Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


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 287 of 460 (9435)
05-09-2002 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by edge
05-04-2002 12:19 PM


edge
On the dropstones in the Driftless area, the reason I have been saying local flooding of the entire area is impossible, is the presence of the Mississippi river valley. Without a massive damming of the Mississippi, the water would just drain away into the Gulf of Mexico. As already posted, flooding due to isostatic depression below sealevel by the weight of glacial ice is also impossible, due to the fact that the Lake Wisconsin shows only a 40' rise due to rebound from the North to the South end of the lake, showing that this area was not depressed anywhere near enough to put it below sealevel. Explaining the dropstones as being from very small local lakes doesn't work ether, since the Driftless area was not glaciated, there were no local glacial boulders. Since the rocks had to come from the glaciers outside of the Driftless area, any 'local' lake would have had to reached from the source to where the rocks are found. As we have been discussing, such flooding would have drained down the Mississippi. Without the possibility of massive ice damming of the Mississippi river, the flooding that deposited the Driftless area dropstones would have had to have been caused by a rise in sealevel.
On the topic of isostatic adjustment and deeper flexing or ice age flexing, you stated. "Your statements are confused and illogical". I am talking about two different types of movement inside the earth with respectively different rates and effects. First is the shallow normal isostatic which is a slow progressive move occurring over long periods of time. The second is Ice Age Flexing which is a sudden deep flexing of the earth caused by the sudden movement of very large masses causing sudden and very large shifts in the distribution of pressures on the earth's crust. Since isostatic movement occurs in the upper mantel, which has a consistency like asphalt, the movement is very slow. While deeper inside the earth at the outer core/ lower mantel boundary, the earth is much more fluid and flexible. But only large shifts in pressure over large areas could cause shifts so deep inside the earth.
Now if such a deep shift had occurred inside the earth at the end of the flood, we would expect to see certain effects which have been found. It would be expected that the Pacific ocean floor would have been greatly depressed and the surrounding area up lifted. The question is deterring if plate tectonics alone caused this uplift or if part of if it is the result of Ice Age Flexing. Tectonic uplift would be slow and consistent over time. Sudden shifts at the time of the flood would be difficult to prove considering several thousands of years worth of erosion, but a number of authors cite evidence of sudden large scale faulting occurring at that time. There is also the effect to look for that the sudden deep shifting would be compensated for by a slow shallow shifting over time that would start with a rapid rate and slow down. We would expect to see a faster rate of isostatic uplift slowing to a more modest rate expected of tectonic pressures acting alone.
Now in the case of the west coast of South America, current rates of up lift are high, but are considered to be caused solely by the effects of plate tectonics. However historic evidence reports much faster rates of uplift having occurred in recent geologic history. Darwin described a series of raised beach terraces along the west coast of South American, some occurring at heights 60 to 80 feet, 85 feet and another at 1300 feet above sea level. He also described terraces of shingle and sand extending to heights of 7,000 to 9,000 feet. Darwin stated.
"I am convinced that the shingle terraces were accumulated, during the gradual elevation of the Cordillera, by the torrents delivering, at successive levels, their detritus on the beachheads of long narrow arms of the sea, first high up the valleys, then lower and lower down as the land slowly rose . . . in the same gradual manner as the coasts of the Atlantic and Pacific have risen within the recent period." (The Voyage of the Beagle by Charles Darwin, Harvard Classics Registered Edition, p.320)
Darwin also discovered ears of maize, plaited reeds and cotton thread mixed in with some of the beach material of stones and shells, showing that much of this up lifting of the coast of the Andes mountains has occurred very recently. (The Voyage of the Beagle by Charles Darwin, Harvard Classics Registered Edition p.374) Some modern geologists agree with Darwin's interpretation of the evidence. "The modern Andes were created by violent Pleistocene uparching. Accompanied by extensive block-faulting which is not in harmony with earlier structural axes, . . . Tectonic activity has, indeed, not ceased, and volcanic and seismic phenomena still find expression throughout the region.
The Quaternary tectonic forces seem to have operated vertically, with insufficient horizontal component to form nappes." (The Morphology Of The Earth: A Study and Synthesis of World Scenery by Lester C. King 1962, p.519)
Vertical movement is more easily attributable to vertical shifts in the earth's crust due to shallow isotatic or deeper Ice Age Flexing both of which act vertically rather then tectonic movement which is more horizontal with one plate sliding against or over another.
On evidence cited by the references for elevated glacial erratics, that is why I cited "Neglected Geological Anomalies" complied by: William R. Corliss, the references are in his book along with a brief description. Corliss's book is copywrited so I am not at liberty to post several pages of his book on this web site. If you are interested in running down each and everyone of these possible dropstones, I would suggest you get a hold of Corliss's book and consult the references he cites as his sources. That should provide you with the detailed background information you are looking for.
"By your reasoning, Antarctica would have to be considered flooded. . . . Why couldn't there be mountains (land) rising above the ice age sheets as there are in Antarctica?" Actually if you check, most of the land beneath the Antarctica ice sheets is below sea level, so most of Antarctica is flooded by anyone's definition. The Bible states all the land was covered by water, some of that covering could have been in the form of ice. Part of the problem with many flood theories is a tendency towards a very rigid interpretation regardless of conflicting physical evidence. Allowing for the possibility that some high elevations where covered by ice and possibly remained above the sealevel seems a reasonable deduction. Your point of mountains which project above the current ice sheets is one I have already considered. Some of these nunataks as they are called, may have been covered by the thicker ice sheets of the ice age, or they may have been covered by a temporary covering of ice and/or snow from the impact generated global rain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by edge, posted 05-04-2002 12:19 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by edge, posted 05-09-2002 7:25 PM wmscott has replied

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


Message 288 of 460 (9436)
05-09-2002 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Percy
05-04-2002 7:08 PM


Percipient
"ignore established dates for no apparent rhyme or reason" Incorrect, historic dates always takes precedent over all other dating methods and as I have stated I allow for the possibility that the other dates are correct. I have also stated a known effect which if things happened as I believe they did, would account for the difference in dating.
No I am not planning on using biblical dating in a scientific paper. The dating issue is a major topic all by itself and would best be addressed in a separate paper on that issue alone. You are free to submit any thing you want.
The technical reason for expecting future adjustments in genetic dating is that these dates have been changed a number of times already, so the expectation of more changes is to be expected. Also these dates are largely based on estimates and not on solid historical evidence.
"So you're claiming that though your theory conflicts with current theory, it is nonetheless "consistent with what is known about the earth". That you don't see the contradiction sounds like a delusion to me." I would suggest you read up on the history of science. Plate tectonics when first introduced was very much in conflict with the then current theories and yet as history has shown, it is in harmony with what we know about the earth. Each new major idea is always in conflict with current theories, that is what makes them important if they turn out to be correct. Keep an open mind, as you said "The foundation of science is tentativity, and change is one of its more dependable qualities."
"countervailing evidence is plentiful." Then why are you resorting to windy debates of words based on generalities? Why not just post some of your plentiful 'countervailing evidence'? If you have been accepting mainstream scientific theories without looking at the evidence, that would qualify as blind faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Percy, posted 05-04-2002 7:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Joe Meert, posted 05-09-2002 6:43 PM wmscott has replied
 Message 291 by Percy, posted 05-09-2002 8:48 PM wmscott has replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 289 of 460 (9438)
05-09-2002 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by wmscott
05-09-2002 5:24 PM


quote:
I would suggest you read up on the history of science. Plate tectonics when first introduced was very much in conflict with the then current theories and yet as history has shown, it is in harmony with what we know about the earth. Each new major idea is always in conflict with current theories, that is what makes them important if they turn out to be correct.
JM: This is a fallacious argument you are making here. It's common to many pseudosciences. The argument is that good ideas are persecuted and therefore since your idea is persecuted, it must be good. Wegener was criticized because he had no feasible mechanism to power the drift although his geologic evidence was very strong. He had some very strong scientific support from du Toit, Carey and Holmes. He took his case to the scientific community rather than to the general public. He amassed volumes of field observations to go along with his ideas. You'll need to do the same meticulous documentation and publish your results. You'll need to attend scientific meetings and argue your case before other scientists. In short, you are not going to convince anyone here with your mish-mash of ideas. The criticisms you are receiving here are mild compared to what you will get if you argue as poorly in writing as you do on here. Your arguments will be criticized unless you amass volumes of field observations that support your hypothesis. In short, you've got a lot to do and comparing yourself to Wegener is not one of them!
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by wmscott, posted 05-09-2002 5:24 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by wmscott, posted 05-16-2002 6:16 PM Joe Meert has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 290 of 460 (9439)
05-09-2002 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by wmscott
05-09-2002 5:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
On the dropstones in the Driftless area, the reason I have been saying local flooding of the entire area is impossible, is the presence of the Mississippi river valley. Without a massive damming of the Mississippi, the water would just drain away into the Gulf of Mexico.

You mean sort of like how the Great Lakes drain away into the Gulf of Mexico?
quote:
As already posted, flooding due to isostatic depression below sealevel by the weight of glacial ice is also impossible, due to the fact that the Lake Wisconsin shows only a 40' rise due to rebound from the North to the South end of the lake, showing that this area was not depressed anywhere near enough to put it below sealevel.
(Sigh) Wmscott, who said that the lake had to be at sea level? Besides you, that is.
quote:
Explaining the dropstones as being from very small local lakes doesn't work ether, since the Driftless area was not glaciated, there were no local glacial boulders. Since the rocks had to come from the glaciers outside of the Driftless area, any 'local' lake would have had to reached from the source to where the rocks are found.
No, they wouldn't, but what is the point? This is not even an important issue. Can you show evidence for a global flood?
quote:
As we have been discussing, such flooding would have drained down the Mississippi. Without the possibility of massive ice damming of the Mississippi river, the flooding that deposited the Driftless area dropstones would have had to have been caused by a rise in sealevel.
Please explain how this is evidence of a global flood.
quote:
On the topic of isostatic adjustment and deeper flexing or ice age flexing, you stated. "Your statements are confused and illogical". I am talking about two different types of movement inside the earth with respectively different rates and effects.
I understand that, but you have not shown that there ARE two types of movement. You may discuss them all you want, but you have no evidence for the existence of one of them.
quote:
First is the shallow normal isostatic which is a slow progressive move occurring over long periods of time. The second is Ice Age Flexing ...
Please document this phenomenon. Where is it referred to in the literature?
quote:
... which is a sudden deep flexing of the earth caused by the sudden movement of very large masses causing sudden and very large shifts in the distribution of pressures on the earth's crust. Since isostatic movement occurs in the upper mantel, which has a consistency like asphalt, the movement is very slow. While deeper inside the earth at the outer core/ lower mantel boundary, the earth is much more fluid and flexible. But only large shifts in pressure over large areas could cause shifts so deep inside the earth. Now if such a deep shift had occurred inside the earth at the end of the flood, we would expect to see certain effects which have been found. It would be expected that the Pacific ocean floor would have been greatly depressed and the surrounding area up lifted.
Actually, I would expect the Pacific Ocean crust to be depressed anyway. So how did it get up to the level of the continents so that there could be a global flood? You have never explained this.
quote:
The question is deterring if plate tectonics alone caused this uplift or if part of if it is the result of Ice Age Flexing. Tectonic uplift would be slow and consistent over time. Sudden shifts at the time of the flood would be difficult to prove considering several thousands of years worth of erosion, but a number of authors cite evidence of sudden large scale faulting occurring at that time.
We see sudden shifts all the time. So where is the flood? Do your sources give you an idea of strain rates? Or are you just overlooking that detail?
quote:
There is also the effect to look for that the sudden deep shifting would be compensated for by a slow shallow shifting over time that would start with a rapid rate and slow down. We would expect to see a faster rate of isostatic uplift slowing to a more modest rate expected of tectonic pressures acting alone.
So far, all you have shown is that this happend because you need it for you model. Please give us independent evidence that this has happened.
quote:
Now in the case of the west coast of South America, current rates of up lift are high, but are considered to be caused solely by the effects of plate tectonics. However historic evidence reports much faster rates of uplift having occurred in recent geologic history.
Ah, the old creationist ploy. All rates have been constant through geological history except for radiometric decay and the speed of light. How do you know that rates were faster in the past? And how does this prove that it all happened at one time?
quote:
Darwin described a series of raised beach terraces along the west coast of South American, some occurring at heights 60 to 80 feet, 85 feet and another at 1300 feet above sea level. He also described terraces of shingle and sand extending to heights of 7,000 to 9,000 feet. Darwin stated.
"I am convinced that the shingle terraces were accumulated, during the gradual elevation of the Cordillera, by the torrents delivering, at successive levels, their detritus on the beachheads of long narrow arms of the sea, first high up the valleys, then lower and lower down as the land slowly rose . . . in the same gradual manner as the coasts of the Atlantic and Pacific have risen within the recent period." (The Voyage of the Beagle by Charles Darwin, Harvard Classics Registered Edition, p.320)

(emphasis added).
There is no argument that the Andean Arc has not been uplifted. However, there is no evidence either that it was not done by normal plate tectonics.
quote:
Darwin also discovered ears of maize, plaited reeds and cotton thread mixed in with some of the beach material of stones and shells, showing that much of this up lifting of the coast of the Andes mountains has occurred very recently. (The Voyage of the Beagle by Charles Darwin, Harvard Classics Registered Edition p.374)
And some areas have subsided. How do you account for that?
quote:
Some modern geologists agree with Darwin's interpretation of the evidence.
That a global flood caused these terraces? LOL! There is nothing in Darwin's statement but a description of the features and a suggestion that the land has been uplifted. By the way you will notice that Darwin says the movements have been gradual. Was he wrong about that?
quote:
"The modern Andes were created by violent Pleistocene uparching. Accompanied by extensive block-faulting which is not in harmony with earlier structural axes, . . . Tectonic activity has, indeed, not ceased, and volcanic and seismic phenomena still find expression throughout the region.
The Quaternary tectonic forces seem to have operated vertically, with insufficient horizontal component to form nappes." (The Morphology Of The Earth: A Study and Synthesis of World Scenery by Lester C. King 1962, p.519)

But, wmscott, there were no continetal ice sheets in the central Andean arc. Why would all of this uplift occur there? The same thing has happened in the Pleistocene of Colorado. Where is the flood evidence? Where is the ocean basin?
quote:
Vertical movement is more easily attributable to vertical shifts in the earth's crust due to shallow isotatic or deeper Ice Age Flexing both of which act vertically rather then tectonic movement which is more horizontal with one plate sliding against or over another.
Then why do we see so much evidence for convergent boundaries in exactly the same places you are talking about but not in others?
quote:
"By your reasoning, Antarctica would have to be considered flooded. . . . Why couldn't there be mountains (land) rising above the ice age sheets as there are in Antarctica?" Actually if you check, most of the land beneath the Antarctica ice sheets is below sea level, so most of Antarctica is flooded by anyone's definition. The Bible states all the land was covered by water, some of that covering could have been in the form of ice.
Ah, I see. Defining away part of the problem.
quote:
Part of the problem with many flood theories is a tendency towards a very rigid interpretation regardless of conflicting physical evidence. Allowing for the possibility that some high elevations where covered by ice and possibly remained above the sealevel seems a reasonable deduction.
So, maybe there wasn't a global flood. I don't suppose you would consider that a viable conclusion, eh?
[This message has been edited by edge, 05-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by wmscott, posted 05-09-2002 5:17 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by wmscott, posted 05-16-2002 6:18 PM edge has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 291 of 460 (9440)
05-09-2002 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by wmscott
05-09-2002 5:24 PM


Since you didn't answer the question about whether your book is self-published, I looked into it myself. Your book was published by Xlibris, a firm which provides services for people to publish their own books. This is from their website:
At Xlibris, we give you everything you need to become your own publisher. We work with you to create your book, then print copies on-demand for your readers. You keep all rights to your work. We also offer services that give you all the control you need over your book. So head on over to the Publishing Services area and get published now.
I could never understand how you found a publisher for your book, and now we know you never did. So, did you use the Basic Service ($500), the Professional Service ($900), or the the Custom Service ($1600)?
wmscott writes:

Incorrect, historic dates always takes precedent over all other dating methods...
Your preferred date is about 10,000 years ago, which is pre-historic. You don't have any historic dates.

...and as I have stated I allow for the possibility that the other dates are correct.
No, you don't. Weak as your ideas are, they make even less sense if you accept established dates.

I have also stated a known effect which if things happened as I believe they did, would account for the difference in dating.
There's no evidence for releases of large amounts of old carbon in your timeframe, no evidence that old carbon is replaced with young carbon when ground water passes over buried whalebones, and no evidence that the genetic clock evidence used to estimate dates for Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam are off by 1000%.

No I am not planning on using biblical dating in a scientific paper. The dating issue is a major topic all by itself and would best be addressed in a separate paper on that issue alone. You are free to submit any thing you want.
I'm not the one naive enough to believe I have anything original to contribute in fields outside my specialty. But, anyway, can you makes drafts available so I can post them on the website? We'd all love to follow your progress and provide you feedback.

The technical reason for expecting future adjustments in genetic dating is that these dates have been changed a number of times already, so the expectation of more changes is to be expected.
That's not a technical reason, plus the revisions you require are in the neighborhood of 1000% in magnitude, not the 5% and 10% revisions to which you may be referring.

I would suggest you read up on the history of science. Plate tectonics when first introduced was very much in conflict with the then current theories and yet as history has shown,...
As Joe has already pointed out, it seems it's you who needs to do some reading. Wegener's ideas were not accepted because he could identify no mechanism capable of moving continents, not because of lack of evidence that they had moved. Geologists of the period believed the continental and oceanic crusts to be fixed, and it was unimaginable that a continent could somehow be pushed through a "sea" of oceanic crust. Where would the sea floor in front of the continent go? How would sea floor fill in behind the moving continent?
Thinking changed dramatically once we had evidence of sea-floor formation and subduction, and that combined with a better understanding of convective forces within the earth provided all the support necessary for Wegener's ideas.
In contrast to Wegener, you have no evidence.

...it is in harmony with what we know about the earth.
Repetition won't make this true. Your ideas aren't at all in harmony with current understanding. There is no evidence of a world-wide flood, and much evidence that there wasn't.

Keep an open mind, as you said "The foundation of science is tentativity, and change is one of its more dependable qualities."
My mind is open to evidence, not story-telling. Evidence is the bricks and mortar of science, and you have none.

Then why are you resorting to windy debates of words based on generalities?
Trying to introduce the delusional to rationality is like pushing on a string. I tried evidence-based discussion with you for a while, but you shed rational arguments like rain off a slicker. You also ignore some arguments, like why your "mountains were lower then" argument is wrong, and why your "the world-wide flood would have left no evidence" argument is wrong, and why your "there would have been no genetic-eye of the needle" argument is wrong.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by wmscott, posted 05-09-2002 5:24 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by wmscott, posted 05-16-2002 6:21 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 292 of 460 (9799)
05-16-2002 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Joe Meert
05-09-2002 6:43 PM


Joe Meert
Joe, I don't claim to be persecuted nor do I believe that 'persecution' is an identifying trait of brilliant theories. I was just pointing out that new ideas are new and frequently different, so it is misguided to condemn a theory just because it is new and different. Each new idea needs to be evaluated and looked at in detail to see if it has any merit. I was arguing against blanket rejections of all things different. Disagreeing with my theory on some technical points is one thing, but rejecting it without even looking into it, because it conflicts with prevailing theories is closed minded. Percipient has failed to go into details and condemns my ideas simply because they conflict with the current scientific orthodoxy. If he wishes to disprove anything, he needs to refer to specific evidence, referring to current scientific opinions as the final word, is inadequate since new ideas can and do change the prospective of the scientific outlook from time to time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Joe Meert, posted 05-09-2002 6:43 PM Joe Meert has not replied

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


Message 293 of 460 (9800)
05-16-2002 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by edge
05-09-2002 7:25 PM


edge
"You mean sort of like how the Great Lakes drain away into the Gulf of Mexico?" The Great Lakes are east of the sub continental divide and drain into the Atlantic Ocean, not the Gulf of Mexico. A number of the Great Lakes owe their existence in part to the gravel dams created by the glaciers when they plowed out the depressions they sit in. This excavation and damming effect on the south side of the lakes combined with the greater post ice age rebound to the north which elevated their outlets, created a number of the Great Lakes. Then of course there are the movements in the crust which also contributed to the lakes formation such as in the creation of lake Superior. Do you wish to apply any of these effects to flooding the Driftless Area?
"Can you show evidence for a global flood?" "Please explain how this is evidence of a global flood." As we have been discussing, the dropstones found in the Driftless Area are not from a 'local' flood, only a rise in sealevel could have deposited them, since any local flooding would have drained away due to the area's well developed river valleys.
"the Pacific Ocean . . . So how did it get up to the level of the continents so that there could be a global flood?" Through Hydrostatic rebound due to the removal of water during the ice age, the ocean floors were at a higher level, but I doubt they ever 'level' with the continents.
"Do your sources give you an idea of strain rates?" A number of them speak of late ice age deposits being faulted by sudden offsets of sometimes hundreds of feet, in events that apparently occurred violently in a very short period of time.
"some areas have subsided. How do you account for that?" Uneven uplift.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by edge, posted 05-09-2002 7:25 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by edge, posted 05-17-2002 2:47 PM wmscott has replied

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


Message 294 of 460 (9801)
05-16-2002 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Percy
05-09-2002 8:48 PM


Percipient
I used the Professional Service. What took you so long to figure out that I self published my book? A few simple clicks would have told you that.
"Your preferred date is about 10,000 years ago, which is pre-historic. You don't have any historic dates." The biblical date for the flood is about 2370 BC not 8000 BC, but I am open to the possibility that it happen earlier. Historic means "well-known or important in history." The flood is a very historic event found in flood tales from all around the world. The flood is also extensively described in the Bible, a very historic book. For an event to be prehistoric would mean that we would have no verbal or written account of it at all. Since we have a large number of accounts which all refer to the flood, it is by definition a historic event.
"There's no evidence for releases of large amounts of old carbon in your timeframe, no evidence that old carbon is replaced with young carbon when ground water passes over buried whalebones, and no evidence that the genetic clock evidence used to estimate dates for Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam are off by 1000%." The science of genetic anthropology is in its infancy, and is in conflict with the historical information found in the Bible. To provide a more authoritative date for the origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens the Geneticists will have to really improve their procedures beyond using estimated rates of mutations, estimates which are possibly based on wrong expectations.
The time shifts found in some ocean floor cores is evidence of a large sudden release of old carbon, and there is evidence of the rain water effect flushing out old carbon. The flushing effect is fairly well known, a carbon dated sample has to be isolated from the environment to be dateable.
"my specialty" Well don't leave me hanging, what is it?
Considering the fact that Wagner's theories were accepted for years in Europe before they were in America, this still seems to be a sore spot with American scientists. As for having no evidence, then what have we been arguing about all this time? You may not accept the evidence that I have presented, but it is untruthful to say I don't have any.
"You also ignore some arguments, like why your "mountains were lower then" argument is wrong, and why your "the worldwide flood would have left no evidence" argument is wrong, and why your "there would have been no genetic-eye of the needle" argument is wrong." To the contrary you have failed to supply convincing evidence to support your argument, repeated references to the scientific orthodoxy is meaningless when the whole point of what I am doing is to challenge that orthodoxy. You need to support your argument on solid evidence, not vague references to main stream scientific thinking. You have been debating without making specific points, a debate is like a sword fight, without any points you are unarmed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Percy, posted 05-09-2002 8:48 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 8:37 PM wmscott has replied
 Message 296 by Percy, posted 05-17-2002 1:14 PM wmscott has replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 295 of 460 (9810)
05-16-2002 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by wmscott
05-16-2002 6:21 PM


quote:

"Considering the fact that Wagner's theories were accepted for years in Europe before they were in America, this still seems to be a sore spot with American scientists.

JM: I thought Wagner was a musician favored by Hitler! I think you are rewriting history here if you are speaking of Wegener. Wegener's ideas were not particularly well received in Europe. Sir Harold Jeffrey's was a powerful and outspoken critic of continental drift. Wegener had sympathetic followers of Alex du Toit (S. Africa) and Sam Carey (Australia) because his evidence was most obvious to Gondwana geologists. Of the Europeans, it was Holmes who was most intrigued by it and proposed that mantle convection could drive the motion. If you are talking about plate tectonics, then it was the Europeans who led the way, but there were also plenty of US scientists on the bandwagon (including the guy in the office next to me!). I don't know of any American's who think of this as a 'sore spot', but maybe you can name them?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by wmscott, posted 05-16-2002 6:21 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by wmscott, posted 05-22-2002 5:21 PM Joe Meert has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 296 of 460 (9886)
05-17-2002 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by wmscott
05-16-2002 6:21 PM


wmscott writes:

I used the Professional Service. What took you so long to figure out that I self published my book?
Because I believed no self-respecting person would fail to make that clear at the outset. But at least you're consistent. In your first post where you promoted your book you didn't even reveal you were the author.
I concede I possess a fair degree of naivet, for I am always surprised when I encounter people for whom embarrassment and shame are foreign emotions.

The biblical date for the flood is about 2370 BC not 8000 BC, but I am open to the possibility that it happen earlier.
But you've been arguing all along that it happened earlier. Your claim is that the Biblical flood was due to the sudden and rapid release of water at the end of the last ice age, which occurred about 10,000 years ago. There is no evidence for a world-wide flood ever, let alone 10,000 years ago, and if you shift your date to 2370 BC then you no longer have melting glaciers as a source of water. No matter which date you pick, your ideas don't hold up.

The flood is a very historic event found in flood tales from all around the world. The flood is also extensively described in the Bible, a very historic book. For an event to be prehistoric would mean that we would have no verbal or written account of it at all. Since we have a large number of accounts which all refer to the flood, it is by definition a historic event.
Historic periods are those from which we have a contemporaneous recording of events. There are no contemporaneous accounts from the flood period, hence it is prehistoric. Plus the flood is mythical anyway, since there is no objective evidence supporting such an event.

The science of genetic anthropology is in its infancy, and is in conflict with the historical information found in the Bible. To provide a more authoritative date for the origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens the Geneticists will have to really improve their procedures beyond using estimated rates of mutations, estimates which are possibly based on wrong expectations.
In other words, you have no factual basis for rejecting the genetically established dates.

The time shifts found in some ocean floor cores is evidence of a large sudden release of old carbon,...
"Some" ocean floor cores? You mean like here and there, as might be expected for sea floor near glacial runoff outlets to the sea, but that would instead be global had the runoff been so huge as to flood the world?
Anyway, you've never presented this evidence, so could you present your evidence for "time shifts found in some ocean floor cores". I couldn't find any at the Marine Reservoir Correction Database, so maybe you could go find it there and point me to it, or to wherever your evidence comes from.

...and there is evidence of the rain water effect flushing out old carbon.
You've never presented any evidence for this, either. It seems to me that carbon would be locked up in the bone matrix, and that carbon in groundwater would be locked up in CO2, so you'd need a chemical reaction for an exchange or carbon. Plus the amount of carbon in water is tiny compared to that in bone. While I'm sure the effect is greater than 0, I doubt very much if it is the 1000% error that you require in order for your Michigan whalebones to be 10,000 years old.

The flushing effect is fairly well known, a carbon dated sample has to be isolated from the environment to be dateable.
Flushing effect? On soil, sure. On bone, though? Can you point me at the evidence for this?

"my specialty" Well don't leave me hanging, what is it?
I think the point was that most people know better than to believe they can make original contributions in areas outside their specialty.

Considering the fact that Wagner's theories were accepted for years in Europe before they were in America, this still seems to be a sore spot with American scientists.
Even if this silly statement were true, what on earth has it got to do with the inappropriateness (not to mention sheer chutzpa) of you comparing yourself to Wegener. He had evidence, energy, and a gift for theorizing, you do not.

As for having no evidence, then what have we been arguing about all this time? You may not accept the evidence that I have presented, but it is untruthful to say I don't have any.
Your "evidence" isn't evidence. Just to make clear why, let's just explore your "dating evidence" a little.
You cited whalebones in Michigan that are dated to around 900 years ago, then claimed they supported your view of post-glacial inundation 10,000 years ago because the date is wrong. But you submitted no evidence for a 10,000 year old date (other than saying "the date could be wrong"), so this isn't evidence for you.
You cited a fake genealogy site that nonetheless got the date of 140,000 years ago right. You submitted no evidence for a 10,000 year old date, (other than saying "the date could be wrong"), so it's not evidence for you.
This is just a couple items from your dating evidence, and all your "evidence" has similar significant and serious problems that aren't deep or controversial but are obvious on their face. At the end of the day, you have no evidence.
The best example of your lack of evidence is the global flood. You yourself even say there is no evidence, because it was so short-lived.

To the contrary you have failed to supply convincing evidence to support your argument, repeated references to the scientific orthodoxy is meaningless when the whole point of what I am doing is to challenge that orthodoxy.
Science arrived at the current view through the gathering of evidence. To challenge that view you must have countervailing evidence. Since you have no countervailing evidence, you cannot legitimately challenge what you call scientific orthodoxy. That's why it's so silly for you to try to submit a paper to a mainstream journal, which endeavor I notice you didn't mention this time. Have you come to your senses and realized that someone who has to self-publish his own ideas hasn't got a prayer of getting those same ideas published in a journal of science?

You need to support your argument on solid evidence,...
I can't believe you, of all people, are saying this. Yes, absolutely, you need to support your argument with solid evidence. You can't support your argument with evidence where the dates are off by 10X. I don't need to come up with counter evidence for such silly "evidence" - your "evidence" is already self-evidently wrong.

...not vague references to main stream scientific thinking. You have been debating without making specific points, a debate is like a sword fight, without any points you are unarmed.
You're just making this up as you go along. I *have* made specific points, you just chose not to respond to them. For example, I mentioned three of my points where you dropped you ball in my previous message, and you can find my last post on each of these topics in messages 11 (mountain ranges) and 230 (lack of flood evidence, genetic eye-of-the-needle).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by wmscott, posted 05-16-2002 6:21 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by wmscott, posted 05-22-2002 5:25 PM Percy has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 297 of 460 (9888)
05-17-2002 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by wmscott
05-16-2002 6:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
e:"You mean sort of like how the Great Lakes drain away into the Gulf of Mexico?"
wmscott: The Great Lakes are east of the sub continental divide and drain into the Atlantic Ocean, not the Gulf of Mexico. A number of the Great Lakes owe their existence in part to the gravel dams created by the glaciers when they plowed out the depressions they sit in. This excavation and damming effect on the south side of the lakes combined with the greater post ice age rebound to the north which elevated their outlets, created a number of the Great Lakes. Then of course there are the movements in the crust which also contributed to the lakes formation such as in the creation of lake Superior. Do you wish to apply any of these effects to flooding the Driftless Area?

My only point is that there are lakes that do not drain to the south. You had said that if there could not be any glacial lakes in the area because they would drain to the south. I am simply saying that we have them now, why not in the past?
quote:
"Can you show evidence for a global flood?" "Please explain how this is evidence of a global flood."
As we have been discussing, the dropstones found in the Driftless Area are not from a 'local' flood, only a rise in sealevel could have deposited them, since any local flooding would have drained away due to the area's well developed river valleys.

This is not evidence. This is a story. And it isn't even true. There are lots of periglacial lakes well above sea level in the world. All one needs is a relatively low area. As you point out below, some areas will be relatively subsided during glacial rebound. I reiterate my request: give us evidence for a global flood.
quote:
"the Pacific Ocean . . . So how did it get up to the level of the continents so that there could be a global flood?" Through Hydrostatic rebound due to the removal of water during the ice age, the ocean floors were at a higher level, but I doubt they ever 'level' with the continents.
Correct. The amount of depression due to the weight of water is actually negligible compared to the relative density and thickness of the oceanic crust. So, how does the water completely cover the land masses up to elevations of even 3000 feet? Where is the independent evidence to support your conclusion?
quote:
"Do your sources give you an idea of strain rates?" A number of them speak of late ice age deposits being faulted by sudden offsets of sometimes hundreds of feet, in events that apparently occurred violently in a very short period of time.
Apparently? What exactly is a very short period of time? If you have sources, lets see them.
quote:
"some areas have subsided. How do you account for that?" Uneven uplift.
But if this were a broad, regional uplift as you assert, then why are those areas now below sea level?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by wmscott, posted 05-16-2002 6:18 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by wmscott, posted 05-22-2002 5:28 PM edge has replied

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


Message 298 of 460 (10213)
05-22-2002 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Joe Meert
05-16-2002 8:37 PM


Joe Meert
Hi Joe, pardon my bad spelling on referring to the wrong Wegener (my spell checker only knows the other one). My knowledge of the history of the acceptance of the continental Drift theory is based on reading the following book which may paint a different picture than what the guy in the next office has been telling you.
"The Rejection of Continental Drift : Theory and Method in American Earth Science" by Naomi Oreskes
Book description- In the early 20th century, American earth scientists vociferously opposed the new--and highly radical--notion of continental drift. Yet 50 years later the same idea was heralded as a major scientific breakthrough, and today continental drift is accepted as a scientific fact. This insightful book, based on archival sources, looks at why American geologists initially rejected the idea so adamantly while their counterparts in Europe were relatively receptive.
While there were individuals who accepted the new theory, American geologists in general rejected it long after it had gained wide acceptance in other parts of the world. As for sore American scientists, I was making a little joke about perhaps that was why you seemed a little put out, in your last post. (LOL)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 8:37 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Joe Meert, posted 05-22-2002 6:20 PM wmscott has replied

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


Message 299 of 460 (10214)
05-22-2002 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Percy
05-17-2002 1:14 PM


Percipient
Quite a number of books are self published. The simple key to identifying such is by noting the publisher. If one is unfamiliar with the book self publishers, such books are still easily spotted by the subject matter and sometimes by the manner in which the book description is written, 'Greatest book ever", etc. If you have a large library at home, you probably already have at least one self published book. These books are sold in on line bookstores without special warnings like "Caution- Self Published Book!", for it doesn't matter who published it, in the end what matters is the book and that is what is being sold. This is very common knowledge to those of us who are readers. I would suggest you get yourself a subscription to Consumer's Digest since basic marketing seems like a major deception to you. Hope you never have to buy a car. (LOL)
On the date for the flood. As I have stated so many times, I prefer the biblical date, but allow for the possibility that it occurred earlier. Since my flood theory is that it was a sudden release of glacial ice and water that caused the flood, that release had to occur at the time of the flood, when ever that was. Your statement that there is no evidence for the flood is untruthful since we have been discussing some of the evidence for some time on this board.
"Historic periods are those from which we have a contemporaneous recording of events. There are no contemporaneous accounts from the flood period, hence it is prehistoric. Plus the flood is mythical anyway, since there is no objective evidence supporting such an event."
The record of the deluge recorded in the Bible is a contemporaneous record of the event. Do you know how many accounts it takes for an event to be historical? One, is all it takes. The biblical account all by itself makes the deluge a historical event. To be historical the biblical account doesn't even need the many other historical accounts of this event found in verbal and written records all over the world. The word 'prehistoric' means "of or pertaining to the time or a period prior to recorded history." I would suggest that in the future you refer to a dictionary on basic questions of this nature.
"could you present your evidence for "time shifts found in some ocean floor cores"."
Certainly, see post 182 for information on this and check the following articles cited. The web site you provided the link to was not detailed enough to show the offset in that they seemed to only provide the surface date and not a layer by layer date for each core. As I stated earlier this offset may not occur in all ocean cores due to the nature of ocean currents and the location of the water releases from old glacial ice.
[REF E] Variations of Younger Dryas atmospheric radiocarbon explicable without ocean circulation changes, Goslar, Arnold, Tsnerat-Laborde, Czernik, Wieckowski, Nature, Vol 403, 877-880, 24 February 2000.
[REF I] Deglacial changes in ocean circulation from an extended radiocarbon calibration, Hughen, Overpeck, Lehman, Kashgarian, Southon, Peterson, Alley, Siman, Nature, Vol 391, 65-68, 1 January 1998.
On the flushing effect of rain water. Have you ever been in a cave? Have you ever wondered how they were formed? The way caves are formed is rain water falling on forested areas where the falling leaves have caused the soil to have high levels of tannic acid, carries this acid down into the lime stone. The tannic acid along with carbonic acid dissolves the lime stone. As the acidic rain water drips into the cave, the acid dissolves some of the lime stone which is carried with the water and is redeposited on the cave floor in the form of a stalagmite or is carried out of the cave with the water.
Now if water can move through solid lime stone and the acids carried by rainwater can dissolve vast caverns, movement of dissolved CO2 should come as no surprise. Bones are not too dissimilar from lime stone. Bones also have many microscopic passageways where the blood vessels once where that ran to and from the marrow and for the continual process of rebuilding and replacing bone. Bones are quite susceptible to water filtration, in fact the process of fossilization depends on it, for water has to carry the minerals in that gradually replace the bone. You can verify the water penetrability of bones for yourself by conducting a little experiment. Take some chicken bones and boil them in soapy water to remove the fat and oil to simulate the loss of these through decay. Next place the cleaned bones in a container with a water dye mixture in it. Let the bones sit for several days or weeks. Remove the bones and let them air dry. Now break or saw the bones and look at the cross-section. Depending on the length of immersion, you will see that the dye has entered the bone, possible all the way through.
The bones themselves will not stop infiltration of water containing new carbon in the form of dissolved CO2 from contaminating the old carbon contained in the bone. But fortunately many fossils are buried in clay such as marine clay which is a much better barrier to the passage of water. The Michigan whale bones were found near the surface in sand and gravel which would have presented little resistance to the passage of rain water, which has resulted in these fossils having an apparent carbon date that is too recent. The Champaign fossils to the east show this affect also. The fossils found near the surface in sand or gravel have overly young dates, while the same types of fossils from the same time, found in marine clay give more appropriate dates when carbon dated.
"most people know better than to believe they can make original contributions in areas outside their specialty."
Tell that to Fred Hoyl and many others. One of the biggest problems with science to today is over specialization. Why be so limited in your thinking and outlook? It is a big world out there, have some vision, think outside your pigeon hole. Why are you so shy about your specialty? You are beginning to make me wonder what it is that you are so embarrassed about it.
"Have you come to your senses and realized that someone who has to self-publish his own ideas hasn't got a prayer of getting those same ideas published in a journal of science?"
Presently I am finishing up on some other projects so I can make time for researching and writing a scientific paper. If things go well, I hope to have my paper ready for submission before the end of the year. The person who never tries is the one who fails at everything.
"I don't need to come up with counter evidence" And that is why you are losing this debate.
"I *have* made specific points, you just chose not to respond to them. For example, I mentioned three of my points where you dropped you ball in my previous message, and you can find my last post on each of these topics in messages 11 (mountain ranges) and 230 (lack of flood evidence, genetic eye-of-the-needle)."
OK, let's review your earlier points.
Post 11 "About the sinking of the ocean basins and rise of mountains, is there any corroborating evidence? I can think of a few non-confirming points. First, rapid deformation generates heat, and in the case of the world-wide deformations you propose it seems likely the heat would have been pretty devastating."
This has already been dealt with in earlier posts as the rests of this has been. In this case I believe I pointed out that the shifting originated deep inside the earth and little heat would be expressed at the surface. For an example think of an earthquake, does the ground get hot? No it doesn't. Even quakes which result in huge offsets or elevation changes do not result in a general heating of the ground surface. Movement doesn't cause heat, but friction and bending do. The heating is concentrated in the fault and in the materials that have been deformed. Under my theory it was a deep flexing not a shallow flexing, with the result that most of the heat energy would occur below the earth's surface. For the most part, areas of the earth's surface where merely lifted or lowered, which would not result in surface heating.
"Second, geological studies indicate that mountain ranges are underlain by a much thicker mantle. The tectonic movements which push up mountain ranges evidently push down, too. This thicker mantle underlying mountain ranges is inconsistent with your view that the land in general, particular that most covered by glaciers, was pushed up by pressure generated from a sinking sea floor."
This basic factor was taken into consideration and is a key part of the theory. I have no problem with plate tectonic mechanisms. If you check the subject of 'glacial rebound' you will find that today's mountains are still rising from the removal of the weight of glaciers at the end of the ice age. My only possible point of difference with this is I consistor the possibility that the mountain glaciers may have been larger and the resulting depression was greater than currently believed.
"Third, shouldn't continental shelf areas around the world show signs of the repeated deformation of stretching and compression as various ice ages came and went?"
Not in the manner that you think, the shift with each ice age was more in the form of a tipping was the relative positions of ocean floor and land changed in respect to each other. This pattern of shifting shows up in the ice age/non-ice age sediment cores. This shifting is basic geology and is found in a number of geology books. Try looking up 'ice age sediments'. Once again my only possible difference is to argue in favor of a possibly larger amount of shifting and that it was very sudden at the end of the last ice age rather than occurring over a long period of time.
"And don't you have the same problem with the lack of evidence for extensive flooding that YECs have? For instance, shouldn't there be global signs of flood retreat?"
Yes and No, I don't have the same problems as the YECs since my theory is nothing like theirs and there are signs of 'global flood retreat' if you know what to look for. This evidence shows up as signs of ice age super floods and in landscapes that have been streamlined by the movement of water. I have already posted extensively on this subject. We find evidence of super flooding occurring on the Mississippi and many other rivers around the river. We also have giant ripple marks at various 'pinch points' where the terrain funneled and focused the draining flood waters. We also have evidence of streamlining in the formation of many moraines. You will find a number of links on this in earlier posts.
Post 230 "And regardless, you would still have a genetic "eye of the needle" event for which there is no evidence, unless you're advocating that entire herds of animals were rafted."When an unusual high tide brings water onto land the result is sediment everywhere. People are shoveling sand out of their houses for a week. In your scenario a comet has just struck the world with such force as to collapse glacial margins world-wide and release huge, mammoth amounts of water raising sea levels dramatically everywhere. Because of the recent cataclysms wave action would be at a maximum, and all expanding ocean margins would kick up huge amounts of sediment, especially given the huge availability of such material on land not recently submerged."
I am advocating the large scale survival of many animals outside the ark, which if enough survived here and there, the total could be equal to entire herd surviving. And there have been a number of genetic bottle necks found at this time and no doubt more will be found as more studies are done.
The sediment in your example is from wave action and river sediments flowing into a backed up sea. Nearly all ocean sediment comes from the land, which is why sedimentation rates on the ocean floor decrease with greater distance from land. A global ocean would have a sediment rate of near zero, since there would be nowhere for the sediment to come from. In my theory I theorize on the possibility of ocean comet impacts creating tsunami and we do have evidence of a number of large tsunami occurring at about the right time that this may have happened. But aside from that, massive glacial surging would not cause giant waves since the influx is progressive and spread over large areas around the globe. The resulting global rise in sea level would not be associated with any massive wave action, no more than turning on the hose to fill the pool creates huge waves sloshing back and forth in your swimming pool. The oceans are far too large for surging events to cause more than local wave action. The flood was a gentle rise in sea level followed by a progressive lowering. As I have pointed out many times before, a global flood does not require massive sedimentation as the YECs would like to believe. Expect sedimentation from such a flood to be in the form of a thin coating of sedimentation from marine life forms, which we do have as I have been pointing out.
As I stated you have only made broad general assertions like the above which have already been dealt with repeatedly in earlier posts. If you have a specific objection, you need to post it in detail. Cite specific evidence, locations, elevations, reasons why and such. Your general rejections merely show a stubborn refusal to accept something new because it is different. You are free to disagree, but without any evidence to back up your position, it becomes merely your personal opinion. Unless you can come up with some solid evidence, I will consider your position overturned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Percy, posted 05-17-2002 1:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Percy, posted 05-23-2002 12:03 AM wmscott has replied

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


Message 300 of 460 (10215)
05-22-2002 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by edge
05-17-2002 2:47 PM


edge
On dropstones in the Driftless Area you stated.
"My only point is that there are lakes that do not drain to the south. You had said that if there could not be any glacial lakes in the area because they would drain to the south. I am simply saying that we have them now, why not in the past?"
Could you at least look at a map of SW Wisconsin? If you would bother, you may notice that compared to the rest of the state there are fewer lakes, and many of the ones that are in that area are man made. The terrain has well developed drainage systems and is not conducive to the formation of large lakes, now or in the recent past. The first rule a plumber learns is that water flows down hill. This isn't that complicated, if you wish to propose a recent local flooding of the Driftless area, you will have to come up with a way of keeping the water in place to make your lake. Also if a lake once existed in the area as you propose, we should find evidence of its former shoreline as we do with Glacial lake Wisconsin.
"how does the water completely cover the land masses up to elevations of even 3000 feet? Where is the independent evidence to support your conclusion?"
As I have been stating, a sudden large scale release of glacial ice and melt water would have raised global sealevel faster than isostatic adjustment could occur. Simple basic geology, a sudden surging event at the end of the last ice age caused a brief rise in sea level that flooded all the land areas not already covered by ice. We have independent evidence of this occurring in the Driftless area dropstones along with the other dropstones around the world found in places only a global flood could put them. We also have marine traces left by this event in the form of a microscopic dusting of marine diatoms and other marine animals, plus we have larger traces such as the Michigan whale bones. Then there is the evidence of the sudden movements of very large amounts water on the earth's surface in the form of sheet floods and super floods. Then of course we have the greatly elevated shorelines.
On late ice age deposits being faulted by sudden offsets in a very short period of time. You asked,
"What exactly is a very short period of time? If you have sources, lets see them."
The 'short time' is in the geological sense, in that these deposits are faulted without any signs of the shift taking place progressively. Here is a reference on ice age faulting."The Pleistocene indeed witnesses earth-movements on a considerable, even catastrophic scale. There is evidence that it created mountains and ocean deeps of a size previously unequaled . . . The Pleistocene indeed represents one of the crescendi in the earth's tectonic history: . . . Faulting, uplift and crustal warping have been proved for almost all quarters of the globe. Faults, with throws of up to 100 m or more, have been observed in many countries traversing glaciated rock-surfaces, drifts, till, moraines, outwash fans, loess, varve clays, strandlines and lake-terraces," (The Quaternary Era: With Special Reference to its Glaciation by J.K. Charlesworth 1957, volume two, page 603)
In reading the geological literature late ice age deposits in mountainous areas are frequently faulted, though seldom as much as 300m which is an extreme example. A few meters seems be the more common example seen in these deposits.
"But if this were a broad, regional uplift as you assert, then why are those areas now below sea level?"
Because in the ice age the sealevel was lower, the area was not uplifted enough to raise it above the higher post ice age sealevel. Since sea floors were pushed down by the weight of the returning glacial water, the edges of adjoining land areas were held back or even pulled down while areas farther inland were free to rise. If you want more specific answers we will need to discuss specific land or sea areas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by edge, posted 05-17-2002 2:47 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by edge, posted 05-22-2002 11:03 PM wmscott has replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 301 of 460 (10217)
05-22-2002 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by wmscott
05-22-2002 5:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
Joe Meert
Hi Joe, pardon my bad spelling on referring to the wrong Wegener (my spell checker only knows the other one). My knowledge of the history of the acceptance of the continental Drift theory is based on reading the following book which may paint a different picture than what the guy in the next office has been telling you.
"The Rejection of Continental Drift : Theory and Method in American Earth Science" by Naomi Oreskes
Book description- In the early 20th century, American earth scientists vociferously opposed the new--and highly radical--notion of continental drift. Yet 50 years later the same idea was heralded as a major scientific breakthrough, and today continental drift is accepted as a scientific fact. This insightful book, based on archival sources, looks at why American geologists initially rejected the idea so adamantly while their counterparts in Europe were relatively receptive.
While there were individuals who accepted the new theory, American geologists in general rejected it long after it had gained wide acceptance in other parts of the world. As for sore American scientists, I was making a little joke about perhaps that was why you seemed a little put out, in your last post. (LOL)

JM: Well, considering that the guy in the office next to me lived through the plate tectonic revolution and was instrumental (from the American side) for providing data to support it, I'll trust a compendium of history in place of your single source. Please read my original post where I stated that Europe led the way in acceptance of plate tectonics which is different than continental drift. I will also note that my colleague had the benefit of being trained in the British system by Keith Runcorn. If you are speaking solely of continental drift as envisioned by Wegener, it was rejected on both sides of the ocean (with some notable exceptions that I mentioned above). In fact, it was rejected most vociferously by a Brit named Jeffrey's.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by wmscott, posted 05-22-2002 5:21 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by wmscott, posted 05-29-2002 5:16 PM Joe Meert 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