Polar ice caps and possible rise in sea level

Wmscott! And here I thought you were out collecting more data to support your thesis. I am disappointed.You state:

quote:

---

"Hydroisostasy, the continents sank beneath the ice and the oceans rebounded. Water is only one third the weight of rock, but with Hydroisostasy you get to count it twice since you are using it twice, one in the sea by removing it and once on the land by placing it. That is a lot of displacement."

---

First, your rock/water ratio is wrong. You are not replacing the water covering the oceans with just any rock. You must replace it with mantle material. So, the ratio should be something greater than 4. Second, since the continents only make up about a third of the planet, you can only sink that much continental crust to displace mantle material to the oceanic area. Your displacement is getting smaller.Now if your flood is the result of such great displacement between the oceanic and continental crusts, why do we not see some structural evidence of this along all continent/ocean boundaries?Now, have you any evidence that your contrived sea level was anything more than a few hundred meters? If not, then you have no basis for a global flood any more than one can say that we presently have a global flood.

quote:

---

For further information I would suggest reading my book "Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood" available at https://www1.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid...

---

Pardon me for being a skeptic, but this be what your participation here is all about? Sorry, once again, Mr. Anderson, but usually research comes before publishing.This message has been edited by edge, 09-18-2004 02:52 PM

quote:

---

As for flooding higher elevations I allow for the possibility that they had their covering of water in the form of glacial ice which at that time, existed at all higher elevations, so the flood water level only had to reach the edges of the glaciers to be global.

---

This is a quite a reach. First of all it kind of throws out the standard definition of 'flood'. Not exactly biblical, either. I'll have to remember to apply for flood assistance after the next snowstorm. Second, this should mean that we have evidence for either innundation or glaciation in every part of the world at the end of the LGM. Such evidence would help your thesis. I am surprised that you have not researched this. If you have, please present such evidence.

quote:

---

Also it must be remembered that the mountains of today are not the mountains of pre-flood world. Of coarse both parties use the fossils on top of mountains info. It can be assumed the mountains whatever their makeup were low ones.

---

Not according to Genesis....Genesis 7:19
"They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered."To me this indicates that there were high mountains prior to the flood. Please explain.

quote:

---

Yes, that is the evidence that I am currently looking for. I have already found traces of Marine Diatoms here in Wisconsin at a thousand feet as you know, and now I am trying to improve my metrology and collect more information on this finding.

---

Keeping in mind, of course, that some of that 1000 feet of elevation is due to isostatic rebound.

quote:

---

Wouldn't it then be very easy to prove that part of the earths crust was indeed under water at some point, other than just seashell fossils?

---

I'm not sure what you are asking. It is easy to show that a particular location was underwater at a particular time. THe point is that it has never been proven that all locations were underwater at one particular time.This is what wmscott is trying to say. That there was a point in time that every place on earth was under water for a period of time after the last LGM. But he has no evidence to support the statment. He can only say that in the area of Wisconsin that he lives there was (MAYBE) a brief innudation by marine waters up to an elevation of a few hundred feet. And he really has very little solid evidence to back up even that minimal thesis. He has not entertained other sources for the diatoms, he rejects alternate transport systems, and his diatom identification is very questionable.