Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 8:50 AM
28 online now:
edge, JonF, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Stile, Tangle (6 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,003 Year: 9,039/19,786 Month: 1,461/2,119 Week: 221/576 Day: 24/98 Hour: 8/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood
John
Inactive Member


Message 349 of 460 (14074)
07-24-2002 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by wmscott
07-24-2002 6:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
According to Darwin's theory of reef formation, they should only have then below sea level as the island slowly sinks due cooling in the hot magma beneath it.

Why can't that magma also raise the island, as is happening in Yellowstone(?) today?

{quoteThere are a number of problems with that idea, first the formation of the reef indicates a lengthily stable submergence.][/quote]

The ice in Antartica isn't the issue if, as you say it has not changed. (I didn't look it up, but it isn't relevant to my argument anyway) The massive glaciers that formed in the northern hemishere would jerk water out of the ocean causing a low, then during the interstitials as they melted, put water back, causing a sea-level high. These changes are slow enough that coral could form just fine. Now, as the glaciers have once again receeded we have a low ocean and see dead coral above sea level. You seem to go on and explain this effect yourself.

quote:
They rise so far above dry the pacific ocean floor and yet are made out of dense ocean floor material, and they lack the former buoyant effect of the surrounding ocean and the ocean waters no longer are pressing down on the surrounding ocean floor.

But the ocean water would also be pushing down on the islands themselves. I am failing to see a significant bouyant effect. I'm willing to be corrected on this, but right now I just don't see it.

quote:
At the end of the flood as the flood waters drained into the deepening oceans, the increased pressure raised the Hawaiian islands to a higher elevation than they have today.

Ignoring for a moment the comments I've just made.

So you drain off some water and the reduction of pressure on the ocean floor makes the ocean floor rise. At the same time the islands sink, as they are thicker/heavier than the ocean floor. Now, aren't we talking about a change of coral reef height of a few hundred feet? Aren't we then talking about a sea level change of less than that figure driving this island sinking ocean rising behavior? A few hundred feet of ocean is insignificant in that respect.

quote:
To create these dunes would require the sudden exposure of land faster than tropical vegetation could cover it.

Why? There are beaches in Texas with sand dunes on them.

quote:
For instance, how can the hot spot hypothesis explain the generation of magmas of the Honolulu Volcanic series on the island of Oahu after a period of volcanic quiet of more than a million years, some 500 kilometers or more away from the probable position of the hot spot, and apparently from a depth in the mantle considerably greater than that at which the earlier Koolau magmas were formed?

I doubt that hot spots are 100% static. We don't know enough about these things to use them as you are.

quote:
This mystery is solved when we take into consideration the effects of the weight of the flood waters. Their great weight put a tremendous pressure on the asthenosphere and forced magma up into remains of the cooling magma chambers deep beneath the island of Oahu and forced lava to the surface while the island was still rising or had just risen from the waters.

The great weight of a few hundred feet of water added to an ocean already at 13,000 plus feet.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by wmscott, posted 07-24-2002 6:49 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-24-2002 8:16 PM John has responded
 Message 364 by wmscott, posted 07-31-2002 5:14 PM John has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 351 of 460 (14079)
07-24-2002 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Minnemooseus
07-24-2002 8:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:

I'm really not into the debate on this specific topic, but I thought it would be good for someone on the evolution side to point out the above quirk in your statement.

Wouldn't the glacial recession result in a high sea level?

Moose


Yes, you are absolutely right. oooops.....

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-24-2002 8:16 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 355 of 460 (14136)
07-25-2002 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by axial soliton
07-25-2002 2:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by axial soliton:
What flood mystery?

I think you've pegged the origins of the various flood myths. In the case of the Bible, probably the Gibralter related flood.

But none of these satisfy the Biblical mythology, which is what the dabate is about.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by axial soliton, posted 07-25-2002 2:44 AM axial soliton has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 370 of 460 (14652)
08-01-2002 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by wmscott
07-31-2002 5:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
Minnemooseus has already pointed out the flaw in your argument.

Yes, I got things backward when I wrote the post, but the concept is valid.

quote:
My point in my earlier post was that since Antarctica did not melt in the last inter glacial, it seems highly unlikely that there were significantly higher sea levels at that time. There is also the lack of similar shorelines on the continents. Which is why the high shorelines in the Hawaiian islands are not explainable by a higher sea level due to a greater ocean volume.

'k... fair enough.

quote:
["Why can't that magma also raise the island, as is happening in Yellowstone(?) today?"]

Yes that is what I am saying happened, see my post to Edge on this.


Then what is the problem with the coral being above sea level? Well, maybe your reply to edge explains this.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by wmscott, posted 07-31-2002 5:14 PM wmscott has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 371 of 460 (14653)
08-01-2002 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by axial soliton
08-01-2002 1:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by axial soliton:
If a hundred feet change in the level of the ocean is enough to trigger an up/down movement, the system seems unusually sensitive.

I've been waiting for a reply to this point. I hope I get one soon.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by axial soliton, posted 08-01-2002 1:38 PM axial soliton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by axial soliton, posted 08-01-2002 6:54 PM John has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 374 of 460 (14668)
08-01-2002 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by gene90
08-01-2002 7:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Am I the only one shocked and dismayed to see someone reference www.crystalinks.com and not as an example of what *not* to use as a source?

quote:

We are in a time of rapid changing frequencies. It is enough to keep the most stable person off balance.

Some people feel it more strongly than others.

They may feel themselves walking between two realities at the same time.

There is the feeling of not being here and missing time.

When the magnetics that hold our reality together are shaken loose we do feel a sense of disconnection from the collective.


I don't get it. What's the problem?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by gene90, posted 08-01-2002 7:03 PM gene90 has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 380 of 460 (14981)
08-07-2002 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by axial soliton
08-01-2002 6:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by axial soliton:
Sir, you take my point out of its context in your curt come-back and presume that the person to whom I directed it must respond with immediacy because you require it. All of us here should be objectively seeking the truth.

Excuse me? I posed this same question in post # 349 in this thread. My 'curt comeback' was a reminder to wmscott that I never got a response, at least as of my posting the message you chastise me over. This in neither rude nor is it taking your post out of context.

quote:
"I hope I get one soon." is not respectful.

And your post to me is?

quote:
Editorial Note: Sorry Percy.

Percy is not the one to whom you need to apologize.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by axial soliton, posted 08-01-2002 6:54 PM axial soliton has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by wmscott, posted 08-08-2002 1:27 PM John has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 382 of 460 (15035)
08-08-2002 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by wmscott
08-08-2002 1:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
John

See posts 365 and 379.


ok. Thanks.

I am still not clear though.

These changes are due to a change of water level of a hundred feet or so? This is not much water given the depth of the ocean, and the enormous mass of the islands involved.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by wmscott, posted 08-08-2002 1:27 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by wmscott, posted 08-09-2002 12:56 PM John has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 384 of 460 (15109)
08-09-2002 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by wmscott
08-09-2002 12:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
The crust of the earth that makes up the land has a lower density than the ocean crust. This is why the land rises above the level of the ocean floors. The lighter a material is, the higher it floats.

But the Hawaian islands are volcanic and are made of the same stuff as the ocean floor-- ie, lava welling up from the mantle through the crust. Yes? That being the case how does this apply?

quote:
This extra weight causes his side of the seesaw to sink while the other side rises. This happens when at the end of an Ice Age large amounts of water is returned to the oceans, the ocean floors are depressed and adjoining land areas are correspondingly raised.

But if instead of a seesaw, you imagine a piece of plywood balanced at its center and then press down evenly on all sides as water in the ocean would do, then you don't get this seesaw effect.

Or for a better example, build a plywood platform say 100' by 100' and float it on some very dense but still liquid material like tar. Build a mountian of rock about six foot tall in the center. That mountain would depress the platform. Ok. Now flood the platform with water to a height of five feet. The platform depresses a bit more. Now vary the water depth by six inches or so. There isn't going to be much change in the amount of deflection.

[quote][b] For example, the sudden flooding of the Black Sea pushed the former lake bottom down an estimated 200 feet. The weight of Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets has depressed parts of the land beneath them to levels below sealevel.[/quote]

[/b]

Not applicable. You have different materials involved. Dirt is more subject to compaction than volcanic rock. And you are talking about a few hundred feet, not the warping of miles thick crust.

But no argument with the general concept of water weight crushing the land beneath it. I just don't understand how a relatively small volume of water can move the oceanic crusts as much as it seems it would have to do.

quote:
The weight of returning water of even only a few feet of increased ocean depth is enormous because the increased pressure is felt across the entire ocean. every square foot on the ocean floor is under that much more pressure, adding up the entire square footage of the world's ocean bottoms adds up to a huge weight.

I think that you are missing the fact that this added weight is distributed over the whole ocean floor. It isn't pushing down at one spot. In my analogy above, it is like applying weight over the entire platform. My platform would have to be a sphere filled with tar to get a better picture and the water would have to surround it and be pulled toward the center. Not easily replicated in the lab. You can't push down at one spot without conpressing the tar or haveing it just out at another spot.

[quote][/b]The effect of this is that even a seemly small increase can cause a shift in the earth's crust. We have the example of the Mississippi river delta in the Gulf of Mexico, the gradual increasing weight of this delta is slowly depressing that part of the Gulf of Mexico. When large dam reservoirs are filled, the weight of the water depresses the earth's crust a bit, bending it and causing earth quakes. Here in the case of the dam reservoir, we see that even a fairly small concentrated weight of water is enough to cause shifting in the earth's crust.[/b][/quote]

But in all cases you are adding mass to a specific area, not the entire ocean. You can depress the surface of a balloon with your finger, but that isn't the same as applying preasure to the whole surface of the balloon.

quote:
Now in the case of ocean islands and the deluge,

First off, my initial comments concerned a specific mechanism used to describe a specific feature of the Hawaian islands. Now on to the flood.

quote:
one of my estimates for the depth of the flood waters is 4,000 ft. If all this water was taken up by deepening ocean basins, this would have resulting in a ocean depth increase in the range of 6,000 ft.

Ok. Then it seems you are postulating an original pre-flood sea floor covered by 2000 feet of water? Is there evidence of beaches or coral formations around that depth?

quote:
Now the bone we have been fighting over in this argument that you have jumped into

Is this not an open forum?

quote:
is that water has only less than a third the density of rock, so how could the lighter water push the heavier islands above the water?

It isn't lighter if the volume is great enough. No problem there.

quote:
I have been invoking the fact that the total pressure felt by the large area of the ocean floor is much greater than the small area supporting the islands.

But the islands sit on top of that crust. Push the crust down the islands go with it. At the base of the island they are tied to the crust via a very substantial footprint. The water would be pushing DOWN on that foot as well as on the surrounding ocean floor.

quote:
Using plastic movement caused by the general depression of the ocean floor, a resulting local uplift in the hot material beneath the islands

Resulting is volcanic eruptions perhaps? This seem more likely, as the channel for escape is already there.

quote:
The islands only have their elevation due to the fact that the hot material beneath them is lighter than the surrounding cooler material. The islands themselves are cold, and sit on top of hot bulge like a rock on a hot air balloon.

Ok. I am sure this is correct to a degree, but don't you think some that elevation is due to volcanos constantly adding material to the top of the islands?

quote:
This is why the islands are often in a deep pocket surrounded by a rise.

I looked up some ocean floor topology maps at a USGS site and I don't see these pockets. Can you point me to some maps that show these features?

quote:
this causes the bulge to be forced back into a smaller area which raises the island.

Due to the massive footprints of these islands, I can't see this happening. The preasure would be much too broadly distributed.

quote:
Like pushing a plate down into the mud, the mud squeezes out and up around the edges of the plate.

But you are not squeezing a plate into mud, you are squeezing hydraulic fluid inside a hydraulic piston-- albiet this piston has leaks.

quote:
the depression of the ocean plate has similar effects. Areas where the trapped plastic material beneath the plate can ozoo out are uplifted.

Again, the maps I found do not show this. Show me maps and I will retract any effected criticisms.

quote:
Another effect that comes into play is depressing the ocean floor moves it closer to the center of the earth and slightly increases the effect of gravity.

Ok. Small but measurable effect.

quote:
This would also increase the amount of island uplift by magnifying the density difference between the hot material below the island and the surrounding sea floor.

The islands being much more massive would be pulled down more than the relatively thin crust (locally). I don't see how this supoorts what you are postulating.

Take care.

Thanks for the indepth reply.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[This message has been edited by John, 08-09-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by wmscott, posted 08-09-2002 12:56 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by wmscott, posted 08-10-2002 2:48 PM John has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 387 of 460 (15168)
08-10-2002 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by wmscott
08-10-2002 2:48 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by wmscott:
[B] John & edge {/b][/quote]

And aren't we a cute couple too?

quote:
Look for names such as 'Hawaiian Swell', 'Hawaiian Deep' and 'Hawaiian Arch'.

Ok. The keywords help. Now I have a better idea of what you are talking about.

I follow you right up to here:

quote:
Depending on the dynamics of our model, the pressure can cause the bubble to be squeezed back into it's original position of being centered beneath the mountain.

The bubble in question, is this bubble otherwise known as the hot-spot? If so, I am back to disbelief. The weight of a mile of ocean can push around hundreds of cubic miles of crust and mantle?

quote:
One has to remember the extreme small vertical scale we are dealing with here, if the earth was the size of an apple, the oceans would be thinner than the peal.

Yes, I know, which is why I am having such a hard time with the oceans powering the dynamics you describe.

quote:
As you can see from the quote, they were raised by 'geologic action'.

I have no problem with the geologic action. I have a problem with the geological action being powered by a global flood. This is the real point after all.

quote:
Hummm, what force in recent geological history could effect far flung islands?

Gee, plate tektonics, changes in the mantle's convection currents....

Maybe you could point out some specific islands?

[quote][b]The only connecting factor is they are all affected by the level of the sea.[quote][b]

So you say. I am waiting for more detail. See above.

quote:
Otherwise you are just nay saying which is something anyone can do about anything.

Think of it as constructive criticism. Besides, variations in mechanics of the hot-spot could push these islands up and down. Edge pointed this out already.

quote:
As water was removed from the oceans the ocean floors flexed upward and land areas sank.

I'm sure it did, but by how much? The oceans average five kilometers, the crust is between 10 and 40 kilometers. How much flex can the oceans cause?

quote:
The depression results in the movement of magma that raises the island while the sea floor sinks. Like stepping on a freshly cemented floor tile can push the tile down into the cement, the cement can squirt up around the edges to a level higher then the title had to begin with.

You are ignoring some elements in your model as well. For example, there aren't any edges-- the crust is continuous. And you are not pressing down on the tile. A better analogy would be pressing down on the surrounding tiles and expecting the central tile to rise. Add to this that the central tile is attached to the surrounding tiles. Also a problem is that the mantle is very thick (as far as viscosity) and thick in depth too. You are moving an enormous amount of material with, as you said, a film of material the relative size of an apple peel.

[quote]
US: "you are squeezing hydraulic fluid inside a hydraulic piston-" "I have two columns in gravitational equilibrium. I catastrophically add a mile of water to each. What happens?"

Them: You both are using over simplified models that are totally lacking the effects that raise the islands that I am referring to.[quote][b]

Exactly.

Furthermore, I posit that my hydraulic ram analogy is much better than "a plate in the mud"

quote:
The earth is not filled with hydraulic fluid

Any liquid can serve as hydraulic fluid. The properties are not a fucntion of the material.

quote:
nor is it's surface composed of hydraulic cylinders or columns.

But in many ways it functions as if it were. The crust serves as the walls of the ram. Gravity the force applied. The liquid mantle, the hydraulic fluid.

The earth's surface isn't composed of plates in mud or tiles in mortar either.

quote:
Plus why do you assume the starting point was in equilibrium?

Why do you think I assume the starting point is in equilibrium?

quote:
The effects I am referring to are not included in your basic models, so it is no surprise they are unable to account for the uplift.

That, or your model is wrong.

quote:
"Do you really think that material above you simply has no gravitation and can be ignored? Then think of it this way: there is less mass beneath you as you get closer to the center of the earth and gravity should be less." "The islands being much more massive would be pulled down more than the relatively thin crust (locally). I don't see how this supports what you are postulating."

Actually, what Edge said and what I said are not the same thing.

quote:
This increase in gravity is felt by the buoyancy of the hot magma that the island is sitting on, which is greater than the mass of the island above it.

What?

quote:
This is like when clay of different densities are layer and centrifuged to model mountain development. The lighter material is forced to the top by the increased 'gravity'.

And how does this relate?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by wmscott, posted 08-10-2002 2:48 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by wmscott, posted 08-13-2002 5:52 PM John has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 393 of 460 (15403)
08-13-2002 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by wmscott
08-13-2002 5:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
I my last post I was focusing on changes in the profile of the magma chamber caused by large changes in sea level which in turn would affect the resulting island elevation.

I know what you are trying to argue, but you are not addressing the issue of how ocean level changes can move such an enormous mass of rock.

quote:
The uplift do to this type of action is more dependent on the chamber and island factors than on the size of sea level change, which is why the uplift or depression can be far larger than isostactic forces can account for.

You've just undercut your own argument by taking the driving force AWAY from the sea level changes.

quote:
We all agree that the uplifted shorelines found in the islands are caused by uplift, there is no other explanation. My argument is that changes in sea level can act as the trigger for that uplift.

And I have gone to great lengths to show why this is silly.

quote:
Such wide spread uplift must have a common cause.

Not really, and even if they do have common cause you haven't shown why it must be your common cause.

quote:
To sum up, I am saying that at the retreat of each glacial advance there was a large increase in ocean volume and depth which resulted in sea floor depression and resulting uplifting of the islands.

The mass of the volume of water vs the mass of the affected rock is trivial.

Really, I have countered everything you posted here and so has Edge.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by wmscott, posted 08-13-2002 5:52 PM wmscott has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 394 of 460 (15404)
08-13-2002 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by wmscott
08-13-2002 5:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
I my last post I was focusing on changes in the profile of the magma chamber caused by large changes in sea level which in turn would affect the resulting island elevation.

I know what you are trying to argue, but you are not addressing the issue of how ocean level changes can move such an enormous mass of rock.

quote:
The uplift do to this type of action is more dependent on the chamber and island factors than on the size of sea level change, which is why the uplift or depression can be far larger than isostactic forces can account for.

You've just undercut your own argument by taking the driving force AWAY from the sea level changes.

quote:
We all agree that the uplifted shorelines found in the islands are caused by uplift, there is no other explanation. My argument is that changes in sea level can act as the trigger for that uplift.

And I have gone to great lengths to show why this is silly.

quote:
Such wide spread uplift must have a common cause.

Not really, and even if they do have common cause you haven't shown why it must be your common cause.

quote:
To sum up, I am saying that at the retreat of each glacial advance there was a large increase in ocean volume and depth which resulted in sea floor depression and resulting uplifting of the islands.

The mass of the volume of water vs the mass of the affected rock is trivial.

Really, I have already countered everything you posted here and so has Edge. You aren't really addressing the issues we raise, but instead are just restating your theory.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[This message has been edited by John, 08-13-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by wmscott, posted 08-13-2002 5:52 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by wmscott, posted 08-21-2002 5:48 PM John has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 396 of 460 (15963)
08-22-2002 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by wmscott
08-21-2002 5:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
I am just amazed by your total lack of counter arguments.

I am amazed at your total lack of ability to understand the multiple counter-arguments we have given you.

quote:
You need to cite specific problems with my theory and offer a better explanation for the evidence.

This has been done.

quote:
Failure to offer a better explanation is a tactic admission of defeat.

I think you are misinterpretting the decision to stop head butting a brick wall with an admission of defeat.

quote:
Judging from the quality of your posts, I have totally blown you guys away.

You have totally ignored everything we've said.

quote:
Maybe you just need to get your thoughts together, because I know you want to make a better showing than you did in your last posts.

ouch.... ohh.... you're hurting me. How I wish this forum were peer reviewed. But I guess you'd ignore that input as well.

quote:
Otherwise as it stands, I have demonstrated my theory on island elevation as being a very workable theory that it's detractors are unable to find specific fault with.

Like hell....

quote:
The only part of either of your posts that came close to counter argument was a brief reference to increased hot spot activity.

Which is not a good explaination, why?

quote:
The problem with that is that is what I am saying happen, only that it was caused by an increase in ocean volume.

You have never countered various and sundry questions as to how such a miniscule mass as the ocean could manipulate the oceanic crusts.

quote:
if you wish to argue against my theory, you need to come up with another explanation for what caused the surge in activity that raised ocean islands at the end of the ice age

No we don't. The unworkable-ness of one theory is not dependent upon the veracity of another theory.

quote:
and explains the periodness seen in the uplift.

You've never shown any kind of significant correlation.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by wmscott, posted 08-21-2002 5:48 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by wmscott, posted 08-28-2002 5:35 PM John has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 401 of 460 (16221)
08-29-2002 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by wmscott
08-28-2002 5:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
You don't have to be amazed at my total lack of ability to understand your multiple counter-arguments, the reason is simple, you haven't posted them. I am not clairvoyant, what ever your great counter-arguments are, you have to post them if you want to bring them into the discussion. I was hoping my last post would get you or somebody else to post some good counter arguments. But all you have posted, once again, is hot air.

I wish there were a scorecard off to the side so that lurkers could vote on this sort of thing.

All I can say is that your comments above are absurd. You've been given numerous examples and counter-examples and you have chosen to ignore them all, even to the point of denying that those arguments exist.

quote:
I am saying that the increase in ocean volume triggered or controlled the uplift.

And Edge and I both have argued that such a scenario is unworkable, and we have given you reasons for such belief.

quote:
Just as the pressure of your foot on the gas petal controls the speed of your car, your foot doesn't supply the energy to push the car down the road.

uhhh.... that is because there is an engine under the hood... surely you can't be serious about this analogy?

quote:
What I am saying is that uplift occurring a cross wide areas occurring in this pattern is obviously connected with the cycles of changes that occurred in ocean volume in connection with the ice ages. The two patterns are too similar and too closely related not to be connected.

No problem, but where is the part about the oceanic crust and the mantle being deformed by miniscule water level changes?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by wmscott, posted 08-28-2002 5:35 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by wmscott, posted 09-02-2002 5:37 PM John has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 405 of 460 (16534)
09-04-2002 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by wmscott
09-02-2002 5:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
Could you please post the numerous examples and counterexamples that I am supposedly ignoring?

Well, there is post 384 and 387 for example.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by wmscott, posted 09-02-2002 5:37 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by wmscott, posted 09-06-2002 5:22 PM John has responded

1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019