbitrary and has no effect on 'absolute' elevation.Raising the level of water to the top of Mt. Everest doesn't changed the fact that it's summit (and the new and improved sea level) is at 29,000+ feet.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-18-2003]

Hmmm... I thought he was postulating that it's still the same ocean, but that South America was at one time located so that Tiahuanaco straddled the equater. At that point and because the water at the equator "bulges" approximately 12,500 feet, Tiahuanaco would then be at 'sea level.' Thereby providing evidence that the ports at Tiahuanaco were actually oceanic ports rather than servicing Lake Titicaca.Later, due to some cataclysmic event, the South American continent (and others, I presume) was sloshed over to it's current position. This event resulted in huge waves and massive continental flooding and is what the Bible refers to as the Flood.Did I get it right, JP?

I was thinking about this last night after I posted. Actually I think I was dreaming about it. hahaYes, sea level defines 'zero' elevation, but that's not an absolute number is it?The way I see it, if all the ice melted and raised the sea level 300 feet. Sea level is still defined as zero, but it has a new... height??? The new sea level doesn't change the elevation of the land around it, BUT as Crash pointed out (and is exactly what I dreamt about last night), what about atmospheric pressure? Does it go up and down with sea level?

Thanks, Crash. I realized the air column thing during a dream last night. (You'd think I'd have more important and funner things to dream about.)However, I wasn't sure that the air pressure was affected by sea level rise, it just made sense when I woke up this morning. It that fact?Another question I had when I woke up this morning: isn't the oceanic bulge the result of gravitational forces between the Earth and Moon (and Sun?)? Which is what causes tides. I had the impression that JP's bulge was a centrifugal force thing.I guess I need to hear more about this bulge.

Yeah, everything is measured from Mean Sea Level. As for sea level changes, I believe we are currently in one (not sure), but it's still hard to notice at this point. Thanks for the links.Does anyone happen to know how, or even if, changes in sea level affect the Earth's atmosphere? I haven't been able to find anything about that online. I know that air pressure is the result of the downward force of the atmosphere on the Earth, but no where does it say it is affected by changes in sea level.I wonder if JP is going to come back...

Okay, I think I got the gist of everyone's arguments, but just want to make sure.It sounds like everyone now agrees that a global rise in sea level WOULD have the effect of *pushing* the atmosphere higher, thus allowing sea level pressures even as high as the summit of Mt. Everest. Correct? This makes sense to me.

Right there with ya!!