Summations Only

There you go again. This is, by your own admission, your subjective impression. It isn't an argument for anything.If you want to attempt a real argument then define wreckage including specific criteria so that we can assess the accuracy of your claim against real world evidence. If you can do this whereby we can objectively determine that the world is indeed in a wrecked state then that would be evidence supporting your view that this is a result of a calamitous global flood and intense tectonism of short duration.But short of that all you have is subjective impressions that don't belong in a science thread.--Percy

Until you're able to offer evidence that the world is in a wrecked state rather than just being the result of natural forces and processes, you should drop this argument, because it's nothing more than you making stuff up again. There are many, many points that you have failed to address, and I've enumerated the ones that I've made. You should be addressing everyone's points that you've ignored.--Percy

well but the water was a few miles above sea level at the height of the Flood, meaning at the point I'm guessing it started to recede, triggered by or accompanied by the tectonic movement and volcanism. Much volcanism even today is underwater though it may also surface onto the land. So SOME was no doubt under water then too. We didn't stop having volcanoes of course and after the Flood they went on erupting on land and spread the ash you are talking about. Hawaii. That's why I postulated that much of it could have been under water at the beginning. Well, but wouldn't the very first movement of subduction apply pressure that would affect everything beneath it -- amd besides the subduction is caused by the movement of this enormous continent which in itself would affect the deep crust, wouldn't it? -- and wouldn't that be enough to trigger a volcano deep underground? I don't get what you mean though about having to "melt" anything: isn't magma just there beneath the crust ready to be released if something disturbs the crust above it? And of course I don't know how long it would take to work its way up but the stuff is hot and melts rock and also pushes up mountains so why would it take some enormous length of time? Well, please forgive me but time according to standard geological thinking is just way too long for most processes. The first volcanoes between Europe and the Americas would have occurred in the Atlantic, Right/ And would have occurred deep under the Atlantic, first in the rift between those continents. There are a lot of dead volcanoes along the rim of the Atlantic. But around the Pacific they are very active where the plates are subducting. The first ones would have been under water. Well, you could be right, but it does seem to me there are other ways of explaining it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There are many aspects of volcanism that refute YEC and the ridiculous idea of catastrophic plate tectonics. (CPT)
Lithospheric plates are mostly formed at mid-ocean ridges. They are composed of oceanic crust and outer mantle, are typically about 100km thick, and move at about 10cm per year. Where the plate reaches a continent such as the west coast of America it subducts at an angle around 45 deg. Seismic studies can track the plate as it descends till it disappears around 700 km deep. In the time it has spent in contact with the ocean water some of the minerals have undergone change to ones with more water in them. Also as it subducts it takes down water.As you go deeper it gets hotter. The water in the plate lowers its melting point, so at 700km it starts to melt though the surrounding mantle has not. This generates the magma which works its way
up. When it gets near the surface it is under less pressure so the contained water and other gases are able to form bubbles, like taking the top off a shaken bottle of Coke.The magma is viscous because of its composition so the result is it gets blown apart to produce lots of ash as well as thick lava. Layers of ash and lava from successive eruptions builds up a composite volcano, the classic cone shape.The thickness of the descending plate means it takes a long time for heat to penetrate it to melt it. Physics would need to change to accelerate it. Then it takes time for the magma to work its way up 700km.This is the case with the ring of fire around the Pacific. Hawaii is a hot spot volcano with lots of free flowing lava and little ash. So planes are flying in and out of Hawaii with no trouble from its eruption, while one in Indonesia can ground flights. Hawaii's volcanoes have their own problems for YEC and CPT.The eruption of one volcano -Tambora in 1816 - had effects on the atmosphere and weather for a couple of years across the Northern Hemisphere with probably millions of deaths from famine. Cramming the development of most of the world's volcanoes into a short time at the end of the flood would affect the atmosphere so much it would require Noah to build a big shed with its own filtered air supply and heating to protect the animals for years before it was safe to let them out to repopulate the Earth. This is why I say "It ain't gonna work"

I appreciate your information, thank you, and obviously you know what you are talking about, and I'll give it more thought, but..... I always have a problem with the uniformitarian assumption, that what is happening today is what always happened -- and in this case the speed of the movement you describe. I know it is assumed that the speed required by YEC timing is physically impossible, but someone who believes in YEC timing because it comes from God isn't going to be able to accept that and will look for alternatives that make it possible. So the speed we see now has to be the end speed of a movement that started out much faster and has slowed to its present rate. And there have to be unknown mitigating factors involved to explain why it didn't burn up the planet as it is claimed that it would. Ice age being one perhaps. I'm sure you want to throttle me now. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is the first time I've ever heard of the subducting plate having to melt and being the source of the magma. I've always understood that the magma is always present beneath the crust and that a volcano is the releasing of that magma to rise through the rock to the surface.

On checking I see there is a detail correction to be made to my description of the subducting slab. The ocean crust portion of it, 6-11 km of basalt, melts and the water in the slab is released as super hot fluids which lower the melting point of the surrounding mantle to produce the magma. The rest of the slab becomes indistinguishable from the surrounding mantle. Wiki has a good description under Subduction.The picture you have in your mind of lava production is what you have in intra-plate volcanism such as at Hawaii which is over a hot spot from a plume of hot mantle - runny lava with not much ash.I have a textbook on igneous rocks from 1960, and it is interesting to read their puzzlement over why different volcanoes produce different lavas. The answer came a few years later when plate tectonics was worked out.

Hi FaithYou maybe do not understand the scale of what is required to speed up geologic processes to fit in the Flood year. The deduced movements of the tectonic plates forming and reforming supercontinents are known in good detail back 600,000,000 years and to a lesser degree much earlier. So an acceleration factor of many hundreds of million is required.You cannot stretch tectonic movement out into recorded history because people would have noticed the earthquakes and volcanic effects.It is not just the movements that have to be fitted in. There is the associated volcanism, and the laying down of sedimentary rocks formed from the products of now-eroded-away volcanoes.Add in the fossils which have to be formed from animals and plants which show that continents now separated were once joined.Don't forget the rapidly changing RA decay needed without cooking everything to produce the consistent RM dates; and madly oscillating magnetic pole reversals.Would you like to know about the problems from large igneous provinces for YEC?You really wish to cling to YEC but defending it is analogous to stopping a waterfall with a rake.

Discussion has ceased in this thread because Faith is not replying to anyone. She stops discussing with each participant who eventually boxes her into a corner, and at this point that seems to include everyone. Specifically, she has failed to reply to the last post from all these participants:

• Pollux (Message 803)
• Percy (Message 797)
• PaulK (Message 792)
• jar (Message 748)
• edge (Message 744)
• foreveryoung (Message 737)
• ringo (Message 725)
• Tangle (Message 720)
• Capt Stormfield (Message 430)
• Modulous (Message 355)

If Faith still hasn't replied to anyone after a couple more days then Summary Mode might be appropriate.--Percy

You go on to talk about tectonic movement but I don't fit that into the Flood year, it starts at the end of it. I'm aware of the whole idea of forming and reforming of continents, but on the Flood model there is only room for one, and the accepted timing of the breakup of Pangaea I've shown to be wrong because there should be tectonic disturbance in the Jurassic if it were true and the UK cross section shows no such disturbance, the strata continue through the Tertiary on the same pattern as all the rest.. But we do notice them. The Flood model merely suggests that most of them occurred before the population had grown enough after the ark for it to be a major problem. And I'd argue that there must have been many mitigating factors anyway at the very beginning such as the fact that it started out under water, and then the ice age would have been another factor suppressing the worst effects. I've acknowledged the volcanism every time I describe the Flood scenario. Not sure what the sedimentary rocks imply in your framework. I'm well aware of that and don't see a problem. Yes and I don't try to deal with these things, but I assume they need rethinking outside the uniformitarian frame of reference and that will eventually be done. I've encountered that before; it's not as big a problem as you think it is. The problem with all this is your basic paradigm. Since you have all the usual assumptions and have no interest in reassessing them you are just going to continue with the usual ideas about the Flood and leave it to the YECs to try to deal with it. That's understandable but you are throwing the products of many different disciplines, understood within the prevailing paradigm of course, throwing them at a few YECs, and while some are no doubt fairly well quipped for that task,, I'm certainly not in any position to try to answer it all, and I don't try.That's why I limit my argument to a few things I think show the Flood and don't try to deal with the multiplicitous stuff you all throw at us, such as you are doing in this post. I've proved to my own satisfaction that there is enough evidence for the Flood events and their timing to expect that all the rest of the problems invented by the Old Earthists will fall into place eventually. See above.

There is no point in continuing to bring up the order of the fossils. I've said all I have to say on it. There is an order that is consistent but what that order is interpreted to mean is imaginary. And since I believe I've proved the Flood timing and events well enough I don't feel any need to try to answer anything else.

Always keep the cartoon in mind---it summarizes the origin of her view: To her credit, she is quite good at attempting to provide facts to support her conclusion and belief. Rather than her admitting to ever being boxd in a corner, she likely would argue that her opponents refuse to seriously entertain her view and that she feels unfairly forced to consider theirs. She does not accept that the established premises within the scientific method should be the only ones allowed in such a discussion. Perhaps she can address this post in particular and ask us to respect her belief as an alternate view on par with scientific evidence.

Some of those you list I've already answered, and some, like Tangle's, don't deserve to be acknowledged let alone answered.But I'm ready for Summation Mode. This thread became too unwieldy for me to deal with long ago.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Suppose you believed that airplanes fly because of fairies holding up the wings - but every pilot and aeronautical engineer in the world refused to accept your "explanation". Is it really unreasonable for you to be "forced" to consider the opinion of everybody who knows anything about it?

So, you admit to ignoring data.Dress it up any way you want, that's still just denial. I suggest that we all help out and find more data for you to ignore.That should nail things down completely.ABE: I just noticed this statement in your post: First of all, you once again commit the error of extending the geology of Great Britain to the rest of the world.Beyond that, you make a superfluous point since there are no Jurassic rocks in the parts of GB that are close to the Paleozoic or Mesozoic plate boundaries. I would expect little disturbance.In fact, we do see that the lower Cretaceous sediments in southern GB overlie a nonconformity in the Jurassic in southern GB. In fact, the Lower Greensand (depicted by the small circles symbol) fills valleys in the Jurassic sediments. The point is that there was little deformation of the Jurassic sedimentary rocks of Great Britain for a reason. They were deposited after the earlier Caledonian Orogeny and still remained far from the continental rifting that formed the Atlantic Ocean. These Jurassic sedimentary rocks are just as I would expect them.Edited by edge, : No reason given.