Plate tectonics, mountain building, and the Flood

quote:

---

Consider. And bare with me, my math is horrible.

---

JM: Ok, I'm naked, now what?CheersJoe MeertPS: Could not resist that one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:

quote:

---

Consider. And bare with me, my math is horrible.

---

​

JM: Ok, I'm naked, now what?

​

PS: Could not resist that one.

---

I can never do math with clothes on... I guess I assume everyone is the same. But... since you are nekkid already, are my figures at least close enough that the Math Guild will let me live?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 01-18-2003]

"Nowhere in Joe's article does he state that the ocean floor was shallow. His point is that if the ocean floor is 6,000 years old then it ought to be a uniform 15 meters deep."
--And you don't call that shallow?"Quite clearly the ocean floor isn't 15 meters deep, and so the present bathymetry can't be reconciled with the idea that the ocean floor is 6,000 years old."
--You should read Meerts source T & S - Geodynamics and find the sections where it explains the principle of isostatic balance. After that, you will see that ocean bathymetry will not stay in such condition.--To make this clearer for you, a mainstream analogy: Eustatic levels in the Cretaceous (80 Ma) were 300m higher than it is today, and water flooded about 40% of the present area of the continents. Such eustatic changes are due to this same process directly associated with Meerts calculations. And Sea levels in the past imply larger values of the mean oceanic heat flux. Were not at that present level are we, bathymetry rebounded.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Nowhere in Joe's article does he state that the ocean floor was shallow. His point is that if the ocean floor is 6,000 years old then it ought to be a uniform 15 meters deep."
--And you don't call that shallow?

---

Yes, I'd call 15 meters shallow, but what I'd call it is irrelevant. The point is that the ocean floor should be 15 meters deep if it formed a few thousand years ago, and since the ocean floor isn't 15 meters deep that's a good indication it didn't form a few thousand years ago.

quote:

---

"Quite clearly the ocean floor isn't 15 meters deep, and so the present bathymetry can't be reconciled with the idea that the ocean floor is 6,000 years old."
--You should read Meerts source T & S - Geodynamics and find the sections where it explains the principle of isostatic balance. After that, you will see that ocean bathymetry will not stay in such condition.

---

I'm familiar with isostasy, and it doesn't eliminate the problem that the ocean floor should presently be 15 meters deep if it formed a few thousand years ago.

quote:

---

--To make this clearer for you, a mainstream analogy: Eustatic levels in the Cretaceous (80 Ma) were 300m higher than it is today, and water flooded about 40% of the present area of the continents. Such eustatic changes are due to this same process directly associated with Meerts calculations. And Sea levels in the past imply larger values of the mean oceanic heat flux. Were not at that present level are we, bathymetry rebounded.

---

I have no problem with the concept that increased spreading rates result in increases in global sea level, but that's also irrelevent to the problem to a young earth point of view caused by the present bathymetry of the oceans. If the spreading rate is high, a lot of hot crust will be generated. Since the crust is young and hot, it has a lower density than older cooler crust, so it rides higher in the mantle than that older, cooler crust; or in other words the ocean depth will be less above the hot, young crust than it will above the old, cool crust. This will displace water on to the continents, but that's still irrelvent to the issue of the present bathymetry of the oceans. If all of the ocean floor was composed of hot,young crust (say a few thousand years old), then it should be riding high on the mantle, and the ocean should be correspondingly shallow, and it isn't.Sure spreading rates have varied in the past, but so what. How does that effect the problem caused by the current bathymetry of the oceans?How do you think isostasy resolves this problem for young earthers? Sure, the depth of the ocean floor will change due to isostasy; as the ocean floor cools, it becomes denser, and rides lower on the mantle, and the ocean will be correspondingly deeper above it.How do you account for the present bathymetry of the ocean floor?

quote:

---

Originally posted by David unfamous:
LRP,

​

I've entered into this a bit late, but since when has Pangea thought to have been a circular continent?

---

Snider (1858) was I think the first person to reconstruct the continents and this was to all intents and purposes circular
when plotted on the curved surface of the globe.Wegener(1915) also managed to get it close to circular.
Du Toit(1937) Smith and Hallam (1970), Tarling (1972) and Powell et al (1980) seem to have made it a bit more elliptical.An eliptical shape would be more in keeping with the method of formation I have suggested.

quote:

---

Before the formation of any land mass the Earth had to have a covering of water with an average depth of around 4000m.

---

-------------------------------------------------------
Why? Where is the common sense science to support this?
-------------------------------------------------------Take the volume of water in all of the Earths oceans at present.
Divide this with the present earths surface. Answer about 4000m----------------------------------------
What sudden appearance of a land mass?
---------------------------------------
The supercontinent Pangaea----------------------------------------------------------------
That exhibited impossible dynamics, like neatly spreading itself into a circular continent that somehow also represents the ring of fire.
-----------------------------------------------------------------No.The Pacific ring of fire only marks the rim of the immense crater that was formed when planetissimal Pangaea plunged into the ocean and bounced off before coming to rest further on on the water covered globe.--------------------------------------------------------------------
You do know that the crash would have to create all of the layers of sediment and rock as well as deposits of salt, oil, etc. that are found in the continents? And this without melting most of it?
------------------------------------------------------------------Yes. The planetissimal was itself covered over by a thick coating of
ice (like some of Jupiter's moons) so much of its sediment and hydrocarbons) survived the crash. A lot probably got burnt off and methamorphised. Sorting of the sediments by continuous tidal forces would also have taken place after the crash. But the remains are here for all to explore.
I believe a good part of the coal we have was infact original carbon
made in space but some coal formation subsequently and evidently took place. But millions of years for this are not required.-------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

No doubt geological processes worked on this immense deposit and in time produced the geology we have today.

---

How much time? 4.3 billion years maybe?
------------------------------------------------------------------
A strong NO. Four billion years would have seen the complete eradication of the immense deposit. Bearing in mind the nature of the deposits and the heat involved and the isostatic imbalance the whole of the Geological Column as we see it today need not have taken more than perhaps 50,000yearsto form.-------------------------------------------------------------------
Except an impact of something the size you propose would destroy the planet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A strong NO again. The planetissimal did not appear from nowhere but was in a spiralling orbit that began further away from the then Earth but in the same plane. Consequently the crash when it came would have to be a 'soft landing' on a deep ocean. The Moon is another planetissimal that fortunately for us did not crash.
We must remember that our planet is really a collection of asteroids,
and planetissimals. The planetissimal that formed the supercontinent was simply a late comer (by God's design no doubt)

quote:

---

Wegener(1915) also managed to get it close to circular.
Du Toit(1937) Smith and Hallam (1970), Tarling (1972) and Powell et al (1980) seem to have made it a bit more elliptical.

​

An eliptical shape would be more in keeping with the method of formation I have suggested.

---

JM: A better description would be C-shaped.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
JS: "Nowhere in Joe's article does he state that the ocean floor was shallow. His point is that if the ocean floor is 6,000 years old then it ought to be a uniform 15 meters deep."

​

--And you don't call that shallow?

---

Hunh? Would you mind terribly explaining the reasoning behind this question?

quote:

---

JS: "Quite clearly the ocean floor isn't 15 meters deep, and so the present bathymetry can't be reconciled with the idea that the ocean floor is 6,000 years old."

​

--You should read Meerts source T & S - Geodynamics and find the sections where it explains the principle of isostatic balance. After that, you will see that ocean bathymetry will not stay in such condition.

---

Thank you for the lesson, but I think that is what we are saying. When the oceanic crust cools, it will sink. In 6000 years, it will not cool enough to sink as far as it has.

quote:

---

--To make this clearer for you, ...

---

Ah, good! Another lesson from TC who has read a few geology papers.

quote:

---

... a mainstream analogy: Eustatic levels in the Cretaceous (80 Ma) were 300m higher than it is today, and water flooded about 40% of the present area of the continents.

---

(Hmm, that still leaves 60% of the continents, but who's counting, eh?)

quote:

---

Such eustatic changes are due to this same process directly associated with Meerts calculations. And Sea levels in the past imply larger values of the mean oceanic heat flux. Were not at that present level are we, bathymetry rebounded.

---

Yes, and it has been doing so for a long period of time. In fact, some of the oceanic crust has been cooling for 80 My, which accounts for the present ocean depths. The point, which you have predictably missed, is that your flood scenario does not account for the existing depths.

"Yes, I'd call 15 meters shallow, but what I'd call it is irrelevant. The point is that the ocean floor should be 15 meters deep if it formed a few thousand years ago, and since the ocean floor isn't 15 meters deep that's a good indication it didn't form a few thousand years ago. "
--No, it would have been like that for a time, the will rebound without the increased heat flux. This is something you have missed."I'm familiar with isostasy, and it doesn't eliminate the problem that the ocean floor should presently be 15 meters deep if it formed a few thousand years ago. "
--I don't think you are, because if you were, you would see that it doesn't stay like that. Its either that or the relationship between density and temperature in this scenario which you are missing."This will displace water on to the continents, but that's still irrelvent to the issue of the present bathymetry of the oceans. If all of the ocean floor was composed of hot,young crust (say a few thousand years old), then it should be riding high on the mantle, and the ocean should be correspondingly shallow, and it isn't. "
--Thats because it doesn't stay that hot."How do you account for the present bathymetry of the ocean floor?"
--The fact that it has cooled for the past couple thousand years.------------------

John SI'm happy to psotpone sedemintological aspects (they've been discussed a lot in the past here you realise of course).I agree with everything you've written. I'll just point out that you are yet to come up with any hard data on heights. Your cited 9km is really a theoretical/extrapolated expectation. In our sceanrio these warpings and uplifts happened catastrophically simultaneously with huge flood sruges. So the uplifts could have occurred shattering rock that was catastrophically carried away. It may never have reached the heights you understandably expect even though the left over warping is compatible with such heigths.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"How do you account for the present bathymetry of the ocean floor?"
--The fact that it has cooled for the past couple thousand years.

---

So, don't you think someone would have notice that sea level has dropped thousands of feet in the last 2k years?Unbelievable! Your scenario is getting sillier and sillier all the time.More later... I need recovery time from that one![This message has been edited by edge, 01-19-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I agree with everything you've written. I'll just point out that you are yet to come up with any hard data on heights.

---

Perhaps you can give us an idea what you consider 'hard data' by showing us what you've got to indicate a smooth earth.

quote:

---

Your cited 9km is really a theoretical/extrapolated expectation. In our sceanrio these warpings and uplifts happened catastrophically simultaneously with huge flood sruges. So the uplifts could have occurred shattering rock that was catastrophically carried away.

---

How was it catastrophically carried away? Remember, you have to transplant trees into a growth position and leave them standing with the ebb flow of these surges.Where is the evidence of these catastrophic erosion events? Where are they in the geological record?Have you calculated the strain rates necessary in your scenario? Why do we see folded rocks and metamorphic terranes at all?

quote:

---

It may never have reached the heights you understandably expect even though the left over warping is compatible with such heigths.

---

The point here is that the onus is upon you to show that things were different. We have reason to believe that there were mountains prior to the last 4000 years. You have nothing but a biblical myth that carries no evidence of a smooth earth. The smooth earth is strictly a construct that you have created by necessity.

Edge Quite true although I got the impression that on average there may have been fewer high mountains in the Paleozoic/early Mesozoic. I may be wrong.Like I said, I've searched for the data and come up empty handed. I have learned quite a bit from John S on the issue and that will help me next time I venture out into the geo-lit on this issue.

True Creation,

quote:

---

True Creation:
--I don't think you are, because if you were, you would see that it doesn't stay like that. Its either that or the relationship between density and temperature in this scenario which you are missing.

---

Of course the depth of the ocean floor changes as the crust cools, that was the point of Joe Meert's article, and I've explained that myself several times in this thread. Of course the ocean floor doesn't stay as hot as it was when it form, I've been over that too. However, if the ocean floor has only been cooling for a few thousand years, then it should only have cooled enough to have a depth of 15 meters. Nothing you've written to this point has addressed this problem.Letting the ocean cool for a couple thousand years won't do it; you'll wind up with an ocean that 15 meters deep. Appealing to isostasy won't do it; you'll wind up with ocean floor that rides on the mantle at a level that results in an ocean that's 15 meters deep. Nothing you've written has explained why this shouldn't be the case.To this point, your answers have been frustratingly low on information. I'd appreciate it if you take the time to write a longer more detailed post explaining your idea.

Let’s not forget that heat is a huge problem that completely falsifies all runaway tectonic models before, during or after the flood, independent of the ocean depth problem and the totally unrealistic geophysical parameters that are invoked ad hoc to get the process going.We discussed this in detail on the Baumgardner thread.http://EvC Forum: Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators! -->EvC Forum: Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators!All the YEC flood models that I have seen rely on absurd scenarios that would have killed ALL life or at least all air breathing life many times over.Randy