Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

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


Message 332 of 460 (12689)
07-03-2002 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Percy
06-30-2002 9:45 PM


Percipient
"You both need to look to evidence from the real world" I do, here is a partial listing of just some of the evidence that points towards a recent global flood.
Relic lakes containing trapped marine life that has adapted to fresh water, records the occurrence of a recent marine transgression at high elevations. The extent of the post ice sea level rise is indicated by the location of some of the relict lakes which contain sea like which has recently had to adapt to fresh water. "Lakes Titicaca and Poopo in South America have invertebrates which have marine affinities and carp-like fishes which have been claimed to have such affinities." (The Quaternary Era; by J.K. Charlesworth 1957, volume two, p.1418) Lake Titicaca, located in the Andes mountains at an elevation of 12,500 feet above sea level, is a relict lake and is the highest navigable lake in the world. The lake is 120 miles long and 50 miles wide covering 3,200 square miles with a maxim depth of 600 feet. The reason the same marine life is found in both lake Titicaca and lake Poopo is that they were both once part of lake Ballivian which formerly had a level 330 feet above the current level of lake Titicaca. Before it dried up into two smaller lakes, lake Ballivian would of had an elevation of 12,830 feet above sea level and contained marine life recently trapped from the sea.
The Arctic Ringed seal turns up in Caspian Sea which is over a thousand miles away from the Arctic Ocean. The only reasonable explanation for finding the Ringed Seal so far to the south trapped in inland bodies of water, is that they were trapped there by a recent rise in sea level. The Caspian Sea not only has sea life from the Arctic Sea, it also has a number of living things from the Mediterranean Sea. Of the life that is indigenous to the Caspian Sea, 6% is from the Mediterranean Sea and 3% is from the Arctic. (The Caspian Sea by A.N. Kosarev and E.A. Yablonskaya 1994, p.122) The fact that at the end of the Ice Age, the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea and the Arctic Ocean were all joined together as shown by the types of marine life found in the Caspian Sea, is undeniable.
The Arctic Ringed Seal also turns up in Lake Baikal (elevation 1493 feet) in Siberia is nearly 1,000 miles from the ice covered arctic ocean and also has sponges, herring and salmon (Omul). All of which have adapted to freshwater. There are also beach terraces in the area that are found as high as 4,600 feet above the lake level of 1493 feet or 6093 feet above sea level. (The Quaternary Era; With Special Reference to it's Glaciation by J.K. Charlesworth 1957, volume two, p.1119)
High level terraces have been reported in a number of locations around the world. Southeastern Ohio, 1100 to 2580 ft, Connecticut up to 1680 ft, Massachusetts up to 2,250 ft, Pennsylvania at 1,300 ft, Scotland 1150 ft, Alps 6190 ft, Tasmania 4,300 ft, "Carolina bays, Mina Mound, Submarine Canyons and other Topographical Phenomena" by William R. Corliss, Pages 77-83. Beaches with seashells at altitudes between 1,200 and 1,300 ft found in Great Britain and some Pacific islands, (1,250 ft on the Hawaii islands) (1,300 ft on the Marquesas islands) and the Persian gulf area 1230 ft. Pages 66-72.
Uplifted Erratics above 1000 ft are found in a number of places around the world, Great Britain 2200 ft, New Hampshire 6000 ft, Alberta Rockies 4260 ft, and Wyoming 6750 ft. "Neglected Geological Anomalies" William R. Corliss, pages 222-6.
I have been stressing the lack of erosion a global flood caused by a progressive rise would create in comparison with the YEC type flood models. But that is not to say there would be no evidence at all. As you can see we do have extensive minor surface erosional evidence. We have the raised shore lines and terraces, elevated erractits, marine traces, whales bones far inland, marine transgression in lakes, evidence of super flooding occurring at the end of the ice age and we have the Mima mounds. The Mima Mounds are rounded little hills or bumps ranging in size from a few inches to over a thousand feet arranged in very large numbers on plain surfaces like water ripples. They are found associated with the Spokane flood deposits and are a type of current caused deposit similar to streamlined drumlins created in super flood events. They are not limited to the NW however, they are found throughout out large areas of the American west from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian border and west into the west coast states. The combined area of plains displaying Mima Mounds is larger in extent than the state of Texas. The type of formation and the wide spread distribution indicates a movement of a depth of water across the land surface in the manner one would expect of the whole scale movement of water moving to or from the sea in a recent global flood event. Where the soil conditions were suitable we find evidence of water current effects which may have better preserved in the western part of North America perhaps in part due to the rain shadow of the Rockies.
I know you reject all of this evidence, but could you show me how exactly they came about without a flood? Or are you so sure that you are right, you no longer need to concern yourself with evidence? If so, wouldn't that make your belief a sort of religious belief?
No comment on my little test paper, am I to assume it was so perfect that you couldn't find any fault with it? Knowing you, I don't believe that for a minute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Percy, posted 06-30-2002 9:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Percy, posted 07-03-2002 10:43 PM wmscott has replied

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


Message 333 of 460 (12690)
07-03-2002 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Tranquility Base
06-30-2002 10:53 PM


Tranquility Base
Welcome! I have peeked a bit a your posts a bit to from time to time. We fight for the same goal, only from different angles. As a fellow soldier I salute you for your noble efforts in the battle against the evil lies that slay men's minds. Having said these kinds words, I must also say you are fighting your war with dull broken rusty old weapons of little effect. I am impressed you have done as well as you have working with so little. I would like to offer to rearm you with better weaponry. If you would like, I would be happy to e-mail you a copy of my book which explains in detail the problems with YEC and uses geology to explain how the flood happened. My theory is outlined in my first post here and these are the basic main points.
1. the earth and life is very old. (billions of years old)
2. The geologic record records the long existence of life on this planet and was not created by the flood.
3. There never was a 'canopy' or underground water sources for the flood.
4. There have been a number of ice ages, and it was the abrupt ending of the last one that flooded the world.
5. The flood was triggered by a Carolina Bay type comet impact event occurring on the North America ice sheet and possibly others as well. These impacts caused an 'impact winter' with associated heavy global rains as predicted by impact theories and as described in the Biblical record.
6. The already on going melting of the ice age glaciers combined with the impact events resulted in the documented releases of 'Super Floods' of glacial melt waters being released from the ice sheets. This water flowed into the sea and caused them to rise above the land. (how the flood gates of the deep were opened)
7. The sea level rose progressively and did little erosional damage to the earth's surface except for areas where the terrain funneled the moving water which created the streamlined super flood erosion found in those areas. Minimal erosion is indicated by the fact that the ice age surface is still intact in most areas.
8. At the end of the flood the increased water depth pushed the ocean floors down which in turn caused an uplift in the land areas. We find evidence of this in uplift and depression and tilting associated with the comings and goings of the ice ages.
"What exactly is impossible in the YEC flood stance?" The 'Y'.
The earth is very old as demonstrated by over two hundred years worth of geologic findings. This was recognized even by the creationists two hundred years ago, which is why they attempted to explain the existence of the fossil record by claiming it was created all at once by the flood. They were basically shifting the problem from creation and dumping the burden of proof on the flood. This in turn has created the mess we have today of YEC flood theories vainly trying to account for the entire geologic record in a flood that the Bible states lasted only about a year. I spend two chapters in my book on this, and it is an issue better dealt with at length and in detail. In short here, let me sum up a few of the basic reasons why creation of the entire fossil record by the flood is impossible. First how do you rip up the entire surface of the earth, rocks, hills, mountains and keep them all in suspension with only the water the earth has? The amounts of material involved would require currents on the order of a kitchen blender set on puree, yet some how when this mess all settles out, many delicate fossils are laid neatly out just as the animal died with each bone in it's place. We also have the existence of huts built of Mammoth bones, an animal that died off in the flood, found intact on the ground surface. There have been other finds of Mammoth hunters camp sites, and these sites are found at or near the ground surface. How could a flood current rip up a camp site and then redeposit it? The impossibility of this is further highlighted by the occurrence of submerged pre flood Ice Age landscapes found on the continental shelves. "part of the floor of the North Sea that emerged because of a Pleistocene drop of sealevel. The dogger Bank emerged, and was dry land long enough to win covering peat bogs, fragments of which have been dredged up by fishermen from depths of 40 meters (128 feet). Elsewhere on this temporary land forests grew. Fishes now swim over the tree trunks, drowned by the last upswing of ocean level. Mammoths roamed over the plain; recently their tusks have been dredged up from the bottom of the North Sea." (The Changing World of the Ice Age by Reginald Aldworth Daly 1963, pages 183-184) If the YEC flood theories were true, this preflood landscape should have been ripped up and scattered, instead fish peacefully swim over the rotting remains of a submerged forest. Here beneath the waves, part of the old world still remains, preserved for all time in a watery tomb, untouched by any great disturbance.
If the YEC type flood had occurred, since the flood was global, we would find the same deposits on the ocean floor as we do on land. But that is not what we find, instead except for areas that were once above water, the oceans are totally lacking in fossil remains of land animals. In short the pattern of fossils found on land and sea floors, is in complete conflict with YEC flood models.
These are just a few of the very simple problems with YEC flood models. If you want to go over this in more detail, I would suggest you first read my book and let me know what your thoughts are. I would be very interested in your opinion on it any how. I suggest you consider the OEC viewpoint, OEC is not any less religious then YEC, it is just more scientific. YEC is actually just a docturinal interpretation that is in conflict with scripture and a whole lot of geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2002 10:53 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 10:51 PM wmscott has replied
 Message 337 by Percy, posted 07-09-2002 11:09 PM wmscott has replied

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


Message 334 of 460 (12714)
07-03-2002 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by wmscott
07-03-2002 7:12 PM


I think we've been over all this ground before. As I've already said, I don't think it's within my power to persuade you that your evidence provides no support for your conclusions.
I'm willing to provide feedback about which of your arguments are sufficiently supported by evidence and argument to merit inclusion in a technical paper, even though I believe this a naive and foolhardy exercise, but it might help you better understand the necessary rigor of true science. But since you've given up on that perhaps you'll find the perspectives of a fellow Creationist more helpful.
About your test paper, I don't think I could give you any feedback you'd find helpful, but perhaps you might explore other avenues to get a feel for technical writing. When Isaac Asimov was in grad school he practiced writing a technical paper by first producing one about a fictional substance entitled "The Endochronic Properties of Resubliminated Thiotimoline." Dig out a copy and give it read. It's not at all rigorous the way a real scientific paper would be, but it's entertaining and accessible while still providing a flavor of what real scientific research papers are like. Or perhaps you read the abstract Joe Meert posted recently of Stephen Austin's mainstream geology paper. A bit full of numbers, wouldn't you say?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by wmscott, posted 07-03-2002 7:12 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by wmscott, posted 07-10-2002 6:16 PM Percy has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 335 of 460 (12715)
07-03-2002 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by wmscott
07-03-2002 7:28 PM


wmscott
I do not particularly believe in a flood associated 'canopy' or underground water sources. The sea-level curves show that most (if not all) of the earth has been underwater and I have no reason to doubt that rapid sea-floor spreading can achieve the same results as mainstream expectations.
OK, so you align the flood with a Pleistocene iceage. Makes sense. We of course believe that these occurred rapidly after the flood due to a volcanic ash genrated nuclear winter much like your comet theory would.
Presumably you can not get a glacial flood that covers Everest if your mountains were not recently formed like ours.
We agree that the earth's current surface was shaped by glacial melting. But we have this on top of much larger features carved out by the retreat of the global flood.
Why does one need to rip up 'the entire surface of the earth, rocks, hills, mountains and keep them all in suspension with only the water the earth has'? We have 1500 years of life (trivial geological record) possibly with very flat terrain. There could be plate slippage surges and intervenning calms.
Who knows how many decades of life there was between the flood and the end of the iceages - the Mammoth bone huts are post flood for us, but maybe pre-glacial melting. We simply do not deny the reality of glacial melting and in our scenario it was very quick due to ash fallout.
I don't see why YECs should expect to see the same deposits on the ocean floor. For a start only the early-spreading segments were around at the start of the flood. Sediment is primarily continental and would end up in continental basins and contiental shelves surely.
I understand your POV although I feel it is not as strong as you expect. Please email me your book and I will read it. I see OEC as a very understandable attempt to unify the Bible and mainstream interpretations. I ultimately believe sceince is on our side but it is a complicated reconstruction for all of us.
You presumably believe in progressive creation or theistic evolution? Which of these? And what of the origin of mankind?
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by wmscott, posted 07-03-2002 7:28 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by wmscott, posted 07-10-2002 6:28 PM Tranquility Base has replied

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


Message 336 of 460 (12755)
07-04-2002 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by wmscott
07-03-2002 7:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
I asked: Do you also see that the depression of any large area under a load could create a similar effect?
edge-"And just what has this to do with a global flood that was so brief that it left no traces?"
The transference of the weigh of water to ocean basins would result in their being depressed would in turn result in uplift in the surrounding area. This effect accounts for part of change in relative elevations after the deluge. And the flood 'left no traces' only in comparison to YEC flood models, otherwise we would have no evidence over which to debate.

The depression would not be as much as you suggest. I have asked before about equilibrating the continental and oceanic columns by moving water from one to the other. How much mantle material do you displace from the ocean column to the continental column for a kilometer of water? Think about it. This is a simple displacement problem. It isn't very much.
quote:
On highly elevated terraces-edge-"As far as I can see you have not addressed this issue. It is important if it is to be evidence."
According to my source, none of the cited terraces are from local lakes, the surrounding terrain is too low to have retained a lake to a high enough elevation to have formed the terraces.

Examples, please. 'My source' is hardly something that I can verify. And, by the way, have you heard of tectonics? There are ways of raising terraces other than by lowering of water levels.
quote:
On highly elevated erratics far from and/or above their source-Edge-"Well give us some. With documentation, please."
Boulders of gray geiss on the summit of Mount Washington, New Hampshire, elevation over 6000 ft. Nearest possible source is several miles to northwest and at 3000 to 4000 ft lower elevation. Rehwinkel, Alfred M. "the Glacial Theory and the Flood," The Flood, Saint Louis, 1951, p. 298. Also cited by Flint, Richard Foster; "Glacial erosion and Transport," Glacial and Quaternary Geology, New York, 1971, P. 111. ( this source has a table of glacial erratics that are elevated above their sources.) Rather than referring to a number of different references, for the moment let's start with the table in this one reference which probably contains many of the same examples referred to by others, and will be easier for you to check up on.

First of all, let it be known that I have no problem at all with glacial erratics being found higher than their source, so this is not really evidence for a global flood to me. Only in alpine glaciation would this be exceedingly rare. However, I will try to check out your reference.
[This message has been edited by edge, 07-04-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by wmscott, posted 07-03-2002 7:09 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by wmscott, posted 07-10-2002 6:31 PM edge has replied

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


Message 337 of 460 (13207)
07-09-2002 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by wmscott
07-03-2002 7:28 PM


Hi, Wmscott!
We spend all our discussion in disagreement, so I thought it important to tell you I thought the last few paragraphs of your post, where you listed the evidence that persuades you the earth is an ancient place, was extremely well argued and supported.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by wmscott, posted 07-03-2002 7:28 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by wmscott, posted 07-10-2002 6:40 PM Percy has not replied

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


Message 338 of 460 (13266)
07-10-2002 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Percy
07-03-2002 10:43 PM


Percipient
"I don't think it's within my power to persuade you that your evidence provides no support for your conclusions." That sounds about as close to a concession as I am probably going to get from you, so I will take it.
I am very surprised you are unable to provide any helpful feedback on my test paper. Personally I didn't think it was very good and some of the points were poorly supported and the near total lack of references was appalling. It was just something I threw together that I thought you could dissect and I could keep hammering on until I had all the dents out of it. I will have to take a look at Stephen Austin's paper some time. But I prefer to learn the writing style of scientific papers by reading the real thing. I also have a copy of "A Handbook for Scholars" which covers writing science papers. I pretty much know what I can and can not state in a paper. What I am worried about is my lack of academic qualifications and affiliations. That remains my one big concern. My only other worry is making sure my lab work is of an acceptable level of quality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Percy, posted 07-03-2002 10:43 PM Percy has not replied

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


Message 339 of 460 (13267)
07-10-2002 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2002 10:51 PM


Tranquility Base
If I am guessing correctly, and remembering a bit I have seen in some of your posts, you are theorizing that the flood was caused by an uplifting of the Mid-Alantic ridge. I don't know all the details of your theory, but this angle is something I had considered early on and discarded for the following reasons. What is the mechanism that caused the uplift, and why don't we see it today? Impossible for rising mantle plumes to cause this effect in the short time reported in the Bible. A flood caused by this would have occurred slowly over the course of millions of years as happened in the distant past in connection with high stands of sea level caused by this effect due to plate tectonic movement of the land masses. A dramatic rise this large in such a short amount of time would have ripped this area wide open and caused a large number of effects that have not occurred. I am not saying this idea is without merit, just that I couldn't see a way of making it work. I would be curious to see if you really have worked out all the bugs. I would like to know more on this.
The brief ice age after the flood theory runs into impossible problems as well. The last ice age lasted over 1.5 million years. There were at last four major advances of the ice sheets in North America. The length of time between each advance was many thousands of years as shown by what was plowed under in each advance such as mature forests. The amount of glacial erosion that occurred is staggering and could not have occurred in the brief time after the flood. The biggest problem with this theory of course is the fact that flood evidence appears on TOP of glacial deposits and not underneath. In this area where I live, I find traces of marine micro life left by the flood in the top soil. This area in SE Wisconsin was covered by all four advances of the ice sheets. We have up to hundreds of feet of glacially deposited sand and gravel covering the lime stone bedrock that was scraped clean by the advancing ice. The only way the marine flood traces could be found on top of glacial till is if the ice age occurred before the flood. Then of course there is the evidence of super flooding, giant glacial spill ways cut by huge quantities of melt water draining off the continent, which are of course on top of and not underneath the glacial deposits. In short, all of the draining erosion caused by the flood is always post ice age and not pre ice age. Then of course there is the thickness of the Antarctica ice sheet, much to thick to have formed since the flood. And also the ice age animals that appeared during the ice age and then died when it ended, how do you account for them in a brief post ice age theory?
"Presumably you can not get a glacial flood that covers Everest if your mountains were not recently formed like ours."
Actually there are two possible solutions, one they were covered by glacial ice which is a form of water, two they were at a lower elevation before the flood and have been uplifted by the depression of the ocean floors. Most probably it was a combination of the two effects.
"Why does one need to rip up 'the entire surface of the earth,"
If one believes that all fossils were created in the flood, all fossil bearing deposits is practically the entire surface of the earth. In many parts of earth even the deep bed rock contains fossils. Here where I live, the bed rock is a several hundred foot thickness of Niagara Lime stone which is rich in fossils. This deposit is found to the east at Niagara Falls and extends west all the way to the Rocky Mountains. Now under YEC flood theories, this entire thickness of rock was all ripped up from somewhere and deposited as things began to settle. I work in a large government building that is covered with thick slabs of this rock and have had the time to examine it. The rock has been split along natural cleavage planes which tends to expose the fossils. Each of these surfaces once was a shallow sea bottom. You can see the fossils of ocean bottom plants and the occasional shell. The problem for YEC is that the entire thickness of all this is like a giant stack of cards, and each card records a period of time when that layer was the bottom. The shells and plant fossils found at each layer show that the rate of build up of sediment was slow enough that the plants and animals had time enough to grow to full size in every layer. This means the rate of sedimentation was low like maybe a half inch or less per year. Considering the thickness of lime stone here, we are talking about a minimum of many thousands of years. A rapid deposition using already existing fossils mixed in with the sediment doesn't work since in each cleavage layer, the sea bottom is visible with several fossils all on the same plane laying flat. If it was rapid, the fossils would not be laying level in groups, but would be all randomly located at different angles. Also the currents necessary to suspend several hundred feet worth of lime stone in a flood that was probably only a few thousand feet deep, would require 'blender' type currents. Think of the current speeds it would take to pick up and keep in suspension all those fossil clams found in the mountains YECs are so fond of.
"I don't see why YECs should expect to see the same deposits on the ocean floor."
The flood was global, currents strong enough to rip up all the material with fossils supposedly created in the flood, would not be limited only to water above land areas, why or how would they? These currents would have had to have vast speeds and would have had enormous momentum and would have been extensive. Look at a chart of ocean currents, these currents are slow and yet they cover the globe, your super flood currents would have been much much greater. So if YEC flood theories were true, it would be a complete mystery why we don't find the same deposits on the ocean floor.
"You presumably believe in progressive creation or theistic evolution? Which of these? And what of the origin of mankind?"
I not sure, I would have to study the evidence in great detail and see what it points to, the wording in the Bible is open to a range of possible interpretations on how animal life was created. On the origin of mankind we have a detailed description in Genesis, so there is no mystery there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 10:51 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-10-2002 9:18 PM wmscott has replied

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


Message 340 of 460 (13268)
07-10-2002 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by edge
07-04-2002 11:33 AM


edge
"How much mantle material do you displace from the ocean column to the continental column for a kilometer of water? Think about it. This is a simple displacement problem. It isn't very much."
Since water has about one third the density of rock, if it was a simple displacement problem, the answer would be about one third of a kilometer. The land was also the source of the water that ran into the sea which would also double the shift to two thirds of a kilometer in your question. That would leave only about one third of the uplift unaccounted for. (the rock being underwater and displacing one third of it's weight in water, may also have accounted for part of the uplift.) But it isn't a simple displacement problem, it is more of a hydraulic problem due to the inside of the earth being a closed system. Small local shifts are just displacement due to their small size compared to the size of the earth. But considering the fact that the oceans cover nearly three quarters of the earth, shifts of this size will have big effects on the small amount of land on the earth. I have also been stating that there are two difference mechanisms involved, the shallow one would account for the part you are already aware of. The deeper one related to the closed volume of the earth acting with a hydraulic effect would account for the other. The shallow plastic deformation of the earth's surface is well studied. But the deeper fluid deformation is not as well studied but has been noted by a number of geologists. Perhaps you remember reading about plastic verus fluid changes in some of the old geology books. On a large scale the earth can behave like squeezing a water filled rubber ball.
"Examples, please. 'My source' is hardly something that I can verify. And, by the way, have you heard of tectonics? There are ways of raising terraces other than by lowering of water levels"
The source was cited in the first posting on this. If you want the individual papers the original material appeared in, let me know which ones you want and I will post them or you can look it up in the book I cited yourself. Tectonics explanations were considered inadequate to explain the elevated terraces by the authors involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by edge, posted 07-04-2002 11:33 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by edge, posted 07-11-2002 1:07 AM wmscott has replied

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


Message 341 of 460 (13269)
07-10-2002 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by Percy
07-09-2002 11:09 PM


Percipient
Thank you, yes we do have areas where we agree. OEC is in much better harmony with current geology than YEC, even if it is not yet a complete agreement. With the right evidence the right type of OEC flood could be incorporated into geology with some adjustments, while if by some miracle YEC was proved true, geologists would probably throw up their hands and give up since the whole field would be scrap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Percy, posted 07-09-2002 11:09 PM Percy has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 342 of 460 (13292)
07-10-2002 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by wmscott
07-10-2002 6:28 PM


WmScott
I wouldn't say the flood was caused by the mid-Atlantic ridge itself - that was just a part of it. It was a global series of sea-floor spreading (primarily the atlantic/pacific, sure), continental plate separations, crustal heating, mantel heating and hot spots.
I'm not a geologist so it's not my theory. I just go along with the mainstream view (!) and speed it up via either Baumgardner et al runaway subduction or accelerated radioisotpoic decay or both. There seriously is no more to it than that.
I agree with mainstream geology in so many ways - just not on timing. I disagree with your later post where you say that if YEC was true mainstremers would have to throw away everything. No, No, No. Sorry but that is wrong because I already am a YEC and I go along with almost all of mainstream geology with one exception - timing. Yes there is a gross misinterpretation of the rate and even nature of formation of sediments. No argument there.
Why you ditch a speed up of mainstream processes because you can't personally think of a mechanism is what surprises me most about OE-Creationism. Do you have a mechanism for the parting of the red sea? Do you have a mechanism for the resurrection?
But amazingly we do have a basic mechanism, or at least the source of impulse of energy. The very biggest problem of YEC (radiodecay) provides the mechanism - the heat source. Just as a baby would never be born if the hormone levels (relaxin etc) were not spiked during birth, so to is it possible to completely misinterpret timing if you ignore the spike in radiodecay.
If you think the qualitative mainstream models of sea-floor spreading or continental drift distinguish between a gradual event and a catastrophic radiogenic heat accelerated event you are mistaken IMO. The mainstream predictions do not deterministically reproduce the continents or rule out a rapid drift! See my early thread on plate tectonics. How do you know what behaviour the plates would have sitting on a much hotter mantel? The mainstream model is a fitting to the data not a proof from data. What of the 'fountains of the deep' - sounds like plumes to me. God may know even more about this planet than we do!
Your 'would haves' and 'impossibles' are the rationalizations required to fit a particular a priori gradualistic model. They are not independent studies of what the raw data says. They are data fits for a given framework. Ditto for your analysis of glaciation timing.
OK - at least you say the YEC model is not without merit.
When was your flood? Are you seriously suggesting that all of the mountain ranges were that low, that recently using mainstream rates? I think this is the fundamental flaw in your argeument. Your ice arguement appears very contrived as the sciptures discuss the height of the rising floodwaters relative to local hills, plains and global mountains.
I agree the thousands of feet of sediment were ripped up pre-flood surface. It's just that there was no need to particularly have to do this everywhere. Basins probably have unconfomrities pretty much representing the pre-flood surface.
Your strata as sea-floor habitats are mainstream hope. The data in so many ways suggests that these marine strata were not true habitats. Paleocurrents, flatness and lack of mixing by burrowing. We find one-off burrows in the millions but the strata are un-mixied unlike true marine habitats.
Have you seen the evidence for rapid formation of strata under rapid flow? It is undeniable.
Have you seen my quotes of mainstream texts admitting that layering can and often does occur in 'hours, minutes and seconds'?
Are you aware that turbidite deposits represent about half of the geo-column?
Your argument suggesting gradual formation of strata does not rule out rapid formaiton at all. Why wouldn't one expect rapid formation of strata to bury living inddividuals? I have even seen mainsteam lecture notes where they suggest that marine strata are probably storm deposits becasue the strata just don't look like sea-floor habitats!
I think gravity and rapid flow solves your angle to vertical issue. The horizontally inclined paleocurrents of course demonsrate that much of the geo-col was laid rapidly.
I don't see why you expect the flood to drag the same amount of sediment thousands of miles out to sea as is found on continental shelves! It will be a gradual drop of as the sea floor deepens and as the distance from sediment source increases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by wmscott, posted 07-10-2002 6:28 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by wmscott, posted 07-17-2002 5:45 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

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


Message 343 of 460 (13317)
07-11-2002 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by wmscott
07-10-2002 6:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
Since water has about one third the density of rock, if it was a simple displacement problem, the answer would be about one third of a kilometer. The land was also the source of the water that ran into the sea which would also double the shift to two thirds of a kilometer in your question. That would leave only about one third of the uplift unaccounted for. (the rock being underwater and displacing one third of it's weight in water, may also have accounted for part of the uplift.) But it isn't a simple displacement problem, it is more of a hydraulic problem due to the inside of the earth being a closed system. Small local shifts are just displacement due to their small size compared to the size of the earth. But considering the fact that the oceans cover nearly three quarters of the earth, shifts of this size will have big effects on the small amount of land on the earth. I have also been stating that there are two difference mechanisms involved, the shallow one would account for the part you are already aware of. The deeper one related to the closed volume of the earth acting with a hydraulic effect would account for the other. The shallow plastic deformation of the earth's surface is well studied. But the deeper fluid deformation is not as well studied but has been noted by a number of geologists. Perhaps you remember reading about plastic verus fluid changes in some of the old geology books. On a large scale the earth can behave like squeezing a water filled rubber ball.

Actually, the average specific gravity of the mantle is 3.8. And since the land was the source of the water you would be spreading the water out over more of the ocean basins so there would actually be less water added per square kilometer of the ocean. You would also get some rebound of the land by removal of the ice, so that you need to make that difference up as well. Remember, your deeper effect (which remains undocumented, by the way and I do not accept it) has to uplift the land as well. Sorry, wmscott, it doesn't work.
By the way, I am still asking for evidence that the entire world was covered by water at one time. All these months and you have really given us nothing on this.
quote:
"Examples, please. 'My source' is hardly something that I can verify. And, by the way, have you heard of tectonics? There are ways of raising terraces other than by lowering of water levels"
The source was cited in the first posting on this. If you want the individual papers the original material appeared in, let me know which ones you want and I will post them or you can look it up in the book I cited yourself. Tectonics explanations were considered inadequate to explain the elevated terraces by the authors involved.

Well then, you need to provide us with the evidence that tectonism was an insufficient mechanism. We will not necessarily just accept your word for it. This is all really rather vague, but then I guess it has to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by wmscott, posted 07-10-2002 6:31 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by wmscott, posted 07-17-2002 5:48 PM edge has replied

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


Message 344 of 460 (13726)
07-17-2002 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Tranquility Base
07-10-2002 9:18 PM


Tranquility Base
It sounds like you are subscribing to a version of the Hydro plate theory. As I understand it, that theory states that the continents were all together in the Pangea land mass before the flood and during the flood suddenly moved to where they are today. Perhaps the biggest problem with this theory is that the continents did not move in a straight line from where they were then to where they are now. The locations of the land masses as they moved have been plotted using a number of geological clues. The results show that the movement of the continents looks like a dance as they twist and turn as they bump into one another as they moved along. A rapid movement in one year under the Hydro plate theory is always shown as occurring in straight lines, for if the land masses rotated and followed non-straight courses, the rapid movement would have generated enormous centrifugal forces as these huge masses turned or changed direction. Having this motion occur in such a short time increases the size of centrifugal forces to the point that the continents would have ripped the ocean floor that was moving them. This would have created Atlantic ridge like features on the pulling side and island arc like folding from the compression on the pushing side. The ocean floor has been mapped, take a look at map of the world's ocean floors and look for the evidence of rapid movement of the continents, there is none. Now if the Americas had been pushed away from contact with Africa and Europe in one year. The sea floor west of Americas would be very compressed and folded with a series of arc islands with deep trenches in between. Instead what we do have is a subduction trench where the pacific plate has been slowly pushed beneath the Americas.
Using seismic tremors, the inside of the earth has been mapped as well. Pressure and temperature effect the passage of vibrations through the rock inside the earth. At different temperatures and pressures, certain rocks crystallize in different states. This allows the cold descending pacific plate to be mapped and the temperature of the plate and the surrounding material to be estimated. Now if the Hydro Plate theory was true, there would be a cold supducted pacific plate reaching as deep into the earth as the mid Atlantic ridge is from the Americas east coast. The plate would also be uniformly cold due to its recent and sudden submergence. But that is not what we find, instead the descending plate starts cool and is hotter deeper down, indicating a slow supduction. The plate is also too short, the end is melted off well short of the necessary Hydro Plate distance. The temperatures are known fairly well and follow a certain curve with increasing depth, which means that we know what the temperatures are inside the earth and we also know how long it would take for the supducted plate to heat up and melt. With this information, we are able to show that the rate of plate heating and melting agrees with gradual slow movement over millions of years and is not compatible with rapid movement in a short time.
I had not heard of the sudden burst of heat from a surge in the earth's internal radiation as being the motor behind the Hydro plate movement before. Such a surge is not possible, for radioactive decay does just that, it decays, the level of activity slow drops off. The only way you could get a surge is in a run away chain reaction, a radioactive flash effect. This can happen when too much radioactive material is stored too close together and you get a positive feed back effect. This doesn't work for the earth since the density or amount of radioactive material per cubit mile inside the earth is far far too low to cause this to happen. If the earth had this much radioactive material in it, it would be too radioactive to live on. The radiation would sterilized the planet. Such a run away event would have produced large quantifies of secondary short lived radioactive daughter products. Yet even in deep drilling of the earth and in lava ejected from deep inside the earth, we fail to find such traces or their decay products in the amounts such an event would have created. And as pointed out in the preceding paragraph, the temperature/pressure profile of the inside of the earth has been mapped and shows no signs of a past burst of heat. Due to the earth's enormous volume and heat storage capacity of rock, it would take an extremely long time (millions to billions of years) for the earth's temperature to drop any significant amount. Once heated, all of the heat has to be slowly dissipated through the earth's crust and atmosphere out into space. Without a means of getting rid of the excess heat at the end of the flood, the 'radiation heat acceleration' model is dead in the water on this point alone and a temperature event this large would be extremely obvious in studies of the earth's interior. The complete lack of evidence in favor of this model, and the amount of evidence that is in direct conflict with it, clearly indicates this is a theory that is not a possibility.
The mainstream knowledge of the Mid Atlantic ridge DOES rule out rapid movement. Palo magnetism, the record of magnetic reversals recorded on the ocean floor records a vast amount of time. YEC I know would have all of these reversals occurring in one year, but considering the vast changes that would have to occur in the magnetic flows inside the earth this is impossible. Even if it were possible to snap off the magnetic source, it would still take a long time for the field itself to collapse. Then even if you snap turned it back on reversed, it would take a long time for the field to build to full strength. Then there is the depth of sediment, which is none on the active parts of the ridge and gradually increases the farther you get away from the ridge. Now the rate of increasing depth of sediment with increasing distance agrees with the increasing age of ocean floor and the slow rate of sedimentation that occurs in the oceans. Now I guess you would have to say that it is just a coincident that the current sediment rate just happens to match up with slow rate geology believes the ocean basin formed at. However, I would like to point out that you are saying that something like 600 million years of currently believed geologic activity took place in the one year of the flood, then the 1.5 million years for the last ice age took place in a few hundred years after the flood and then the rate ran at our current rate for the last few thousand years. This would unavoidable create three very different rates of sedimentation on the ocean floor, which we do not see. Instead we see one slow continuous rate. Life can not be accelerated, if the rates of sedimentation were accelerated, there would be in comparison much lower percentages of traces of marine life. Yet coring of the ocean sediments doesn't show any significant reductions in the amount of marine life sediment compared to none living sedimentation. That in turn highlights the fact that most of the sediments on the ocean floor are the remains of marine life, which of course is impossible to have occurred at much higher rates than what we see today. If you wish to say that preexisting ocean sediments were stirred up in the flood and then settled out, we would not see the thinning in depth as the Mid Atlantic ridge is approached, such an event would have left a even coating on the ocean floor which is not what we find.
And what about the ice age animals? They appeared in the ice age and most of them disappeared when it ended. If they lived after the flood, why did they die? Where did they come from? If they were from before the flood, under YEC they lived in a greenhouse planet, how did they do so well in an ice age and why did they then die off when it got warmer again? And if the ice age was so short, why do we find so many millions and millions of fossil remains from them.
I am aware of the evidence for rapid formation of strata under rapid flow. I believe you are referring to the work of Neo-Catastrophists. I agree with Neo-catastrophism and so do most modern geologists. But you are confusing Neo-Catastrophism with Catasrophism which was disproved and discarded back in the early 1800's. The book "Great Geological Controversies" 2ed, by A. Hallam, has chapter on the history of this called 'Catastrophists and uniformitarians' on pages 30-64. A more in-depth coverage is found in Charles Coulston Gillispie's "Genesis and Geology". Your sources are probably referring to the work of Derek Ager who is one of the founding fathers of Neo-catastrophism. Ager accepts the great age of the earth and doesn't even believe in the flood. His theory is that some and only some deposits have been rapidly formed. In his book "The New Catastrophism" he repeatedly complained about YECs misquoting him and misapplying his work. Neo or new catastrophism in no way supports a rapid creation of the geologic column in the flood. Under this main stream geologic theory, only some deposits were created rapidly, and by known effects like slumping, sandstorms, landslides, turbity currents, etc., not by deluge super currents or whatever. There is no geologic support at all for forming most of the geologic column in the flood. As for 'turbidite deposits represent about half of the geo-column'. Perhaps in some locations, here there are none. Many other areas also have none, and those that do, the sources are generally known. In turbibity current deposits the fossils will not all be laying flat, and there will be no evidence of different sea bottoms one above the other. A turibity current of the magnitude of which you describe would be like pouring out the contents of a blender into a cake pan, no layers, no leveling of things mixed in. Next time you are eating a cake or ice-cream with nuts or something mixed in, look at how randomly they are positioned. They don't all lay flat in discrete layers. Now if the cook bakes his cakes one layer at a time and then adds a layer of nuts before pouring in the next, then you get layers, now that takes a lot more time, but then that is the whole point.
You are correct about the sediment amounts decreasing with increasing distance from the source, however currents of the strength and speed necessary to rip up the pre flood land surface would have carried their load great distances before dropping them. For example, the megaflooding caused by the release of water from lake Missoila that created the scablands in Washington state, created turbidity currents in the Pacific ocean. "Long-distance transport of Missoula Flood sediments across the abyssal Pacific Ocean floor is indicated by the lithology of pebbles recovered form the Blanco Fracture Zone. However, the data from Ocean Drilling Program sites 1037 and 1038 provide clear evidence that sediment-charged Missoula floodwater entered the ocean close to the heads of Astoria and Willapa Canyons" Flood and Megaflood Processes and Deposits: Recent and Ancient Examples, page 5. The Missoula floods carried terrestrial material far out to sea in turbidity currents on the ocean floor. They were also able to map the deposit, its extent and where it entered the ocean. Now compared to the flood induced erosion you are theorizing, the Missoula floods were minor. Yet no mention is made of a much bigger deposit below the Missoula layer. How can a smaller flood create a turidity deposit while the YEC flood created none? If YEC was true we would expect to find this graduated terrestrial sediment off the continental margins, but it is not there. The only logical conclusion I can reach is that the deluge did not involve high speed currents and massive wide spread turbidity currents of unbelievable power that YEC flood models are dependent on.
You pointed out that we do not have a mechanism for the parting of the red sea or for the resurrection. Science is also unable to study these things since science is a study of the natural world and not the supernatural. Using a supernatural mechanism for any geological deposits would remove that portion of geology from what can be studied scientifically. Creation of the entire geological record by supernatural means would put the science of geology out of business since they would have next to nothing that could be interpreted rationally without invoking unexplainable supernatural events. Which is why YEC is viewed as being fundamentally opposed to the science of geology.
On the timing of my flood model, the biblical date for the flood seems to match up best with the end of the last ice age which is currently believed to have happened about 10,000 years ago. I favor the Biblical date, but allow for the possibility that the flood may have occurred earlier. The hills and mountains where lower in the ice age due to depression by the weight of glacial ice. The return of the glacial melt waters to the sea has depressed the ocean floors which in turn created a general uplift of the land. These two effects indicate the ice age mountains were at lower elevations, how much lower I don't know. The other possibility is that the high points were covered with water that was in the form of ice. Now there was glacial ice floating in the deluge as shown by the greatly elevated drop stones. Now if there was a glacier floating in the flood waters, what difference would it make if it covered a mountain? A mountain beneath ice is underwater whether or not the peak is above or below the sea level. I am not saying this was the case, but I view it as a possible explanation to what for many is a major problem with a global flood. This interpretation would still be in harmony with the wording in Genesis, even if it would conflict with how many read it. We should avoid trying to mentally limit the flood events to just the way we think they had to happen, for we can be wrong, sometimes things didn't happen the way we may think they did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-10-2002 9:18 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Percy, posted 07-17-2002 6:56 PM wmscott has not replied

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


Message 345 of 460 (13727)
07-17-2002 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by edge
07-11-2002 1:07 AM


edge
What exactly would you accept as proof that the post ice age flooding was global anyway? I have been supplying evidence that shows very high levels of flooding. You seem to be demanding Noah's ark parked on Mount Everest. What exactly do you expect to find? I would like to know just what it would take to convince you.
We both agree on glacial rebound and hydro static depression as being two effects that would help raise the level of the land at the end of a global flood. I would also like to point out that due to the scale these events took place on, hydrostatically depressing most of the ocean floors on the globe will result in a compensating rise in the land, and wide spread glacial rebound will result in a lowering of other areas such as the sea floors which are thinner and more flexible. You want documentation of deep flexing? Short of a video of it happening in the flood I doubt you will believe any evidence I present. I think what I will do is ask you a question. Please explain the formation of the following. "On Lanai fossileferous marine limestone as much as 45 meters thick extends up 165 meters altitude containing many shell fragments and foraminifera is found as high as 167 meters, these deposit are believed to mark a former shoreline at about 170 meters altitude. . . . Kahoolawe . . . shoreline 240 meters" then there are the submerged shorelines "One of the most remarkable features of the submarine topography around the Hawaiian Islands is a broad shelf at a depth of 900 to 1,100 meters. It surrounds all of the islands except the south end of the island of Hawaii, where is may have been buried by lavas of Mauna Loa, Kilauea and Hualalai. . . . there appears to be no other reasonable explanation for it except wave erosion," "Volcanoes in the Sea; The Geology of Hawaii" 2ed, 279-281. The submerged shorelines are easily explainable, they show what is expected to be found in the Hawaii Islands. But the elevated shorelines and particularly the elevated limestones are interesting, and no I am not saying the limestones were created in the flood, it was far too brief for that. So when and how was the 170 meter shoreline formed? That is my question for you, I know the answer, I want to see if you know as much about geology as you think you do. This relates directly to how changes in ocean volume can affect relative sea level changes on coasts and islands in ways we might not expect.
The reason the authors didn't view tectonic uplift as a explanation was some examples were in areas that have not have recent tectonic uplift, passive areas and others where the amount of elevation was far above the amount of uplift that has occurred from recent tectonic movement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by edge, posted 07-11-2002 1:07 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by edge, posted 07-17-2002 10:56 PM wmscott has replied

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


Message 346 of 460 (13729)
07-17-2002 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by wmscott
07-17-2002 5:45 PM


Wmscott,
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by wmscott, posted 07-17-2002 5:45 PM wmscott 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