Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 242 of 460 (7936)
03-28-2002 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by wehappyfew
03-22-2002 11:13 PM


Joe Meert
What journal and journals are you the editor of and on the board of?
joz
On 'water running off the ice sheet' we are wasting our time splitting hairs. As I posted earlier on the Tunisia impact, there would have been plenty of heat involved which would have resulted in large amounts of ice melting. I am not even looking to impact melted water as the major source of flood waters, so this is really a pointless argument.
"your own source for the Siberian impact states "Seismographs sensed slight tremors" note "slight tremmors".." The Siberian 'impactor' exploded at 10,000 ft above the ground and still caused a tremor. Direct impacts exploding on impact would create much larger termors. Think about it, what would you expect from a hyper velocity impact, a little tap or a big wham? Think about getting rear ended at a stop light, the faster the car that hits you is going, the larger the jolt is going to be.
"The shock wave does have to shatter solid ice in order for any sub glacial lake release" Not directly, the pressure wave created in the sub glacial water could have been the hammer that broke the ice dams. Also, large ice sheets frequently, if not always, have a vast plumbing system of moving water draining over, through and under the ice sheet.
On the information you posted on the change in live style recorded at the end of the ice age, none of it really answered why it happened. The over hunting, climate change and super germ theories are not very plausible which is why there are three theories in stead of just one.
Percipient
So do you believe are the rocks are there or not? Theories come and go, but the evidence remains, if people have reported these rocks as being there, then they are still there whether they can explain them or not. The Driftless area was not glaciated which is what makes these rare rocks an anomaly. The references you cited on the lack of glacial erratics in the Driftless area are correct since they are speaking in general terms, and the few that turn up are the exception to the rule.
Haven't had the chance to see these rocks for myself, so no, I don't have any pictures of them yet. The Driftless area is large, but perhaps someday I will happen to come across some of these odd rocks.
doctrbill
When I posted Psalms 14:1 & Romans 1:18-22. I made no application, I posted the verses as a sort of rorschach test. I found your test results very revealing. So far you have been making statements like ""Jehovah" is not credited with creation in the First chapter of Genesis" which considering the wording at Genesis 1:1 demonstrates a level of obtuseness that is off the charts. Yet you understood the thrust of the above two verses without any problem and applied them both to yourself, very interesting. Since you were able to understand the verses, you are not as dimwitted as your other statements would imply, rather this points towards the possibility that your apparent failure to understand simple scriptures is an act. Your haste in applying the verses to yourself would also support the idea that you feel guilty or at least recognize the wrongness of this masquerade.
On the "attempt to assassinate my character was wonderfully venemous!" You are missing the point as always. The key point was "atheist using a false persona as a 'Bible scholar'" which you have failed to rebut. I went out on a limb and made a charge against you that if I am wrong, it should be easy for you to disprove by proving that you are who you say you are. Why haven't you done this? I actually want to be wrong about you Doctrbill, I would very much like it if you would prove that you are an actual Bible scholar and not just some "lying conniving atheist using a false persona as a 'Bible scholar' in a desperate attempt to discredit the word of God."
Since your misunderstanding of basic scripture is just an act, there is no point in my continuing to respond to your posts. We have already demonstrated that your interpretation conflicts with what the Bible states on the matter, conflicts with biblical Hebrew dictionaries and Bible commentaries. You have based this interpretation solely on your standing as a Bible scholar, which has also been disproved. In short, there is nothing left to respond to.
Edge;
"As I said I have no problem with the data at all. If there are dropstones there, then they are readily explained by normal proglacial phenomena. Why invent some wacky scheme to get them there?" Anything but a flood? What normal proglacial phenomena would drop rocks from far to the north, in a non glaciated area?
"They are a normal phenomenon of glacial lakes and marine glaciers. Yes, they can end up anywhere that water takes them from the icecaps to the tropics. It happens today. No flood necessary. An ocean takes them to such places. Please show us evidence for a flood!" When they turn up far inland, in places where glaciers never reached and at elevations well above sealevel, you are by definition talking about a rise in water level that would be a global food.
wehappyfew
I have to apologize for my overly brief response earlier. I generally down load a copy of this page and work up my responses in my word program and post it later, to reduce the amount of time I am on line. I had just popped on line briefly to post what I had written, and noticed your post and wrote a quick reply. To expand on what I posted, you are thinking of the release of glacial water as happening too fast to create the effects you predicted. Your description sounded like the effects of a release of all the water in less than a day. If the water was released over ten days, than would reduce the flow size by a factor of ten, over a hundred days would reduce it by a factor of 100. And the Scabland erosion you cited is believed to have been created by the run off of glacial melt waters from the emptying of lake Missoula, and is not unique as similar erosion is found in a number of other places around the world. When I use the word 'sudden' you have to remember that I am generally using it in the geological sense. Any thing that happenings in just a few days, months or even a few years, is extremely sudden to geologists. The flood which occurred over a period of months, was an event that happened so fast for the geologists that it was quicker than a blink of an eye and was to quick to have left more than a trace in the geological record. The draining melt waters would for the most part probably lack a huge head pressure due to draining constrictions in the ice. Water that drains from beneath huge glaciers doesn't exit at high pressures like water coming out a fire hose. I would like to think that may have been the case for some of the water releases, particularly the first surge of subglacial water as the ice broke, but in general it was probably a low pressure release. even water flowing down off a glacier loses its potential energy in flowing over the ice, only if it were to drop all the way in a water fall would be able to deliver it to the surrounding landscape. Ice sheets sliding into the oceans would not create 'tsunamis that should have been dozens of miles high' even a huge impact tsunamis are believed only to reach a height of something like 1-3 miles high. Additionally, passing tsunamis leave no evidence of their passing on the ocean floor. If the release of sub glacial water which had to raise the sea level high enough for surging to occur, also flooded the land deep enough, the effects of any tsunamis would have been greatly reduced with increasing water depth and any 'shoreline' they hit may have been far inland and not recognized.
" dropstones" you have found, you would realize that they are certainly valid evidence of flooding... but without a correlated sequence of transgressive marine sediments, they are actually just as valid evidence for local non-marine flooding." We do have a 'correlated sequence of transgressive marine sediments' in the form of marine diatoms and the Michigan whale bones. We also have the topographical consideration that the surrounding terrain is not high enough in relief to contain a local flood to the necessary depth.
"the Driftless Area was never glaciated in Wisconsian time. Yet you also claim that the ice sheets could have been far more widespread than geologists currently believe. These positions are also mutually exclusive" Incorrect, the ice sheets could have been more widespread without covering the Driftless area, the 'expansion' could have occurred in other areas. The maximum extent of the ice sheet in North America is well know, the extent of the ice sheets in other parts of the world is not as well defined.
"Patrick presented several converging lines of evidence to rule out ice volumes significantly larger than 40-50,000,000 cukm" His conclusions were shown to be based on incomplete information as shown by the references in post 142. He has yet to respond.
"post 142 ...that post also gives a glaciated area of 192,400,000 sqkm, while your post 87 lists "45,000,000 sqkm believed to have been glaciated"" The 45,000,000 was a figure supplied by Patrick. The much larger figure of 192,400,000 is from an estimate in one of the references for post 142. The exact area that was covered by the ice sheets is not known for sure, hence the estimates. I hadn't been able to locate much in the way of numbers on the total area covered and was very happy to find the estimate in that reference. With an area of 192,400,000 sqkm, a large release of sub glacial water could have easily flooded the world to the edges of such a large ice cover.
"Problem 1. It appears that this figure ignores isostatic flexing under the ice sheet. The weight of that much ice would depress the land to far below sea-level, and only the portion above sea-level can contribute to a global flood. Therefore your total ice volume needs to be about 50% larger to get the required amount." Many areas once covered by the ice are still below sea level today are still rebounding such as Hudson's bay. The isostatic problem you point out was taken into consideration, it is only a problem if all the ice were to melt. A major release of water at the Late Glacial Maxim would have left plenty of ice to fill such depressions, and the huge area covered by the ice sheets reduces the required thickness of the ice sheets to be able to produce a global flood, to thinner ice thickness so that the amount of isostatic depression beneath the ice is greatly reduced and is much less of a problem then it appeared at first. This is a problem that had bothered me early on and I was greatly relieved by the large figure for the area of the ice sheets that eliminated this as a possible major problem. So far I believe you are the only one to catch this point, very good.
"Problem 2. 50% larger than 621,000,000 cukm is essentially ALL THE WATER ON THE SURFACE OF THE PLANET!!!! The ocean basins would be dry plains with a few puddles on the bottom." Actually it would be some thing like 75%, but spreading the ice out over the larger area reduces the thickness and the isostatic depression and reduces the requirement to increase the water volume.
"The only option is to drastically reduce the size of your flood. As soon as you get into a realistic range for ice volume, your mechanism for unprecedented and unsupportable deep-mantle flexing disappears. The weight of a few hundred feet of water redistributed over the planet is inconsequential to deep mantle dynamics. There simply isn't enough energy to flex that much mantle rock. Until you show equations using actual values for mantle rheology, your idea is an elaborate fantasy that adds an interesting wrinkle to an old myth." I am impressed. you recognize the effect of massive shifts in water depth would have on the earth in flexing it as I have stated, without even reading the theory in full detail. You are quick! I agree with you on there being some sort of minim depth necessary for this deep flexing to occur, but have not been able to determine what that depth would be. From what I have seen in mantle rheology, the variables are not precisely known enough to do such a prediction, at best only a wide range of answers would be possible. Unless you have got a short cut or better numbers than the ones I have seen. I would not exclude the possibility of the minim depth for triggering this deep flexing being less than a 1,000 ft, perhaps a few hundred feet would be enough to trip it. Remember we are talking about a global effect, not a local effect. The weight spread out over all the ocean floors would add up to quite a force.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by wehappyfew, posted 03-22-2002 11:13 PM wehappyfew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by edge, posted 03-28-2002 5:18 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 244 by Percy, posted 03-28-2002 9:35 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 245 by doctrbill, posted 03-28-2002 11:43 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 250 by joz, posted 03-29-2002 12:46 PM wmscott has not replied

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


Message 243 of 460 (7940)
03-28-2002 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by wmscott
03-28-2002 4:35 PM


quote:
edge: "As I said I have no problem with the data at all. If there are dropstones there, then they are readily explained by normal proglacial phenomena. Why invent some wacky scheme to get them there?"
wmscott: Anything but a flood? What normal proglacial phenomena would drop rocks from far to the north, in a non glaciated area?

No, anything with some evidence. Okay, glacial lakes and ocean basins for two. Wherever ice can float.
quote:
edge: "They are a normal phenomenon of glacial lakes and marine glaciers. Yes, they can end up anywhere that water takes them from the icecaps to the tropics. It happens today. No flood necessary. An ocean takes them to such places. Please show us evidence for a flood!"
When they turn up far inland, in places where glaciers never reached and at elevations well above sealevel, you are by definition talking about a rise in water level that would be a global food.

Are you saying that all areas covered by glacial lakes were glaciated? Nonsense. And what areas "well above sea level?" You mean 480 feet above sea level? No there is no evidence that shows a 480 feet rise in sea level would be global.
And no. A rise in sea level is not, by definition a global flood. Did the glaciers reach the Florida peninsula? Would it be flooded by a 480 feet rise in sea level? Would that be a global flood?
We keep coming back to the same problem here, wmscott. You have no evidence that such a thing ever happened. The largest known jokuhlhaup had virtually no effect on sea level and yet you say that such events did, in fact, raise the sea level significantly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by wmscott, posted 03-28-2002 4:35 PM wmscott has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 244 of 460 (7947)
03-28-2002 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by wmscott
03-28-2002 4:35 PM



Wmscott replies to Joe Meert:
What journal and journals are you the editor of and on the board of?
Joe hasn't claimed affiliation with any journals. He's only asking why, if you feel so sure you have a valid theory, that you're bringing it to lay audiences such as might read your book or debate with you here, instead of to scientific venues where it could receive a more informed hearing.

So do you believe the rocks are there or not?
I believe there are rocks pretty much almost everywhere. What is it about these rocks that leads you to believe they're dropstones when professional geologists think they're just rocks?

The references you cited on the lack of glacial erratics in the Driftless area are correct since they are speaking in general terms, and the few that turn up are the exception to the rule.
The only scientific reference cited so far by either side was Mickelson reporting a single erratic of size 0.01 meters (1 cm). Given that the Driftless Area is surrounded by formerly glaciated regions and has been tromped through by generations of animals and people, that's no evidence at all. So where is your evidence for dropstones in the Driftless Area?

Haven't had the chance to see these rocks for myself, so no, I don't have any pictures of them yet. The Driftless area is large, but perhaps someday I will happen to come across some of these odd rocks.
If you have no pictures of them and have never even seen them, then why did you say you'd try to put pictures of them in the next edition of your book? This is pretty puzzling since you can't know whether pictures of something you've never seen would support your position or not.
In message 176, in reply to me saying, ""Diatoms are often wind-borne," you replied, "Not when you find them underneath a glacial drop stone." Where does this claim of marine diatoms under dropstones actually come from? I thought you'd found this evidence yourself, but I guess not since you've never seen a dropstone in the Driftless Area.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 03-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by wmscott, posted 03-28-2002 4:35 PM wmscott has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 245 of 460 (7955)
03-28-2002 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by wmscott
03-28-2002 4:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott
... statements like "Jehovah" is not credited with creation in the First chapter of Genesis" ... considering the wording at Genesis 1:1 demonstrates a level of obtuseness that is off the charts.


You apparently think that "God" and "LORD God" are the same character, even though the first narrative (chapter one) doesn't even mention "the LORD God"; not once. Your "Jehovah" is that "LORD".
quote:
wmscott
... your apparent failure to understand simple scriptures is an act. ... you feel guilty or at least recognize the wrongness of this masquerade.

What I do understand is that you demand Space Age scientific definitions for Bronze Age poetic lingo.
quote:
wmscott
The key point was "atheist using a false persona as a 'Bible scholar'" which you have failed to rebut.

Ad hominem attacks do not need to be rebutted. Your failure to gainsay my analysis of your evidence is adequate portrayal of my facility.
quote:
wmscott
I went out on a limb and made a charge against you that ... you are ... just some "lying conniving atheist using a false persona as a 'Bible scholar' in a desperate attempt to discredit the word of God."

Whining and complaining ad hominem is not debate. How can a man discredit the "word of God"? Is your god so fragile that he cannot take care of himself?
quote:
wmscott
Since your misunderstanding of basic scripture is just an act, there is no point in my continuing to respond to your posts. ... You have based this interpretation solely on your standing as a Bible scholar, which has also been disproved. In short, there is nothing left to respond to.

Yadda, yadda, yadda; ad hominem, ad nauseum.
'And thus, mumbling insults, one sore loser leaves the fray, wondering how his opponent can put so much faith in linguistics and so little faith in ignorance.
He goes forth now to beat his dead horse elsewhere; before audiences more appreciative of his dead-horse beating routine.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by wmscott, posted 03-28-2002 4:35 PM wmscott has not replied

wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 460 (7963)
03-29-2002 1:09 AM


scott,
I have time for only a few quick points. Much more will be covered later.
Mantle rheology:

"Mantle viscosity and lithospheric thickness results of varying a number of model assumptions. The shaded region indicates the range of likely solutions, taking into account combinations of various effects. Seismicity depth ranges are given for western Puget Sound. An upper bound on mantle viscosity in this region is about 1020 Pa s."
scott said:
quote:
it is only a problem if all the ice were to melt. A major release of water at the Late Glacial Maxim would have left plenty of ice to fill such depressions,

Irrelevant. Ice OR water in these depressions cannot contribute to a global flood. Additional ice/water volume above and beyond that amount is required to actually raise sea-level.
Also, 150% of 621,000,000 cukm is 931,000,000 cukm. The total volume of ALL free water on the planet is 1,400,000,000 cukm. That means no matter how much the ocean basins rebound, there would be water (very SALTY water) only in the deep ocean trenches and the very oldest and deepest abyssal plains. The rest would be dry. There simply wouldn't be any water left to fill them.
"glaciated area of 192,400,000 sqkm"...
The total continental surface area today is 148,000,000 sqkm. Your number must actually refer to the amount of continent exposed above sea-level at the LGM.
While you're at it, care to explain how snow can fall at an elevation of 45,000 ft?
Dropstones:
We can "drop" this point, I believe...
"The deposits of former glacial lakes cover parts of the Central Plain, in the driftless as well as the glaciated area. These lakes were apparently short- lived, for they produced few well- defined shorelines. The existence of these bodies of water is proved by the finding of lake- bottom sediments, as near Grantsburg in Burnett County, and Menomonie in Dunn County...
The largest area of lake deposits is on the bed of Glacial Lake Wisconsin. This former body of water left lake deposits over an area of more than 1,825 square miles...
The deposits of Glacial Lake Wisconsin include isolated, erratic boulders of granite, greenstone and other crystalline rocks, for example in Juneau County west of Wisconsin Dells, and in Sauk County west of Baraboo. Our best evidence of the height of the lake surface comes from these ice- rafted erratics. Near Baraboo and Wisconsin Dells they do not occur above a level of about 960 feet.
To the northwest, rounded sandstone and chert boulders are found in a beach deposit on Mile Bluff south of Mauston. The deposit is less than 980 feet above sea level. Erratics have been found to the southwest near Reedsburg, where there was a bay of the glacial lake.
"
scott said:
quote:
We do have a 'correlated sequence of transgressive marine sediments' in the form of marine diatoms and the Michigan whale bones.

Apparently you don't know what "correlated" means.
Sub-glacial flow rates:
Go ahead and figure out how much water flowed out (enough to raise sea-level to reach the toe of an ice sheet?), how long it took, then divide. Now compare to the annual flow of the Amazon. I dare you.
sub-glacial water pressure:
quote:
The draining melt waters would for the most part probably lack a huge head pressure due to draining constrictions in the ice.

Then how does it get out? It's 22,500 ft below sea-level under your 45,000 feet thick ice sheet, remember?

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Percy, posted 03-29-2002 8:29 AM wehappyfew has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 247 of 460 (7976)
03-29-2002 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by wehappyfew
03-29-2002 1:09 AM


Can you provide a reference for your dropstone excerpt?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by wehappyfew, posted 03-29-2002 1:09 AM wehappyfew has not replied

wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 460 (7978)
03-29-2002 9:21 AM


Ahh... sorry, I was rushed in making that post.
A picture tells a thousands words...
And a URL helps, too.
Wisconsin: Geographical Provinces - The Central Plain

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Percy, posted 03-29-2002 10:41 AM wehappyfew has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 249 of 460 (7983)
03-29-2002 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by wehappyfew
03-29-2002 9:21 AM


Thanks!
The boundary of the Driftless Area is not marked on your map, so I pulled out a map of Wisconsin and found the towns, and it turns out that Glacial Lake Wisconsin occupied perhaps 15% of the Driftless Area of Wisconsin on it's northeastern portion, centered approximately on the current locations of the Petenwell and Castle Rock Reservoirs. In other words, Glacial Lake Wisconsin was approximately centered on the word "CENTRAL" near the center of this map from the same website. Note the boundary of the Driftless Area:
So Wmscott needs evidence of Driftless Area dropstones outside the Glacial Lake Wisconsin area. He also needs to explain the evidence of shortlived lakes mentioned in your excerpt (ill-defined shorelines, beach gravels, lake bottom sediments), and the absence of evidence of ocean inundation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by wehappyfew, posted 03-29-2002 9:21 AM wehappyfew has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 460 (7987)
03-29-2002 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by wmscott
03-28-2002 4:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
1)On 'water running off the ice sheet' we are wasting our time splitting hairs. As I posted earlier on the Tunisia impact, there would have been plenty of heat involved which would have resulted in large amounts of ice melting. I am not even looking to impact melted water as the major source of flood waters, so this is really a pointless argument.
2)"your own source for the Siberian impact states "Seismographs sensed slight tremors" note "slight tremmors".." The Siberian 'impactor' exploded at 10,000 ft above the ground and still caused a tremor. Direct impacts exploding on impact would create much larger termors. Think about it, what would you expect from a hyper velocity impact, a little tap or a big wham? Think about getting rear ended at a stop light, the faster the car that hits you is going, the larger the jolt is going to be.
3)"The shock wave does have to shatter solid ice in order for any sub glacial lake release" Not directly, the pressure wave created in the sub glacial water could have been the hammer that broke the ice dams. Also, large ice sheets frequently, if not always, have a vast plumbing system of moving water draining over, through and under the ice sheet.
4)On the information you posted on the change in live style recorded at the end of the ice age, none of it really answered why it happened. The over hunting, climate change and super germ theories are not very plausible which is why there are three theories in stead of just one.
5)The weight spread out over all the ocean floors would add up to quite a force.

1)Fact is bud there wouldn`t be any "impact melted water flowing off the ice sheets" as you put it for the simple reason that the heat released by the impact would vaporize rather than melt the impacted ice....
IOW apres impact there would be solid ice (with a crater in it) and vast quantities of water vapour (the material that was in the crater) not torrents of liquid water as you seem to expect... yes there is huge ammounts of heat but that is precisely why the material would be vaporized rather than left as a liquid....
And yes it is pointless untill you read up on the physics of hypervelocity impacts....
2)See this is what I`m talking about right here, your analogy with car crashes is inacurate in that in car crashes the energy does not arrive faster than the maximum speed of propogation of the shock wave in the impacted body...
See the problem yet? The reason that so much heat is generated at all is that the energy of the impact cannot be dissipated by a shock wave...
You do not understand the mechanisms of hypervelocity impacts go and read up on them then we can discuss this...
3)Cute if you had read past the first sentance you would have seen that I made exactly the same point about the shock wave breaking the "ice dams" as you put it...
Oh incidently did you know that solids transmit shock waves better than liquids? What does this do to the idea that the shock wave was chanelled along the liquid chanel untill it hit an "ice dam"?
4)Regardless as to the theories as to why agriculture came about your original comment was along the lines of the move to agriculture from hunter gathering cannot solely explain the changes in human society, I would like to see some sort of justification of that statement....
5)Lets see now weight is mass times gravitational field potential which gives units of [Kgms-2] i.e units of force
Spread it out over an area and you get units [Kgm-1s-2] i.e pressure....
Yet you seem to think that its force....
When reading up on hypervelocity impacts read an introductory level physics text while your at it.....
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by wmscott, posted 03-28-2002 4:35 PM wmscott has not replied

Hieyeck
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 460 (8080)
04-01-2002 9:56 PM


hi everybody
i'm new to the forums and i'm not sure if these 3 anti-creationism points have been raised before (no way in hell i'm browsing through 17 pages of extremely long responses):
1. From what I have heard, he looks like a modern european and so was his family. So the where did Chinese, Africans, Native Americans, etc. come from?
2. Even if a few were blond, the blond gene would eventually get erased, so how did blond hair, blue eyes, etc. come to be?
3. Incest (well this also cover Adam and Eve, but that's another topic). This means that modern day humans are mutants and genetic defects of our ancestors.
I don't mean to insult anyone, for all we know bible stories could have originated as fables and have become distorted through history.
[This message has been edited by Hieyeck, 04-01-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Percy, posted 04-02-2002 12:49 PM Hieyeck has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 252 of 460 (8099)
04-02-2002 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Hieyeck
04-01-2002 9:56 PM


Hi, Hieyeck, welcome aboard!
I don't blame you for not reading the 17 pages of this thread, but you might want to read the first 3 or 4 posts just to get a feel for the topic. This thread is for discussing Wmscott's theory that the global flood actually occurred at the end of the last ice age due to a comet strike that ruptured glacial margins releasing torrents of sub-glacial water. You comments may fit better in the Some help for the TC model thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Hieyeck, posted 04-01-2002 9:56 PM Hieyeck has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 253 of 460 (8457)
04-11-2002 6:43 PM


edge & Percipient & wehappyfew
On the relationship of Glacial Lake Wisconsin to the Driftless area, I would suggest the book "The Physical Geography of Wisconsin" by Lawrence Martin. On page 130 Lake Wisconsin is discussed as a possible source for drop stones found in the northern part of the Driftless area, while a temporary damming of the Mississippi is mentioned as a possible source for the drop stones found on the bluffs by the Mississippi. The reason the drop stones to the west are not thought to have been left by lake Wisconsin is that it is not believed to have extended that far, and it would have required a very large rise in sea level to be able to do so. It should also be noted on lake Wisconsin. "It existed so short a time that the shorelines and deltas at its borders are in most places too faint for recognition." P.130. Considering the brief existence and its high elevation of 960 feet and a depth of 70 to 150 feet, it seems probable that this lake was possibly created at the end of the flood as the waters drained from the land, some of the ice floated south and blocked the valleys acting as dams, which created a temporary lake. This would explain the short duration and locations the drop stones are found at, including the ones outside the former area of the lake. The lake existed on the northeast edge of the Driftless area, the Driftless area extends to the southwest into Minnesota and Iowa. Glacial stream deposits are also found in the Driftless area as glaciated areas around the Driftless area drained into the Mississippi through valleys in the Driftless area. The drop stones I am referring to in the Driftless area, are not found in the valleys or areas that were part of lake Wisconsin. The first edition of "The Physical Geography of Wisconsin" was published in 1916, so these facts have long been known, and would have been invoked as an explanation if the evidence would have permitted, but it did not, which is why a 'giant' damming of the Mississippi was invoked by Martin. Nice try guys, but no cigar.
edge- "Florida peninsula? Would it be flooded by a 480 feet rise in sea level?" Considering that the highest elevation in Florida is 345 ft, I would say yes most definitely.
edge- "The largest known jokuhlhaup had virtually no effect on sea level and yet you say that such events did, in fact, raise the sea level significantly." I would say the 15m sudden rise in sea level we have been discussing would be a significant rise.
Percipient- "What is it about these rocks that leads you to believe they're drop stones when professional geologists think they're just rocks?" Martin also thinks they are drop stones, but he credits them to a giant damming of the Mississippi rather than a global flood. While Gwen shultz thinks they are all the work of pranksters out to embarrass her in front of her class.
"Where does this claim of marine diatoms under dropstones actually come from? I thought you'd found this evidence yourself, but I guess not since you've never seen a dropstone in the Driftless Area." My research has been done in SE Wisconsin, the Driftless area is in SW Wisconsin.
wehappyfew
On the depressions ice sheets create you stated " Ice OR water in these depressions cannot contribute to a global flood." Correct, I was referring to the fact that a flood occurring at the LGM would have been caused by a large release of water and ice from the ice sheets. Since the ice sheets themselves did not disappear at the LGM, plenty of ice remained to 'fill the holes'. Since the 'holes' were filled by the remaining ice, they are not a problem since the ice sheets were probably far too thick to float, no flood water is required to fill them.
"150% of 621,000,000 cukm is 931,000,000 cukm. The total volume of ALL free water on the planet is 1,400,000,000 cukm. That means no matter how much the ocean basins rebound, there would be water (very SALTY water) only in the deep ocean trenches and the very oldest and deepest abyssal plains. The rest would be dry. There simply wouldn't be any water left to fill them." You seemed to be locked in a very rigid view of the oceanic crust. If large percentages of water were removed from the oceans, the ocean floor would rebound, making up for much of the removed volume. Hence even a very large reduction in ocean volume would not result in water "only in the deep ocean trenches and the very oldest and deepest abyssal plains". The ocean water would be saltier, just how much is unknown. The oceans have mechanisms that regulate the salt level in the oceans and prevent the oceans from becoming too salty over time. One of these mechanisms is the passage of water through the hot crust forming the hot springs on the ocean floor, another is the formation of salt pans as the ocean retreats from shallow areas. Then once the level rises again, some of this salt is reabsorbed. Before the flood, I would expect the oceans to be much shallower and somewhat saltier, but still occupying most of their area. What the % the flood waters were I don't know, but I like to use 50% as a maximum figure.
"The total continental surface area today is 148,000,000 sqkm. Your number must actually refer to the amount of continent exposed above sea-level at the LGM." The number comes from "Ice Sheets By Volume" by Peter U. Clark and Alan C. Mix, Nature, vol 406, 17 August 2000, page 689. Where it states "At the LGM, ice sheets were nearly 4km high, covered some 13 times more land than they do today (excluding Antarctica, where the ice area did not change appreciably), and lowered the sea level to expose an extra 2.8 x 10-6 km2 of land now under water (nearly equal to the area covered by the additional LGM ice)." I multiplied the present glaciated land area by 13, when what the author meant was( present glaciated land area - Antarctica) x 13. Subtracting Antarctica results in a much more modest figure. So it looks like for the moment I am stuck with smaller estimates than what I would like. I am of the opinion that major areas such as in northern Asia, the continental shelves in cold areas, and all high elevations where more extensively glaciated than is currently believed. Considering the fact that the ice age lasted so very long, the low stand of the ocean level had been fully adjusted to by isostatic forces. Removing the water from the sea and putting it on the land, doubles the compensation on a global average, plus there is the gravitational effect of the ice itself, which is believed to have raised local sea levels along side some of the ice margins by as much as a hundred feet. In order to create the low shorelines of the ice age, huge volumes of water would of had to have been removed, and as more is removed, more isostatic compensation takes place. All of this ice has to go some where, and there plenty of places that may have also been glaciated. In misreading that journal article I was thinking that was the position the author was taking, but unfortunately he was not. So I am lacking a good quote to support my view of larger ice caps.
"how snow can fall at an elevation of 45,000 ft?" Snow storms occur on top of Mount Everest at 29,028 ft the highest point on earth. Proving that snow can fall at elevations higher than the highest elevation occurring today, is not too difficult. Snow falls from clouds, so what is the highest elevation for cloud formations? Clouds do occur as high as 45,000 ft, and since they are composed of ice crystals, snow fall at that elevation is technically possible.
"figure out how much water flowed out (enough to raise sea-level to reach the toe of an ice sheet?), how long it took, then divide. Now compare to the annual flow of the Amazon. I dare you." It is first necessary to know the length of the ice sheet margins that released the water in order to estimate the rate of flow in a given area. Many of the ice margins were in position to discharge melt water directly into deep ocean waters, which would leave little erosional evidence other than a few drop stones on the ocean floor, which we do find. As we have been discussing, many rivers draining glacial areas show signs of super floods of melt waters surging into the sea towards the end of the last ice age. The trend in science is also moving towards the acceptance of a very sudden end of the last ice age.
"Climatologist Peter deMenocal told Time magazine in April, "When I began my Ph.D. in 1986, the conventional wisdom was that it took 1,000 years to end an ice age; in '91 that figure was lowered to 100 years, and then just two years later Richard Alley at Penn State published a paper about climate changing in two to five years."" Britannica.
Such an abrupt end of an ice age would release a very sudden surge of water and ice into the oceans, raising sea level faster than isostactic forces could adjust.
Your problem with the lack of a extremely high head pressure for water from beneath a ice sheet is probably best answered by considering spring water. In a number of places there are springs that come to the surface from great depths, yet many of them flow peacefully and lack a high head pressure. Water from beneath a ice sheet is similar, it can have a high head pressure as some springs do, or it may exit peacefully. It depends on the pressure the water is under, whether it is supporting the ice sheet or merely in ice caves beneath it, and on the amount of constrictions in the exit channel which creates back pressure which in turn reduces the exiting head pressure.
Joz
"there wouldn't be any "impact melted water flowing off the ice sheets" as you put it for the simple reason that the heat released by the impact would vaporize rather than melt" There would be much vaporization of ice, but we are not dealing with a binary situation. Ice in the center of an impact would be vaporized, ice outside the crater would still be ice, and in between would be a zone where the heat would not be enough to vaporize, but enough to melt. Additionally in a dense impact pattern of multiple impacts as we have been talking about, there would be too much water vapor for the atmosphere to hold, due to the heat imparted to the vapor or steam, and the atmosphere, the excessive vaporized ice would rain out in a very heavy rain. Also in reading a journal article on this, they mentioned extensive fracturing of the ice with passage of the shock wave. Thus a Carolina bay type pattern of impacts, could have turned an ice sheet into a huge unstable pile of broken ice. Since a ice sheet grows as large as it can support itself, such a fracturing could result in a massive surging all by itself.
"solids transmit shock waves better than liquids? What does this do to the idea that the shock wave was chanelled along the liquid chanel untill it hit an "ice dam"?" Actually it makes things easier, since the ice is extensively fractured by the shock wave itself and this can cause the collapse of an ice sheet without requiring the presence of large amounts of sub glacial melt water.
"the move to agriculture from hunter gathering cannot solely explain the changes in human society, I would like to see some sort of justification of that statement." Consider the disappearance of Neanderthal man, and the change in populations that occurred at the end of the ice age. The study of human genes shows that the end of the ice age was a time of major change, for example, although there are a number of skeletons of human 'hybrids' no one a live today has Neanderthal genes. We also have the Pleistocene extinctions, the sudden climate changes and the sudden disappearance of ice age societies, whole tribes of people or in one case a whole race, up and disappeared. That is why I feel a gradual change from hunting to farming, fails to account for the many profound changes that occurred at the end of the ice age.
"i.e pressure.Yet you seem to think that its force. When reading up on hypervelocity impacts read an introductory level physics text while your at it." We are not in a introductory physics class. This may come as a shock to you, but words are not always used as they were in your physics class. In general usage, words are used much more loosely and frequently with more than one meaning. So chill out, unless I start using the wrongs terms in equations then you can point it out to me. On reading up on hypervelocity impacts, The university sent a lot of recent journals out to for binding, so I was only able to read one. Feel free to e-mail me any articles you think I should read. Otherwise I will just have to wait until they come back from the bindery.
Hieyeck
Welcome. You seem to be making a basic error by assuming Noah and his family were genetically just like us. Since we are all descended from him and his family, they carried all of our genes, except for the mutations since then. This would make each pair of them more genetically diversified than nearly any two people alive today, so inbreeding was not a problem. In fact inbreeding is only a problem when the population is already partualy inbred. Even those who believe we evolved, also believe mankind is descended from an original pair, a genetic Adam and Eve. What is argued about is how that first couple came to be, not whether or not they existed, since genetic studies show mankind had a genetic Eve or one mother for of all mankind. Whether you believe in evolution or creation, mankind had to have a genetic starting point.

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by edge, posted 04-12-2002 10:47 AM wmscott has replied
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 04-12-2002 2:12 PM wmscott has replied
 Message 256 by joz, posted 04-12-2002 4:23 PM wmscott has replied

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


Message 254 of 460 (8469)
04-12-2002 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by wmscott
04-11-2002 6:43 PM


quote:
On the relationship of Glacial Lake Wisconsin to the Driftless area, I would suggest the book "The Physical Geography of Wisconsin" by Lawrence Martin. On page 130 Lake Wisconsin is discussed as a possible source for drop stones found in the northern part of the Driftless area, while a temporary damming of the Mississippi is mentioned as a possible source for the drop stones found on the bluffs by the Mississippi. The reason the drop stones to the west are not thought to have been left by lake Wisconsin is that it is not believed to have extended that far, and it would have required a very large rise in sea level to be able to do so. It should also be noted on lake Wisconsin. "It existed so short a time that the shorelines and deltas at its borders are in most places too faint for recognition." P.130. Considering the brief existence and its high elevation of 960 feet and a depth of 70 to 150 feet, it seems probable that this lake was possibly created at the end of the flood as the waters drained from the land, some of the ice floated south and blocked the valleys acting as dams, which created a temporary lake.
Are you saying that it is not possible for a lake to be 1000 feet deep? Are you saying that 1000 feet above current sea level would have been a global flood? The logic is not here, wmscott. You are saying that it is too deep for a lake or a sea level rise but that it is okay to infer a global flood? And if the dropstones were deposited during retreat of a global flood, then there should be some at much higher elevations. Where are they? You need a little work on this section of your book.
quote:
This would explain the short duration and locations the drop stones are found at, including the ones outside the former area of the lake.
So would a temporary rise in sea level over an area depressed by the ice sheets. So would a large glacial lake. You have not ruled out these possibilities only said that the lake is not thought to extend that far... maybe it did.
quote:
The lake existed on the northeast edge of the Driftless area, the Driftless area extends to the southwest into Minnesota and Iowa. Glacial stream deposits are also found in the Driftless area as glaciated areas around the Driftless area drained into the Mississippi through valleys in the Driftless area. The drop stones I am referring to in the Driftless area, are not found in the valleys or areas that were part of lake Wisconsin. The first edition of "The Physical Geography of Wisconsin" was published in 1916, so these facts have long been known, and would have been invoked as an explanation if the evidence would have permitted, but it did not, which is why a 'giant' damming of the Mississippi was invoked by Martin. Nice try guys, but no cigar.
You have not shown a case for a global flood. In fact, you unintentionally admit that it did not happen by calling upon receding flood waters to deposit the dropstones at elevations of 960 feet, but no higher. Not even a nice try, wmscott. You flunk.
quote:
edge- "Florida peninsula? Would it be flooded by a 480 feet rise in sea level?"
Considering that the highest elevation in Florida is 345 ft, I would say yes most definitely.

Does that mean then that if Florida was flooded that it suffered a global flood?
quote:
edge- "The largest known jokuhlhaup had virtually no effect on sea level and yet you say that such events did, in fact, raise the sea level significantly."
I would say the 15m sudden rise in sea level we have been discussing would be a significant rise.

What 15 meter sea level rise is that? Did the 1783 jokhulaup raise sea level by 15 meters? I have never seen a reference to that effect. And even if so, is 15 meters a global flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by wmscott, posted 04-11-2002 6:43 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by wmscott, posted 04-18-2002 5:48 PM edge has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 255 of 460 (8474)
04-12-2002 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by wmscott
04-11-2002 6:43 PM



wmscott writes:
Since we are all descended from him and his family, they carried all of our genes, except for the mutations since then.
There is no genetic evidence that all humans alive today are descended from a small family group of around 10,000 years ago.
The unique genes of Chinese, Africans, Australians, Japanese, North and South Americans, etc, were not have resident in the members of Noah's family.
A small family group could not have repopulated the world and demonstrated all the genetic, cultural and social diversity of all the different regions in so short a period of time, and especially not in a way so as to appear identical with the groups living in each location before the flood.
There is no indication that the entire world was repopulated around 10,000 years ago such as might be indicated by a morphological break. For instance, the bush people of Australia of more than 10,000 years ago appear to be the same as those from later times. If they'd all been wiped out during the flood and then Australia was resettled by Noah's descendents, there would be a marked difference in morphology between the old inhabitants and the new settlers. Not to mention different forms of habitation, tool use, diet, etc.

This would make each pair of them more genetically diversified than nearly any two people alive today, so inbreeding was not a problem.
Genes reside on chromosomes at locations known as loci. Each locus can contain two genes. The relationship between the two genes can be complex, but most people are familiar with the common dominant/recessive relationship (eg, that a gene for brown eyes is dominant over one for blue).
Since the members of Noah's family were presumably human, they had the same DNA we have and their chromosomes had two genes at each locus. Squeezing more diversity into normal DNA would be akin to putting more than a dozen eggs into an egg carton. Just as there's nowhere to put the extra eggs, there's nowhere to put extra genes into a chromosome.
Further, the members of Noah's family came from the region where he lived, and so would not have had genes from other races from more remote locations around the world.

Even those who believe we evolved, also believe mankind is descended from an original pair, a genetic Adam and Eve.
You've misunderstood the science. There was no "original pair." Mitochondrial Eve did not live at the same time as Y-Chromosome Adam.
Mitochondrial Eve represents the most recent common ancestor of all humans alive today when traced matrilinearly, ie, traced back through the mitochondrial DNA, which is only passed on maternally. Unlike nuclear DNA, which is very different in the child from that in the parents since it represents a combining of the genes of both parents, the mitochondrial DNA in the child is identical to that in the mother, except for mutations. Since the mutation rate is known, the changes in mitochondrial DNA represent a molecular clock.
Mitochondrial Eve was uncovered using statistical analyses and is thought to have lived approximately 140,000 years ago. Naturally, our nuclear DNA derives from a far wider variety of sources than mitochondrial DNA, since nuclear DNA is a mishmash of all our ancestors. Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common maternal ancestor, not the only ancestor from that time.
Y-chromosome Adam is the male equivalent of Mitochondrial Eve. The Y-chromosome is analogous to mitochondrial DNA in that it can only be passed down the paternal line. He is thought to have lived approximately 60,000 years ago.
None of these research results are consistent with your Noah's flood scenario of only 10,000 years ago.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by wmscott, posted 04-11-2002 6:43 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by wmscott, posted 04-18-2002 5:51 PM Percy has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 460 (8481)
04-12-2002 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by wmscott
04-11-2002 6:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
1)There would be much vaporization of ice, but we are not dealing with a binary situation. Ice in the center of an impact would be vaporized, ice outside the crater would still be ice, and in between would be a zone where the heat would not be enough to vaporize, but enough to melt. Additionally in a dense impact pattern of multiple impacts as we have been talking about, there would be too much water vapor for the atmosphere to hold, due to the heat imparted to the vapor or steam, and the atmosphere, the excessive vaporized ice would rain out in a very heavy rain. Also in reading a journal article on this, they mentioned extensive fracturing of the ice with passage of the shock wave. Thus a Carolina bay type pattern of impacts, could have turned an ice sheet into a huge unstable pile of broken ice. Since a ice sheet grows as large as it can support itself, such a fracturing could result in a massive surging all by itself.
2)Actually it makes things easier, since the ice is extensively fractured by the shock wave itself and this can cause the collapse of an ice sheet without requiring the presence of large amounts of sub glacial melt water.
3)Consider the disappearance of Neanderthal man, and the change in populations that occurred at the end of the ice age. The study of human genes shows that the end of the ice age was a time of major change, for example, although there are a number of skeletons of human 'hybrids' no one a live today has Neanderthal genes. We also have the Pleistocene extinctions, the sudden climate changes and the sudden disappearance of ice age societies, whole tribes of people or in one case a whole race, up and disappeared. That is why I feel a gradual change from hunting to farming, fails to account for the many profound changes that occurred at the end of the ice age.
4)We are not in a introductory physics class. This may come as a shock to you, but words are not always used as they were in your physics class. In general usage, words are used much more loosely and frequently with more than one meaning. So chill out, unless I start using the wrongs terms in equations then you can point it out to me. On reading up on hypervelocity impacts, The university sent a lot of recent journals out to for binding, so I was only able to read one. Feel free to e-mail me any articles you think I should read. Otherwise I will just have to wait until they come back from the bindery.

1)I didn`t claim that it was a "binary" situation I said that there wouldn`t be enough impact melted water around to surge off the ice sheets...
Think about it the range in which water is liquid is (by definition) 100 degrees C (or K) as the heat dissipates only the region that is heated to this temperature range will end up as liquid... In comparison to the size of the crater this region is vanishingly small...
And I think you are underestimating the ability of the atmosphere to accomodate the vaporized material...
Why don`t you do some maths and show me that it couldn`t?
Which journal article?
So lets see "Thus a Carolina bay type pattern of impacts, could have turned an ice sheet into a huge unstable pile of broken ice. Since a ice sheet grows as large as it can support itself, such a fracturing could result in a massive surging all by itself."
So many coulds so little evidence.....
2)Of course it also means that the shock wave gets more diffuse and thus causes LESS damage at the edges of the ice sheet or at those "ice dams" of yours...
3)Change in enviroment leads to change in species, survival of fittest etc.....
We adapted better than them....
Also I thought that Neanderthals went extinct 35,000 years ago not 10,000...
Also the statement "no one a live today has Neanderthal genes" may not be as true as you think it is:
http://www.pro-am.com/origins/research/neand2.htm
4)I`ll give you a hint when talking about the force experienced due to gravity by a mass of water distributed over a given area force and pressure are NOT semanticaly equal...
If we were talking about forcing someone to do something pressuring would be an equivalent term, however in the context of the weight of a body of water and the distribution of said weight over a given area your semantic wriggling is invalid....
The longer we discuss this the less scientificaly capable you show yourself to be, to whit your misrepresentation of mitochondrial Eve....
[This message has been edited by joz, 04-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by wmscott, posted 04-11-2002 6:43 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by wmscott, posted 04-18-2002 5:55 PM joz 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