Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Old Earth Flood Geology
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 1 of 78 (377787)
01-18-2007 11:23 AM


I heard an interesting new approach to flood geology. In discussing Creationism with a friend (who is an OEC), he stated that he thinks that most (nearly all) geologic features were caused by the deep time, scientific explanations - but that * then* there was a global flood as described in Genesis. This happened sometime after there were humans, but thousands of years before the traditional date of around 2,500 BCE. (Yes, I know this violates the literal reading of the ages and lineages which establish dates, but oh well - I haven’t gotten a clear answer for that yet). Thus, all the questions of “how could a flood have made angular unconformities, or crosscut ripple marks, or fossil sorting (etc.)?” don’t apply, since those all formed by regular geologic means. The only question remaining is what evidence of a worldwide, mountaintopping flood should there be? Of course, something as massive as that would leave a huge amount of evidence, so just of the top of my head, these came up:
*Lack of flood deposition layer. Just like varves, a massive layer with larger rocks below finer silt should cover the world - no such layer exists (in addition, it would have to be uniform in age).
*Uniform layer globally - uniform composition, uniform fossils, etc. K-T boundary is analagous
*Pollen records showing massive plant extinctions of most land plants (not salt tolerant)
*Massive extinction of either saltwater or freshwater fish (pick one), and echinoderms - starfish, etc. List of creatures that wouldn’t be on ark and would be extinct:
Ice worms
* where did all the water come from, and where did it go? (what evidence shows mountains are old?)
*Massive extinction of insects (yes I’ve heard of the vegetation mats)
*Massive bottleneck in all species, including humans (visible to geneticists)
*Very idea that there are “flood stories in all cultures” doesn’t quite fit - since everyone was supposed to drown.
Plus, it was useful & fun to page though this thread: http://EvC Forum: REAL Flood Geology -->EvC Forum: REAL Flood Geology
So, what do you think? Sure the idea that there was a global, recent flood over an old earth doesn’t fit the real world, but it at least ignores *less* evidence than the YEC flood geology position ignores. I guess that’s like being a little taller than Danny DeVito - it doesn’t make you tall. Are there other really obvious missing evidences that I don’t have on the list above?
So in summary, two questions come up:
1. What other evidences are there that a recent, global flood would have left?
2. What data points to or refutes possible oldest and youngest dates for this event? (yes, they do seem to quickly overlap, but let’s try anyway).
Perhaps it’s useful to specify which (#1 or #2) each post is about?
P.S. Please do not give examples against the YEC flood geology - we already have a thread on that. Also, though my friend asserts that the Noah story happened, please don’t point out problems just with the Noah story - there are too many to count, and other lists already do that (like this site - Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition). Lastly, have fun. I’ve already got a good start on the evidence list, and am starting this thread mainly for our enjoyment.
Seems like it’s a no-brainer that this goes into the Flood forum.

-Equinox
_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Equinox, posted 01-18-2007 12:10 PM Equinox has not replied
 Message 4 by iceage, posted 01-18-2007 8:24 PM Equinox has replied
 Message 7 by johnfolton, posted 01-18-2007 9:31 PM Equinox has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 78 (377790)
01-18-2007 11:40 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 3 of 78 (377795)
01-18-2007 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Equinox
01-18-2007 11:23 AM


First stab at latest and earliest dates
I’ll start us off with a time frame post.
The earliest date must be before 10,000 years ago, since we have tree ring and varve data going back that far, which would otherwise have shown the flood. The latest date must be later than 6,000 (?) years ago, since the story mentions Noah getting drunk on wine from his vineyard, and our oldest evidence of wine is 6,000 years old. Dates for agriculture (vinyard) or speech capability may also help, since the flood must have happened after people could talk, otherwise the flood story could not be preserved as an oral tradition.
Tentative working time frame as a result:
Latest date: flood had to be before 8,000 BCE (Dendro & Varve)
Earliest date: flood had to be after 4,000 BCE (oldest evidence of wine)
OK, so as of now we have a problem, where our earliest possible date is later than our latest possible date. Solutions or other date setting facts?

-Equinox
_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Equinox, posted 01-18-2007 11:23 AM Equinox has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by kuresu, posted 01-18-2007 8:51 PM Equinox has not replied
 Message 6 by Omnivorous, posted 01-18-2007 8:59 PM Equinox has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 4 of 78 (377885)
01-18-2007 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Equinox
01-18-2007 11:23 AM


Your friend is sly. I think your friend also leading the way to the literalist position of the future.
The simple and observable evidences of a very old earth are going to be harder and harder to overcome such as angular nonconformities, complex geology, layered basalt flows, massive nano-fossil deposits, river potholes. These are things that anybody who gets out much will encounter if sensitive enough to be looking.
One note:
Equinox writes:
*Very idea that there are “flood stories in all cultures” doesn’t quite fit - since everyone was supposed to drown.
Be careful, as the come back is that these stories are carried down after the tower of Babel, which explains the differences. You didn't say if your friend believes in Babel or not. As the fundamentalist say, once you start rejecting some things from the bible, now just where do you stop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Equinox, posted 01-18-2007 11:23 AM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Equinox, posted 01-23-2007 3:28 PM iceage has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 5 of 78 (377896)
01-18-2007 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Equinox
01-18-2007 12:10 PM


Re: First stab at latest and earliest dates
problem, where our earliest possible date is later than our latest possible date
not a problem. draw a line graph, might help you.
your problem is that by the conditions you gave, the flood could not occur between 8,000 BCE and 4,000 BCE.
conditions:
flood is before 8,000 BCE
flood is after 4,000 BCE
<========|---------------------------------------------------|=======>
......8,000 BCE..........................................4,000 BCE....
the = sign is the line drawn in the directions specified. Before 8,000 BCE is 9,000 BCE, 10,000 BCE, you get the picture. After 4,000 BCE is 3,000 BCE, 2000 BCE, again, you get the picture.
we have a suspicion that Neanderthals were capable of speech, but this is still a hypothesis. I'd say its safe to assume that Cro-magnon's were capable of speech--they are us, except for living during the ice age and maybe a few minor differences.
ABE: quick question--how are you using "latest" and "earliest"? I was reading it as "latest" being last, not most recent. if the other way around, then looks exactly the same, and its still not a problem, in the way you think. The earlist possible (the youngest possible, in relation to age of earth) is by nature going to be earlier than the oldest (agian, same relation) date.
okay, so maybe rephrase what you're after. I think I've confused myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Equinox, posted 01-18-2007 12:10 PM Equinox has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 6 of 78 (377900)
01-18-2007 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Equinox
01-18-2007 12:10 PM


Re: First stab at latest and earliest dates
The latest date must be later than 6,000 (?) years ago, since the story mentions Noah getting drunk on wine from his vineyard, and our oldest evidence of wine is 6,000 years old.
But the advent of wine must almost certainly predate our oldest evidence, unless--by some remarkable coincidence--we found the very first vintner, and Noah was Bacchus.

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.
-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799)
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Equinox, posted 01-18-2007 12:10 PM Equinox has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 7 of 78 (377908)
01-18-2007 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Equinox
01-18-2007 11:23 AM


Very idea that there are “flood stories in all cultures” doesn’t quite fit - since everyone was supposed to drown.
Everyone did drown that was not on the ark, all the cattle perished except on the ark. All the creatures on the surface of the earth perished (fossil record) the ones that didn't perish were above the surface of the earth not within the surface of the earth. (platapus, kangaroo, snakes, insects, trees floated, fish, whales, earthworms, etc...). Some insects survived by freezing in the glaciers believed to of resulted from the fountains of the deep erupting upwards with the creationists water canopy too coming down in the form of ice, snow, in the northern hemisphere.
The bible is quite clear that not all creatures perished some survived above the surface of the earth, the cattle being hoofed creatures all drowned except those on the ark.
Is not this why no hoofed creatures are native to australia, its quite obvious they all perished in the biblical flood. The floating mats floated upward kangaroo, snakes, birds, platapus in the southern hemisphere survived. Why is there not glaciers in Australia, only in the northern hemisphere, surely it was not global cooling if the earth was going thru a massive global cooling phase then why is there not evidence of massive glaciation in Australia too. This is only evidence supporting the glaciers happened suddenly unless you have evidence of massive glaciation in australia?
where did all the water come from, and where did it go? (what evidence shows mountains are old?)
You have to go to the word to understand where the water was and where it went. To clarify the creationists talk of the water canopy welling up above the atmosphere and massive water in the fountains of the deep being broken up. When drilling deep within the earth all they find is broken up rock filled with water in agreement with the bible. all the fountains of the deep have been broken up. After the flood this massive amounts of water being released pressed down increasing the depth of the oceans. Evidence for this is the seamounts in the pacific ocean 1/2 mile under the wave base. Either the oceans floor sunk or the water rose or both.
What data points to or refutes possible oldest and youngest dates for this event? (yes, they do seem to quickly overlap, but let’s try anyway).
The evidence clearly shows that elements only decay, thus the bigger issue is when did these elements that are decaying form. It should be obvious that the sediments themselves prevent neutrons from fusion into more complex elements thus the elements that are decaying were formed before the earth itself was formed. This means the earth could quite well be a young earth, and the elements themselves much older. All you have is the fossil evidences that infer the earth since creation is no older than 12,000 years old. If one day is as a thousand years. kjv 2 peter 3:8
You know, it's probably already answered at TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
Talkorigins is only smoke and mirrors in respect to the sciences. They should know that the elements they say infer an old earth could only of been formed pre-earth. If the elements they are dating were formed pre-earth then it has no bearing to the age of the earth but the age the elements were fused pre-earth.
In space how does one even know how fast neutrons can morph into more complex elements in respect to time and space. Yet the evolutionists say this is proof the earth is an old earth is only but a word salad they feed the world as proof that evolution had millions of years when the evidence (the sediment particle prevents neutron fusion), alpha decay is not evidence of an old earth, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Equinox, posted 01-18-2007 11:23 AM Equinox has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by kuresu, posted 01-19-2007 12:29 AM johnfolton has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 8 of 78 (377929)
01-19-2007 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by johnfolton
01-18-2007 9:31 PM


where to begin, where to begin.
first off--we're all living on the surface of the earth. Nothing lives within the surface with few exceptions.. The tectonic plates are anywhere from a few kilometers to 150 or more thick. That is your surface. The only thing above the surface of the earth is air.
Next, there are hooved animals in Australia. Only, we brought them there.
Third, South America and Australia both show signs of glaciation. Granted, you have to either except the earth is quite old and/or that Australia, South America, and Antartica were once one continent. check user the heading "Permo-Carboniferous" in Continental drift - Wikipedia. Sadly, no picture.
Oh, and we've gone through several times of extreme glaciation, aka ice ages. The earliest, and by far most extreme I've heard of occurred 600 million years ago.
Sea mounts are not created by a sinking ocean floor or a rising sea level. they are volcanoes underwater. The reason the sea floor is much lower than the continents is due to density. The continental crust is less dense than the upper mantle material. Ocean floor, however, is more dense than the mantle, thus it sinks.
As to the water canopy, unless I'm mistaken, that's a bogus argument. why? the heat alone from an atmosphere with that much water would have killed Noah, nevermind most of multicellular life. H2O is, afterall, one of the most effective greenhouse gasses--it can store a lot of heat. There is no geological evidence that I'm aware of that even supports a fountain of the deep. Do you know what's under the crust? superheated rock--magma. Any water that's down there is steam, incredibly hot steam.
the elements that are decaying were formed before the earth itself was formed
correct. the formation of the solar system created the heavy elements.
This means the earth could quite well be a young earth, and the elements themselves much older
incorrect. superheating these elements resets the radioactive clock. A lot of the radioactive testing is done on elements that have had their clocks reset since the formation of the earth. One that isn't, is C14 dating. The oldest dates we have obtained by these methods (not by C14, which can only measure organic materials), is a little under 4 billion years. We have even more rocks dated in the 2-3 billion year old range.
For further info on the age of the earth, look here. http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
As to the final section, an argument from incredulity (but how can you tell? i don't know, so it ain't true!) is not a valid argument. I don't know how calculus works. If I walk into a room full of calc students and tell them that calculus is wrong because its unbelievable, or becuase I don't understand it, they will laugh me out of the room, and rightfully so. You are about to be laughed out of the message board.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by johnfolton, posted 01-18-2007 9:31 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 1:20 AM kuresu has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 9 of 78 (377937)
01-19-2007 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by kuresu
01-19-2007 12:29 AM


Next, there are hooved animals in Australia. Only, we brought them there.
No native creatures only support the biblical flood was a world flood.
Third, South America and Australia both show signs of glaciation.
Oh, and we've gone through several times of extreme glaciation, aka ice ages. The earliest, and by far most extreme I've heard of occurred 600 million years ago.
I've heard 600 million years ago is not proof, I agree glacier exists in antartica, in the mountains of south america but requesting evidence of glacial movements like seen in North America, Europe, etc... in the southern hemisphere. We have glaciers in the himalayans too, but were looking for glacial fronts pressing across Australia like you see pressed out lakes as expressed in Canada, the United States, Europe, and Asia that should be expressed in Australia if the earth was experiencing global cooling.
Sea mounts are not created by a sinking ocean floor or a rising sea level. they are volcanoes underwater. The reason the sea floor is much lower than the continents is due to density. The continental crust is less dense than the upper mantle material. Ocean floor, however, is more dense than the mantle, thus it sinks.
Can't you see the dicotomy with the flood waters this weight pressing down is in part how the mantle pressed down. If you take all the water that was removed this too from the creationists perspective contributed to the pressing downward of the seamounts.
the elements that are decaying were formed before the earth itself was formed
correct. the formation of the solar system created the heavy elements.
So were in agreement all the radioactive elements decaying were created pre-earth.
As to the water canopy, unless I'm mistaken, that's a bogus argument. why? the heat alone from an atmosphere with that much water would have killed Noah, nevermind most of multicellular life. H2O is, afterall, one of the most effective greenhouse gasses--it can store a lot of heat. There is no geological evidence that I'm aware of that even supports a fountain of the deep. Do you know what's under the crust? superheated rock--magma. Any water that's down there is steam, incredibly hot steam.
Your not factoring in that super heated waters would be welling up above the atmosphere as a vapor. Water vapor in space has no pressure so it would not be a problem heat wise because as the earth rotates this super heated vapor cools. This super cooled vapor its still a vapor waiting to return to the earth. When this super cooled vapor return to the atmosphere pressure it only return as ice rain, snow, etc... If the earth didn't rotate perhaps we would have a problem with overheating the earth. As is its only supportive evidence supporting the biblical flood senerio.
incorrect. superheating these elements resets the radioactive clock. A lot of the radioactive testing is done on elements that have had their clocks reset since the formation of the earth. One that isn't, is C14 dating. The oldest dates we have obtained by these methods (not by C14, which can only measure organic materials), is a little under 4 billion years. We have even more rocks dated in the 2-3 billion year old range.
I agree sometimes your able to date accurately volcanic rock as long as you tell the testing site how old you believe the rock to be. The problem in part is that the scale paleontologists is so great and so many assumptions that its not believable. Like perhaps why is the zircon in granites not totally destroyed by alpha decay if they are billions of years old. These zircons based off humphreys helium diffusion makes them only 6,000 years old.
It does sort of support the earth is only 6,000 years old though I believe the fossils suggests the earth being 12,000 years is in agreement with kjv 2 peter 3:8.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by kuresu, posted 01-19-2007 12:29 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Vacate, posted 01-19-2007 2:15 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 11 by kuresu, posted 01-19-2007 2:24 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 67 by Equinox, posted 01-22-2007 10:58 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 10 of 78 (377952)
01-19-2007 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by johnfolton
01-19-2007 1:20 AM


Charley writes:
Why is there not glaciers in Australia, only in the northern hemisphere
Regardless of whether you accept Kuresu's date of 600 myo glaciation of Australia - you have not addressed the fact that there are glaciers in the southern hemisphere. You used this as some sort of support for your Floating Mats Theory - please explain how this works to support your theory when there is obvious evidence of glaciation in the southern hemisphere.
The floating mats floated upward kangaroo, snakes, birds, platapus in the southern hemisphere survived.
So you would rather contradict the bible and suppose that animals from the southern hemisphere floated on mats while the northern animals rode the ark?
I believe the fossils suggests the earth being 12,000 years is in agreement with kjv 2 peter 3:8
How did you come about this conclusion? The presence of fossils does not imply a date. The massive numbers of fossils does however suggest a population problem if you are to propose they all died in just one year.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 1:20 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by kuresu, posted 01-19-2007 2:28 AM Vacate has not replied
 Message 13 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 9:27 AM Vacate has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 11 of 78 (377954)
01-19-2007 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by johnfolton
01-19-2007 1:20 AM


Australia has native animals--the marsupials being the most famous. I was just making a fun objection to your "no hooved animals in Australia" comment.
As to glaciation, as I said, I wish I had a picture. I've managed to find one, but the one in my geo book is much better
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com:8100/.../le05_25.jpg
you'll also note that these glaciers were on India and Africa, places that are quite warm today in the regions with glacial evidence.
The flood waters pressing down the crust? No. parts of yellowstone park are rising due to a magma chamber. There is no water pushing the crust down, or the removal of water letting it go up. Furthermore, you still don't understand the sea mounts. They are volcanoes, and the only difference is they are underwater. The amount of water present has no bearing on their height--they grow by the same mechanisms that volcanoes on land do--some enough so that they become islands like Hawaii or Krakatoa (which blew itself apart).
The reason you have an ocean floor several miles lower in elevation than continental floor is that oceanic crust is denser than continental crust, so it sinks in more. If you put a marble on a piece of plastic floating in water, what happens to the area you put the marble on? It sinks in relation to the rest of the plastic. The oceans, if they have an effect, are negligible--water is less dense than either mantle or crust. Do you see oil pushing water down into soil? No. same basic concept applies.
As to your additions on the water vapor. It won't work. why? Space is a near vaccuum. You put water into space, it will not come back into the earth unless you act on it--such as pushing it in that direction? gravity, at that point, is too weak to pull it in. This is why the majority of gasses in our atmoshpere are found within the first five miles. Also, pressure is not responsible for heat transfer. Heat follows the rules of diffusion--where there is none, it goes until both are equal. The reason ice is cold is because it draws heat away from you, until you and the ice have the same temp. the result? water and a colder you. The earth's rotation is not responsible for heating or cooling. I'll let someone with a firmer grasp on thermodynamics and weather explain why you're wrong.
And again, you've used on argument of incredulity: "The problem in part is that the scale paleontologists is so great and so many assumptions that its not believable."
also, paleontologists would be the wrong people to ask about your zircon problem--they dig up fossils, and study fossils, not radioactive decay. That is the domain of a branch of physcists and chemists. Those two areas are also outside my grasp of science. I again refer you to people more knowledgeable in that area.
My suggestion for now, is to go read up on real science. get an introductory textbook in geology, since age and floods seem to be an area of interest to you (I don't know you're age, but you seem kind of young--like a highschooler). read up on this stuff. Find out how science works (which is not, briefly, finding evidence in agreement with specific passages from the bible, but rather, drawing conclusions from data gathered, as in, we have x and y, now what do they mean?)
Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 1:20 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 9:52 AM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 12 of 78 (377955)
01-19-2007 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Vacate
01-19-2007 2:15 AM


quick comment--if I implied Australia experience glaciation 600mya (approx), that's not what I meant. I was referring to the global ice age, with hypothetically covered the entire world in a layer of ice. Australia has experienced glaciation much more recently than that date. In the picture I gave a link to, the date is the permian--250 mya.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Vacate, posted 01-19-2007 2:15 AM Vacate has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 13 of 78 (378000)
01-19-2007 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Vacate
01-19-2007 2:15 AM


Regardless of whether you accept Kuresu's date of 600 myo glaciation of Australia - you have not addressed the fact that there are glaciers in the southern hemisphere. You used this as some sort of support for your Floating Mats Theory - please explain how this works to support your theory when there is obvious evidence of glaciation in the southern hemisphere.
Compelling evidence for the Younger Dryas has subsequently been documented from sites throughout the Northern Hemisphere, from regions as diverse as the Arabian Sea and Greenland, but is still lacking from the Southern Hemisphere where the existence of a Younger Dryas stade is strongly disputed.
------------------------------------
The nature of the last glacial termination in the Northern Hemisphere has been well constrained through a wide variety of proxy. Warming following the LGM was not unbroken but was punctuated by a climatic reversal at ~14.7 ka BP and by the Younger Dryas Stade at ~11 ka BP. The Younger Dryas in particular has received much attention because of the extremely rapid climate changes involved and because of its apparent severity in the North Atlantic region, where temperatures may have returned briefly to full glacial values. Compelling evidence for the Younger Dryas has subsequently been documented from sites throughout the Northern Hemisphere, from regions as diverse as the Arabian Sea and Greenland, but is still lacking from the Southern Hemisphere where the existence of a Younger Dryas stade is strongly disputed.
Page not found - Climate Change Institute

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Vacate, posted 01-19-2007 2:15 AM Vacate has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 14 of 78 (378004)
01-19-2007 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by kuresu
01-19-2007 2:24 AM


As to your additions on the water vapor. It won't work. why? Space is a near vaccuum. You put water into space, it will not come back into the earth unless you act on it--such as pushing it in that direction? gravity, at that point, is too weak to pull it in. This is why the majority of gasses in our atmoshpere are found within the first five miles. Also, pressure is not responsible for heat transfer. Heat follows the rules of diffusion--where there is none, it goes until both are equal. The reason ice is cold is because it draws heat away from you, until you and the ice have the same temp. the result? water and a colder you. The earth's rotation is not responsible for heating or cooling. I'll let someone with a firmer grasp on thermodynamics and weather explain why you're wrong.
In space things cool much slower due to the nothingness of space however space stations cooling heat exchangers radiate heat to space on the darkside of the earth. In fact the water in the heatexchangers get so cold on the darkside of the earth they need to have anti-freeze. Meaning in space above the atmosphere heat doesn't follow the normal rules of diffusion in respect to weather thermodynamics, etc...
You put water into space, it will not come back into the earth unless you act on it--such as pushing it in that direction? gravity, at that point, is too weak to pull it in.
Its documented in the bible that people lived longer before the flood and for near a thousand years after the flood. Its believed its due to the water canopy above the atmosphere, that it didn't all just fall back to the earth. I guess I'm in agreement with you that gravity being weaker it took near a thousand years for the water vapor to mitigate back to the earth. Perhaps it too explains in part how the asteroid fields formed beyond Mars that not all the water vapor was able to return to the earth.
The reason you have an ocean floor several miles lower in elevation than continental floor is that oceanic crust is denser than continental crust, so it sinks in more. If you put a marble on a piece of plastic floating in water, what happens to the area you put the marble on? It sinks in relation to the rest of the plastic. The oceans, if they have an effect, are negligible--water is less dense than either mantle or crust. Do you see oil pushing water down into soil? No. same basic concept applies.
In part your correct which is why the basalt mid-ocean ridges rose up after the water cavitating out of the earth eroded the more dense oceanic crust it rose in respect to the more plastic lighter basalt rock that makes up the 45,000 miles of the mid-ocean ridges.
Your premise of density is in part how the creationists explain how the oceans sank after the flood water also perhaps explain how the trenches were sucked down because of the plastisity of the basalt mid-ocean ridges rising up as the oceans floor sunk in respect to gravity and the need to displace the water space that had displaced water upwards into the upper atmosphere.
Australia has native animals--the marsupials being the most famous. I was just making a fun objection to your "no hooved animals in Australia" comment.
Yes those native animals so famous in Australia actually support the biblical flood. The floating mats of vegetation and these creatures ability to cling, swim gave them an ability to survive in the southern hemisphere. The bible does not say all life perished not on the ark, only that all life perished on the surface of the earth. It then gives an example of the olive branch surviving in agreement with the Platapus, Kangaroo, and a whole host of creatures only native to Australia.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by kuresu, posted 01-19-2007 2:24 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by kuresu, posted 01-19-2007 2:11 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 16 by iceage, posted 01-19-2007 2:34 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 01-19-2007 8:00 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 15 of 78 (378082)
01-19-2007 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by johnfolton
01-19-2007 9:52 AM


well, it seems you know some basic science--such as why things cool slowly in space--because its incredibly difficult for conduction to work. space, however, is not a total vaccuum.
Meaning in space above the atmosphere heat doesn't follow the normal rules of diffusion in respect to weather thermodynamics
this works against your water canopy. It won't cool effectively until you get to the darkside if the whole canopy is above the atmoshpere (which is space). THe part facing the sun will reach temps over 200 degrees F, and almost the same but negative on the dark side. Plus, it will still act as a greenhouse gas, effectively increasing the temp of the earth to unbearable (for human life) levels.
Your second paragraph is pure babbling, incomprehensible babbling. water does not increase the longevity of life. there is no evidence of a water canopy, for that matter. finally, the earth's gravitational strength had no bearing on the the creation of the asteroid belt. it is a failed planet--it either failed to coalesce into one massive body, or if it did, it met a very unsavory end from an asteroid collision.
As to the mid-oceanic ridges and trenches:
trenches are not sucked down so that water has more room. Rather, a trench is where two tectonic plates are running into each other--the most famous being the mariana trench. A classic example is the trench found in the ocean of the coast of South America from where the Pacific plate and the South American plate are colliding. The denser plate (oceanic crust) sinks below the lighter continental crust. The oceanic ridges are made of material that is less dense than the ocean crust--because it takes about 80 million years for the magma coming out to completely cool and achieve the same density.
none of these formed to room for water--that is assigning a purpose to something without one.
as to Australian fauna and flora:
I might remind you olive branches are not native to Australia. Tell me, who's famous for olive oil? The mediterranean. Finally, why did just the Southern hemisphere animals use floating mats? Also, where is your evidence for them? see, funny thing about explaining how stuff happens, is that you have to have evidence of your explanation happening. See, I can propose that pink elephants live in my toilet, and that they cause it to get plugged. But where's my evidence? I have no pink elephants that I can find, never mind a plugged toilet with any kind of elephant being the cause.
I'm now going to give you a list of ice ages the Earth has experienced--because in a earlier post, you were conflating the glaciation of Australia with the most recent ice age. That glaciation occurred 250 million or so years ago (the australia one)
[list]Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 9:52 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 6:11 PM kuresu has replied
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2007 8:43 PM kuresu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024