Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 152 of 234 (34231)
03-12-2003 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by wmscott
03-12-2003 5:35 PM


Re: Reopening This Thread
Hi WmScott!
I think you're a bit off topic. If you'd really like a response then why don't you repost in a new thread in the Is It Science forum or the Faith and Belief forum - I'm not sure which would be the better fit.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by wmscott, posted 03-12-2003 5:35 PM wmscott has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1788 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 153 of 234 (34377)
03-14-2003 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by wmscott
03-12-2003 5:35 PM


Re: Reopening This Thread
quote:
So are there any open minds out there that would like to discuss the Biblical flood?
If you were to provide some evidence that a biblical flood actually occurred, we could discuss it. However, in the last year or so, you have only presented us with vague suggestions, questionable logic and unsupported assertions that have been refuted or readily explained by normal, natural processes. Nothing you have given us compels any type of global flood hypothesis.
And yes, I am prejudiced. I like to see complete, well-developed arguments that support a position...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by wmscott, posted 03-12-2003 5:35 PM wmscott has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 234 (34440)
03-14-2003 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
11-11-2002 5:54 PM


quote:
Of course mainstream science doesn't agree that the entire surface of the planet was ever covered. However, the highlands would have been significantly lower during the earlier stages of the continental movements which built many of the mountain chains. The highlands would also be the last, and most briefly covered, and would only have received a light sprinkling of sediment. Highlands also preferntially erode more quickly. There are many reasons to not expect to find evidence for a complete covering of the earth.
I just found this forum today and don't know what all's been covered, but here's my take on the preflood and postflood surface of the earth.
1. Before the flood the majority of our ocean waters were in the atmosphere providing a protective terrarium canopy over the earth.
2. My understanding of the earth's crust is that the average thickness under the oceans is about 3 miles, whereas the average of the continents is 20 miles thick.
3. When the first rain came (the flood) the weight of the water sank the thinner crust areas into the molten core creating the deep oceans.
4. The displacement of the core occupied by the deeper oceans forced the mountain ranges up, creating the islands and mountain ranges.
5. It took less water to originally cover the earth than it would for the earth as we know it now because the sinking and the uplifting would take some time for it all to consumate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-11-2002 5:54 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Randy, posted 03-15-2003 6:45 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 156 by Admin, posted 03-15-2003 8:24 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6329 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 155 of 234 (34446)
03-15-2003 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Buzsaw
03-14-2003 11:46 PM


cooking with vapor canopies
quote:
I just found this forum today and don't know what all's been covered, but here's my take on the preflood and postflood surface of the earth.
1. Before the flood the majority of our ocean waters were in the atmosphere providing a protective terrarium canopy over the earth.
The vapor canopy hypothesis was discredited long ago. It is not possible to have a majority of the water now in the oceans in the atmosphere without cooking the earth to death. To get even a few hundred meters of global rain from a small fraction of the waters in the ocean requires an atmosphere of saturated steam.
There is estimated to be enough water in the atmosphere to produce about 1 inch of global rain ( about 1.3 10^16 kg). There are about 1.4 billion cubic kilometers of water in the oceans, weighing about 1.4 x 10^21 kg. Thus there is 10,000 times more water in the oceans than in the air. Air at 100 F and 100% RH holds about 50 g water per cubic meter so the only way to put a majority of the water in the oceans into the atmosphere is to have an atmosphere of saturated steam. Atmospheric pressure is hydrostatic so the pressure will be very high. Using my steam tables, the amount of water in the oceans and the area of the earth, I calculate that to have 51% of the water now in the oceans in the air would require an atmosphere 100 km deep, saturated with steam at a temperature of 392 F with a pressure of about 135 atmospheres. This doesn’t sound protective to me though it would certainly protect against the existence of life.
The rest of your take also has serious problems but since you start off with impossibility I don’t feel the need to address them now. Maybe others will.
PS: This thread has been to discuss a specific flood model by Wm Scott. If you want to address your ideas you might want to start another thread. You might want to do a little research first and not present things like the vapor canopy that even most creationist organizations have long abandoned.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Buzsaw, posted 03-14-2003 11:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 156 of 234 (34452)
03-15-2003 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Buzsaw
03-14-2003 11:46 PM


Randy's note that this thread is for WmScott's flood perspectives as described in his book by the same title as this thread is accurate, but you're more than welcome to open another thread in this forum to discuss your own views.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Buzsaw, posted 03-14-2003 11:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6330 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 157 of 234 (34463)
03-15-2003 1:54 PM


Key words; the deluge, Noah, Noah's flood, ark, Noah's ark, Bible, Biblical flood.
It is time to get this thread back on track. It would seem that I have worn out all the old posters and am in need of some fresh input. So if you would like to put in your two cents worth, here is your chance. Let me sum up my position.
First I have published a book;
Available at https://www1.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid...
Called "Solving The Mystery of the Biblical Flood" in which I put forward a theory that a recent global flood happened towards the end of the last ice age. In my book I present a range of possibilities, but I have since narrowed it down a bit with some minor changes. My current thinking that there was a major comet impact event in late ice age time that effected large areas of the ice sheets and released a huge amount of glacial melt water that ran into the seas and raised global sea levels high enough to trigger glacial surging which in turn triggered more surging, this is called the domino effect. It is known that the ice age ended very abruptly with super floods of suddenly released melt waters which created massive erosion such as is found in the Washington scablands shown below.
[Reduced size of graphic. Click on graphic for larger size. --Admin]
The flooding in the above area was huge and created massive bars, channels and giant dry water falls. As fantastic as the spokan floods in the scablands were, there is an even bigger example in Russia, and all along the former edges of the Wisconsin age ice sheet margins we find evidence of super flooding erosion. This evidence also shows up in drainage patterns such as in the river pictured below.
As you can see the modern river is flowing in the filled in bed that was cut by a massive flow of water from the melting ice sheets. Evidence for late glacial super flooding also exists in streamlined landforms such as drumlins and channels which have streamlined erosion features formed by a massive flow of water.
To create such a massive sudden release of water would require a very large number of comet impacts spread out all over a large area of the ice sheets in late glacial times. There is evidence that just such a event occurred, across large areas of the eastern United States there is a mysterious land formation known as the Carolina Bays. The bays are believed to have been formed in late glacial times by unknown means, a comet impact explanation has been put forward by a number of scientists and is the best and only plausible explanation. Look at the pictures below of the Carolina bays and notice the obvious impact patterns as would be created by angled comet fragments exploding on impact on a sandy soil.
The theory that the bays were created by comet fragments from a comet or comets that exploded high in the atmosphere and spread out across the country side like a giant shot gun blast is also supported by the fan like alinement seen in the oval shaped bays.
It is believed that there are over 500,000 Carolina Bays that still exist and that the total number when they were created was perhaps two and half million. That is a lot of impacts and a lot of heat, if this type of event happened on a ice age ice sheet, it would have resulted in a huge release of ice water. As the map shows, the comet that created the Carolina Bays exploded just south of the late Wisconsin ice sheet margin, the super flood evidence and the finding of possible micro tektites in Wisconsin points towards a large number of comet impacts also having occurring on the ice sheet in Canada at the same time. Like other comet events, the exploding Carolina bay comet was only one of several large pieces of a large comet that had been broked apart in space by the gravity of a too close past to the sun or one of the large outer planets before it approached the earth. If one or more other comet pieces also hit the large ice sheet over Canada and possibly other ice sheets as well, the release of water would have easily raised sea levels high enough to trigger a domino chain reaction among the ice age ice sheets.
Such a large entry of water and ice into the world's oceans would have raised sea level far above what it is found at today and would have temporally flooded the earth. How high were the flood waters? In the ice age all the high elevations were all covered by glaciers, so a raising sea level would have had to only reached the edges of the glaciers for the entire world to be covered by water. On the other hand perhaps the flood waters rose high enough to cover the tops of the mountains which the weight of the glaciers had depressed to lower elevations than they are found at today.
There is evidence to support a late glacial global flooding event. Such an event would leave behind traces of marine life stranded on land far from the sea in places we otherwise would not expect to find it. One example of this is the Michigan Whale bones found at the following locations.
The bones were isolated bones found buried in recent glacial till by stream action and dug up by basement excavations. The whales represented are modern whales and the bones are recent. There are also glacial drop stones found in non glaciated areas that must have been dropped by floating ice and there are marine diatoms found in places far inland in places the sea supposedly never reached.
Then at the end of such a flood the sea floors, which the shift of water back to the seas would have been depressed back down to their pre ice age positions and the land would have rebounded to it's former pre ice age elevations as well. We also have plenty of evidence to support these movements in the form of river erosion on the submerged continental shelves, submerged sea mounts that were recently above water, sluggish ice age drainage patterns, patterns seen in late and post ice age tilting in coastal areas and off shore sediment patterns.
There is also much more evidence in other fields as well, human and some animal DNA distribution patterns, the late ice age extinction event, the pattern seen in the replacement of ice age animals by modern animals, archeology, folklore and human migration movements. There is a lot of evidence supporting a recent global which is why it took a book to publish it. As long as this thread has gotten, there a lot of areas that we never got into, so there is still much to discuss and many points that can be reviewed.
Sincerely yours Wm Scott Anderson
[This message has been edited by Admin, 03-15-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-16-2003 3:48 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 159 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-16-2003 3:59 PM wmscott has replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2613 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 158 of 234 (34517)
03-16-2003 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by wmscott
03-15-2003 1:54 PM


Double Posting Apology
wmscott wrote in Message 157 of 157:
... duplicate article deleted...
I apologize for posting the same article twice. I
don't how I managed to double post this this
post twice. Also, I don't know how I managed to
overlook the fact that I double posted the same post
until today. Way too preoccupied with current events
at this time to think straight about what I am doing.
Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by wmscott, posted 03-15-2003 1:54 PM wmscott has not replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2613 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 159 of 234 (34519)
03-16-2003 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by wmscott
03-15-2003 1:54 PM


wmscott wrote in Message 157 of 157:
"It is believed that there are over 500,000 Carolina
Bays that still exist and that the total number when
they were created was perhaps two and half million.
That is a lot of impacts and a lot of heat, if this
type of event happened on a ice age ice sheet, it
would have resulted in a huge release of ice water.
As the map shows, the comet that created the Carolina
Bays exploded just south of the late Wisconsin ice sheet
margin, the super flood evidence and the finding of
possible micro tektites in Wisconsin points towards a
large number of comet impacts also having occurring
on the ice sheet in Canada at the same time. Like
other comet events, the exploding Carolina bay comet
was only one of several large pieces of a large comet
that had been broked apart in space by the gravity of
a too close past to the sun or one of the large outer
planets before it approached the earth. If one or more
other comet pieces also hit the large ice sheet over
Canada and possibly other ice sheets as well, the
release of water would have easily raised sea levels
high enough to trigger a domino chain reaction among
the ice age ice sheets."
====== end of wmscott quote ==========================
Unfortunately, much, if not all of what Mr. wmscott
states above about the Carolina Bays has been largely
refuted by detailed examination of the Carolina Bays
by various geologists and archaeologists over the last
decade or so.
A main problem is that the Carolina Bays predate the
end of the Wisconsinan by **tens of thousands** of
years. For example as discussed in "Age and Climatic
Correlates of Carolina Bays and Inland Dunes of the
South Atlantic Coastal Plain: New Data" at
http://www.cla.sc.edu/sciaa/srs.html , the Carolina
Bays are at least 115,000 to 135,000 years old as
indicated by sand from the rims of these landforms
dated by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL).
On the above web page it is stated:
"On the U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River Site
(SRS), adjacent to the Savannah River in the Upper
Coastal Plain, two OSL dates from the rim of Flamingo
Bay indicate that the bay formed initially at 108.7 +/-
10.9 ka B.P. and was rejuvenated at 40.3 +/- 4.0 ka B.P.
A single date from Bay 40 indicates that it formed at
77.9 +/- 7.6 ka B.P."
The Carolina Bays are also older than surficial dunes
that have been dated using OSL dating at "29.9 +/- 2.8
ka B.P., 31.4 +/- 2.5 ka B.P., 35.8 +/- 4.8 ka B.P.,
36.7 +/- 6.0 ka B.P., and 39.0 +/- 4.5 ka B.P."
Brook eta al. (2001) present radiocarbon dates that,
like OSL date indicate that the Carolina Bays are
older than 40,000 to 50,000 years old.
Also, it is stated by Mark J. Brooks and Barbara E.
Taylor in " Early Hunter-Gatherer Use of Carolina
Bays" at: 300 Multiple Choices ,
"Optically Stimulated Luminescence dates from several
bays, compared with ice core and deep sea oxygen
isotope records of global climate change, indicate
that some bays formed at least as early as the
Sangamon Interglacial (~135-115 thousand years ago)
and were rejuvenated during brief, warm, moist intervals
of the subsequent Wisconsinan Glacial. Many of the
bays apparently continued as open-water lakes into
the early Holocene but, due to sediment infilling,
most transitioned to temporary wetland ponds by
~7000 years ago."
This is also discussed in an abstract of a talk presented
at the Geological Society of America 2002 Denver
Annual Meeting (October 27-30, 2002) by Ivester, A. H.,
Godfrey-Smith, D. I., Brooks, M. J., and Taylor, B. E.
and titled "Carolina Bays and Inland Dunes of the
Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Yield New Evidence for
Regional Paleoclimate" at:
http://gsa.confex.com/...2AM/finalprogram/abstract_45547.htm
In part they found:
"Ages from eolian sand rims on the southeast edges
of Carolina bay wetlands indicate conditions were
suitable for rim development-i.e., southwesterly
winds were blowing across ponded water-during several
intervals of the late Quaternary. In the upper Coastal
Plain, dates from Flamingo Bay indicate the rim was
active at 108.7 10.9 ka BP and again at 40.3 4.0
ka BP. The nearby Bay-40 had an actively forming
sand rim at 77.9 7.6 ka BP."
If the sand rims of these Carolina Bays are as old as
40 to 109 thousands years, than the Carolina Bays are
definitely predate the end of the last glacial epoch
by tens of thousands of years. In fact, these and
other OSL dates now that the Carolina Bays are ten
times older than Mr. wmscott argues them to be. This
present obvious problems with his theories. :-) :-)
Radiocarbon data published by Brooks et al. (2001)
also refutes the age assigned to the Carolina Bays
by Mr. wmscott. In a study of the stratigraphy of
sediments filling one Carolina Bay, Big Bay, they
radiocarbon dated swamp deposits buried by a sand
sand dumped into Big Bay as a sand dune migrated
into this Carolina Bay. The organic-rich swamp
deposits found buried beneath and preserved by a
layer of eolian sand yielded radiocarbon dates
greater than 48,000 BP. These dates show that the
Carolina Bays were in existence over 50,000 years
and far too old to be associated with the end of
the last glacial epoch. In fact, Big Bay is likely
much older, as the sand dune, which migrated into
and dumped sand into Big Bay, was active between
65,000 to 140,000 BP as dated by OSL techniques.
Regardless of their origin, the Carolina Bays are far
too old to be related to any mythical meteorite or comet
impact that occurred at the end of the last glacial
epoch. Additional dates refuting wmscott's estimate
of the age of Carolina Bays has been published in
Brooks et al. (2001) and other published articles.
Also, research by Brooks et al. (1996) and Grant et al.
1998) both clearly demonstrated that the current size
and shape of the Carolina Bays is the result of extensive
modification by lacustrine and eolian processes of the
original depressions that formed the initial Carolina
Bays. These porcesses have modified the siae and
shape of Carolina Bays for over at least thousands,
and possibly tens of thousands of years. As a result,
the present shape and orientation of the bays likely
has little resemblance to the original shape of the
Carolina Bays when they first formed. As a result,
using the modern shape and orientation of the Carolina
Bays to infer their origin is a completely and utterly
bankrupt as a scientific technique.
Some references are:
Brooks, M. J., Taylor, B. E. and Grant, J. A., 1996,
Carolina bays and Holocene landscape evolution on the
Upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Geoarchaeology.
vol. 11, pp. 481-504
Brooks, M. J., Taylor, B. E., Stone, P. A., and Gardner,
L. A., 2001, Pleistocene encroachment of the Wateree
River Sand Sheet into Big Bay on the middle coastal
plain of South Carolina. Southeastern Geology.
vol. 40, no. 4., pp, 241-257.
Grant, J. A., Brooks, M. J., and Taylor, B.E. 1998, New
constraints on the evolution of Carolina bays from ground-
penetrating radar. Geomorphology vol. 22, pp. 325-345.
SREL Home page, Office of Research, University of Georgia
In terms of their origin, other research also has
significantly contradicted the idea that they are the
result of an impact. For example, Carolina Bays not
only occur along the Atlantic Coastal Plain, but also
can be found in in Mississippi and Alabama within the
coastal plain bordering the Gulf of Mexico. On the
surviving terrace surfaces overlying the Citronelle
Formation, geologists have found hundreds of oval to
circular depressions ranging from 45 to 780 m (150 to
2,600 ft) in diameter and from 0.9 to 12 m (3 to 40 ft)
in depth. As noted by Otvos (1997) these circular
features show that Carolina Bays are found west of
the Atlantic Coastal Plain, except for a part of
Florida dominated by carbonate karst.
Research by Isphording (1996) and Isphording and
Flowers (1988) concluded that the circular depressions
within the Gulf Coastal Plain are not impact craters.
Instead they, concluded that these depressions are
siliclastic karst. They argue that the intensive
weathering and dissolution of quartz and clay in the
Citronelle Formation created these depression much
like weathering and dissolution of limestone in the
Florida region created carbonate karst. Later, May
and Warne (1999) reviewed what was known about the
Carolina Bays and concluded that they, like the
"Carolina Bays" of the Mississippi - Alabama coastal
plain, are also siliclastic karst.
References Cited
Isphording, W. C., 1996, Siliclastic karst development
on Citronelle Formation sediments, Southeastern United
States (Alabama-Mississippi). Geological Society of
America Abstract with Programs. vol. 28, no. 2, p. 17.
Isphording, W. C. and Flowers, G. C., 1988, Karst
development in coastal plain sands; a "new" problem in
foundation engineering. Bulletin of the Association of
Engineering Geologists. vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 95-104.
May, J. H. and Warne, A. G., 1999, Hydrogeologic and
Geochemical Factors Required for the Development of
Carolina Bays Along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico,
Coastal Plain,USA. Environmental & Engineering
Geoscience. vol. V, no. 3, pp. 261-270. (Fall 1999)
Otvos, E. G., 1997, Northeastern Gulf Coastal Plain
Revisited: Neogene and Quaternary Units and Events:
Old and New Concepts. Guidebook no. 8, Gulf Coast
Association of Geological Societies, Austin, TX.
Also, people might be interested in looking at:
"NEBRASKA'S CAROLINA BAYS" by ZANNER, C. William at:
http://gsa.confex.com/...1AM/finalprogram/abstract_22324.htm
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
Houston, TX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by wmscott, posted 03-15-2003 1:54 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by wmscott, posted 03-18-2003 5:09 PM Bill Birkeland has replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6330 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 160 of 234 (34641)
03-18-2003 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Bill Birkeland
03-16-2003 3:59 PM


Dear Bill Birkeland;
Did a quick search on the web I see. Well Bill, the Carolina Bays are a somewhat broad classification especially considering that their method of formation is not agreed upon, this results in some landforms that may not truly be Carolina Bays being lumped in the classification incorrectly. Not every oval shaped depression is a Carolina Bay, some of the very old dates, which are in conflict with the more modern dates generally found could be explained in some cases by such a misclassification. Then there are the usual errors associated with the various dating systems that could account for some of the other very old dates. I also allow for the possibility that the Carolina Bays were formed earlier in the ice age such as just after the LGM. The extremely early dates that would push the Bays formation back into an interglacial are obviously wrong considering that the bays are also found on areas of the continental shelves that were only exposed during glacial periods. The 'soft' nature of the bays restricts their formation to fairly recent time, they could not be an ancient land formation or they would have faded away long ago. These factors limit the bay formation to the last advance of the Pleistocene ice age. I also noted that the third site you cited stated "Extant SRS hay morphology formed mainly during the Holocene and did not involve migration of hays across the landscape." By 'hay' I assume they mean 'bay'. The Holocene is of course the last ten thousand years. The age of the Carolina Bays is just another of the many facets of the Mysterious Carolina Bays that is argued about. If you carefully read the web sites you provided links to, you will notice that wind was sometimes only invoked as a modifying effect on already existing Bays, "southwesterly winds were blowing across ponded water-during several intervals of the late Quaternary" even some of the sites you cited recognize that wind is a poor explanation for creating the Bays. Both the wind and Karst or dissolution theories are unable to account for many features associated with the Bays. The most basic problem is since both wind and dissolution are on going processes, why are no Bays currently being formed? The location of many Bays has proven to be incompatible with the dissolution theory, and alinement placement of many Bays is incompatible with wind theories.
On the Carolina bays being formed by impacts, I highly recommend the book "The Mysterious Carolina Bays" by Henry Savage Jr. 1982. The book is out of print and a bit hard to get hold of, but well worth it. It covers the history of the controversy on how the Bays were formed and covers all of the technical points very nicely. A comet exploded over the Ohio river valley in the Midwest, allowing for various effects, all of the Bays point to this area. The individual impacting comet fragments exploded on contact blasting open a shallow depression. The Siberian event blast occurred at about 10,000 ft and the area of knocked down trees is the same shape as a Carolina Bay. If the blast had occurred at ground level, a depression in that shape would have been created in an area with a sandy soil like the area the bays are found in. The author even mentions "Near Camden South Carolina is a long farm drainage ditch with a depth of about fourteen feet. Exposed at the bottom of the ditch are masses of prostrate timbers, many of considerable size, indicating a massive blow-down." page 96, the similarity with the Siberian event is obvious. Inside the Bays, coring the ground has revealed that the original surface was removed and a raised rim formed. This action occurred very quickly, for the bottom of the bays show no sign of gradual action in that the next layer is lake bottom which then filled in over time. The rims also contain fractured shells and pebbles, and these same shells and pebbles are unbroken when found in other areas. The Bays are also found in a pattern of over lapping and in rows that only a bombardment pattern of comet fragments could create. The Bays are eroding away, they are not being formed by processes in action today. There are no new ones forming and no other answer for their creation that makes more sense then comet impacts has been put forward. Any theory can be attacked, but let us see if you can find a better one, otherwise if by nothing else, the impact theory wins by default.
A web site on comet impact formation of the Carolina Bays stated.
"The proposed model with shock waves from cometary fragments exploding above the surface creating a series of similar landforms is conceptually very simple, and is far less complex than most of the terrestrial models postulated recently. For geometrically regular forms such as Carolina Bays we prefer a simple causal mechanism if it is feasible.
Examination of impact mechanics and Carolina Bay morphometry eliminates traditional impact phenomena resulting from meteoroid swarms or asteroids. However, the unique orbital and physical characteristics of a comet favor a model in which a high velocity retrograde comet or a low velocity prograde comet collided with the Earth. The incoming nucleus approached from the northwest and fragmented. The fragments, diverging from the main trajectory, volatized and subsequently exploded in the atmosphere near the surface. The resultant shock waves created shallow elliptical depressions which are best displayed in the sandy sediments of the Coastal Plain.
This model is not fully substantiated. But, given the terrestrial and extraterrestrial constraints used in this paper, a comet remains a viable alternative worthy of further consideration."
A RE-EVALUATION OF THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL ORIGIN OF THE CAROLINA BAYS
Another web site had more information on comet impact formation of the Carolina Bays and tied the event in with the Pleistocene extinction event and a sudden climate change event.
"William F. Prouty's (a former head of the University of North Carolina geology department) contention () that the Carolina Bays were formed by an has not been refuted by direct evidence nor has it been tested by more modern methods. Recently, however, several papers have been published that relate evidence which could be viewed as supportive of Prouty's hypothesis. For instance, P.S. Martin's "over-kill" scenario is in trouble due to finds of mammoths in Europe which date 5,000 years younger than earlier discovered specimens. This closes the gap between the youngest date for mammoths in America (10,500 B.P.) and for Europe (12,000 B.P.) to 1,500 years (see G.R. Coope and A.M. Lister, Nature Vol. 330, 3 Dec. 87, pp. 472-474).
The reduction of the temporal difference between finds on these two continents suggests that the may have been synchronous in the northern hemisphere and related to the Younger Dryas cold event. Evidence is growing that this glacial readvance occurred abruptly (see E. Bard, et al., Nature Vol. 328, 27 Aug. 87, pp. 791-794) and was also felt in the southern hemisphere (C.J. Heusser and J. Rabassa, Nature Vol. 328, 18 Aug. 87, pp. 609-611). There is also suspicion that an atmospheric C-14 anomaly (discussed by E. Bard et al. cited above) may have occurred during this period. could explain the climate phenomena and account for a C-14 anomaly (see J.C. Brown and D.W. Hughes, Nature Vol. 268, 11 Aug. 77) which, if real, would have been greater around the area of impact (North America), which would in turn cause fauna in this region that survived the initial event to absorb a greater amount of C-14 and so date younger than fauna less exposed, thus further reducing the temporal difference between finds in Europe and America. Although Prouty's physical model of how the bays were formed is probably flawed, considering the above, it is certainly becoming more likely that his basic contention was correct. For an excellent review of the controversy over the origin of the see The Mysterious Carolina Bays (1982) by Henry Savage."
The Carolina Bays
While the comet theory is not universally accepted, it is by far the best theory for the formation of the Carolina Bays and leads the pack by a wide margin. It is the only theory to account for some features that the other theories are unable to account for, and is the obvious answer that pops out to even a casual viewer of aerial shots of the Carolina Bays. Now if the Carolina Bays were formed as the result of an exploding comet, they will of course all have the same age. Considering the older dates given to a few possible Bays, there seems to be only two possible answers, either the older dated 'bays' are actually old lakes and are not true 'Bays' or they are Carolina Bays and the dates are in error. The evidence points to a single event that created the Bays, as for the dating of that event, dating is of course relative and needs calibration according to what ever time scale we are referring to. Whether that event occurred earlier or later is not so much the point as the fact that it occurred.
Sincerely yours; Wm Scott Anderson
Since you like references, here is a whole bunch from the first web site I cited on the Bays.
Baldwin, R. B., 1963. The Measure of the Moon. Chicago: The University. of Chicago Press.
Baldwin, R. B., 1965. A Fundamental Survey of the Moon. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Carson, C. E., and Hussey, K. M., 1962. The Oriented Lakes of Arctic Alaska, Journal of Geology, vol. 70, pp. 417-439.
Cassidy, W. A., and others, 1965. Meteorites and Craters of Campo del Cielo, Argentina, Science, vol. 149, pp. 1055-1064.
Cooke, C. W., 1934. Discussion of the Origin of the Supposed Meteorite Scars of South Carolina, Journal of Geology, vol. 42, pp. 89-96.
Cooke, C. W., 1940. Elliptical Bays in South Carolina and the Shape of Eddies, Journal of Geology, vol. 48, pp. 205-211.
Cooke, C. W., 1954. Carolina Bays and the Shapes of Eddies. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 254-l.
Daniels, R. B., and Gamble, E. E., 1971. Stability of Coastal Plain Surfaces, Southeastern Geology, vol. 13, pp. 61-75.
Doering, J., 1960. Quaternary Surface Formations of Southern Part of Atlantic Coastal Plain, Journal of Geology, vol. 68, pp. 182-202.
Frey, D., 1951. Pollen Succession in the Sediments of Singletary Lake, North Carolina, Ecology, vol. 32, pp. 518-533.
Frey, D., 1954. Evidence of the Recent Enlargement of the "Bay" Lakes of North Carolina, Ecology, vol. 35, pp. 78-88.
Glenn, L. C., 1895. Some Notes on Darlington, South Carolina Bays, Science, vol. 2, pp. 472-475.
. Geology of the Upland Gravels near Midlothian, Virginia, 11th Annual Field Conference Atlantic Coastal Plain Geological Association Guidebook, pp. 1-35.
Grant, C., 1945. A Biological Explanation of the Carolina Bays, Science Monthly, vol. 61, pp. 443-450.
Hartmann, W. K., 1973. Moons and Planets: An Introduction to Planetary Science. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc.
Hawkins, G. S., 1964. The Physics and Astronomy of Meteorites. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Johnson, D. W., 1936. Origin of the Supposed Meteorite Scars of Carolina, Science, vol. 48, pp. 15-18.
Johnson, D. W., 1942. The Origin of the Carolina Bays. New York: Columbia University Press.
Johnson, G. H., and Goodwin, B. K., 1967. Elliptical Depressions on Undissected Highland Gravels in Northern Chesterfield County, Virginia [Abstract], Virginia Journal of Science, vol. 18, p. 186.
Johnson, H. S., and Du Bar, J. R., 1964. Geomorphic Elements of the Area between the Cape Fear and Pee Dee Rivers, North and South Carolina, Southeastern Geology, vol. 6, pp. 37-47.
Jones, V. L., 1956. Discussion of 'Were the Carolina Bays Oriented by Gyroscopic Action? by W. Schriever', Transactions, American Geophysical Union, vol. 37, pp. 112-117.
Krivov, E. L., 1966. Giant Meteorites. New York: Permagon Press.
LeGrand, H. E., 1953. Streamlining of the Carolina Bays, Journal of Geology, vol. 61, pp. 263-274.
Lobeck, A. K., 1939. Geomorphology: An Introduction to the Study of Landscapes. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
MacCarthy, G. R., 1937. The Carolina Bays, Bulletin, Geological Society of America, vol. 48. PP. 1211-1225.
Melton, F. A., 1934. Reply to Cooke (1934), Journal of Geology, vol. 42, PP. 97-104.
Melton, F. A., 1950. The Carolina Bays, Journal of Geology, vol. 58, pp. 128-134.
Melton, F. A., and Schriever, W., 1933. The Carolina Bays - Are They Meteorite Scars?, Journal of Geology, vol. 41, pp. 52-66.
Milton, D. J., and others, 1972. Gosses Bluff Impact Structure, Australia, Science, vol. 175, pp. 1199-1207.
Preston, C. D., and Brown, C. Q., 1964. Geologic Section along a Carolina Bay, Sumter County, S. C., Southeastern Geology, vol. 6, pp. 21-29.
Price, W. A., 1951. Wind Caused Pattern, Science News-Letter, p. 327.
Price, W. A., 1958. Sedimentology and Quaternary Geomorphology of South Texas,Transactions, Gulf Coast Association Geological Society, vol. 8, pp. 41-75.
Price, W. A., 1963. The Oriented Lakes of Arctic Alaska: A Discussion, Journal of Geology, vol. 71, pp. 530-531.
Price, W. A., 1968. Carolina Bays, In R. W. Fairbridge (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Geomorphology. New York: Reinhold Book Corp., pp. 102-109.
Prouty, W. F., 1935. "Carolina Bays" and Elliptical Lake Basins, Journal of Geology, vol. 43, pp. 200-207.
Prouty, W. F., 1952. Carolina Bays and their Origin, Bulletin, Geological Society of America, vol. 63, pp. 167-224.
Raisz, E. J., 1934. Rounded Lakes and Lagoons of the Coastal Plains of Massachusetts, Journal of Geology, vol. 42, pp. 839-848.
Robertson, E. C., 1962. The Carolina Bays and Emergence of the Coastal Plain of the Carolinas and Georgia. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 450-c .
Schriever, W., 1955. Were the Carolina Bays Oriented by Gyroscopic Action, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, vol. 36, DD. 46s-469.
Shockley, N. G., and others, 1956. Discussion of 'Were the Carolina Bays Oriented by Gyroscopic Action' by William Schriever, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, vol. 37, pp. 112-115.
Thom, B. G., 1965. Relationship of Carolina Bays to Regional Geomorphology [Abstract], Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, pp. 172- 173.
Thom, B. G., 1970. Carolina Bays in Horry and Marion Counties, South Carolina, Bulletin, Geological Society of America, vol. 81, pp. 783-814.
Thornbury, W. D., 1965. Regional Geomorphology of the United States. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Toumey, M., 1848. Report on the Geology of South Carolina. Carolina State Geological Survey.
Wells, B. W., and Boyce, S. G., 1953. Carolina Bays: Additional Data on their Origin, Age, and History, Journal, J. Elisha Mitchell Science Society, vol. 69, pp. 119-141.
Whitehead, D. R., and Tan, K. W., 1969. Modern Vegetation and Pollen Rain in Bladen County, North Carolina, Ecology, vol. 50, pp. 235-248.
Wolfe, P. E., 1953. Periglacial Frost-thaw Basins in New Jersey, Journal of Geology, vol. 61, pp. 133 - 141.
Wyatt, S. P., 1966. Principles of Astronomy. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-16-2003 3:59 PM Bill Birkeland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-23-2003 5:30 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 166 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-23-2003 5:50 PM wmscott has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 234 (34719)
03-19-2003 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Percy
02-05-2003 6:08 PM


quote:
Throughout Christian history have been those who believed they knew precisely what the Bible meant. While many Biblical authors wrote very poetically and spiritually, they did not write very precisely. Practically every Biblical passage is open to more than one valid interpretation.
Imo, it can also be said that every fossil, every fault, every canyon and in fact, all that's observed is open to more than one valid interpretation. One sees the grand canyon as being slowly eroded to it's present depth over a very long period of time. Others see the great flood of Noah waters backed up above the canyon and breaking through suddenly to cut the canyon much like the Mt St Hellens canyon was suddenly cut by the daming up of backwather and this breaking loose suddenly to create the canyon.
------------------
Surely the Lord Jehovah will do nothing except he reveal the secret to his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-19-2003]
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-19-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 02-05-2003 6:08 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by edge, posted 03-19-2003 9:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 164 by wmscott, posted 03-21-2003 3:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1788 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 162 of 234 (34723)
03-19-2003 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Buzsaw
03-19-2003 8:18 PM


quote:
Imo, it can also be said that every fossil, every fault, every canyon and in fact, all that's observed is open to more than one valid interpretation.
Well, perhaps, when taken by itself. This is an old creationist trick: isolate a factoid and derive the history of the earth from it.
quote:
One sees the grand canyon as being slowly eroded to it's present depth over a very long period of time. Others see the great flood of Noah waters backed up above the canyon and breaking through suddenly ...
Except that only one of these actually makes sense in relation to all of the known data. If you're holding some out on us, I'd love to hear it.
quote:
...to cut the canyon much like the Mt St Hellens canyon was suddenly cut by the daming up of backwather and this breaking loose suddenly to create the canyon.
ARRRRRGGGHHH! Not again! (Didn't TC say he was going to quash this abuse of analogies by creationists?)
Buz, please give us reasons why you would want to compare fresh, unlithified, proximal pyroclastic deposits in an stratovolcanic setting with highly indurated continental shelf deposits hundreds of times thicker and demonstrably more ancient. This really makes no sense whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Buzsaw, posted 03-19-2003 8:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 163 of 234 (34741)
03-20-2003 7:09 AM


Topic Drift Alert!
This thread is for discussion of the ideas presented in Wm. Scott Anderson's book, Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood. YEC ideas about the Grand Canyon have their own threads, eg, The Grand Canyon: Canyon Formation and Erosion, or a new thread can be opened.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6330 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 164 of 234 (34928)
03-21-2003 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Buzsaw
03-19-2003 8:18 PM


Dear Buzsaw;
I apologize for not replying to your earlier post, I saw that others had already replied and said some of what I would have said. Now I see that the Administrator is clamping down on your posting on this thread. He is right, if you want to debate your flood theories you should start your own thread. If you wish to debate mine versus yours, I would be happy to do so. If you wish do so, to keep our discussion within the guide lines, do not respond to other posters on this thread to keep it as a discussion just between the two of us. That way you will be able to keep the moderator happy.
Sincerely yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Buzsaw, posted 03-19-2003 8:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2613 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 165 of 234 (35026)
03-23-2003 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by wmscott
03-18-2003 5:09 PM


Part 1 of 2 Parts
In message 160 of 160 wmscott wrote:
"Did a quick search on the web I see. Well Bill, the
Carolina Bays are a somewhat broad classification
especially considering that their method of formation
is not agreed upon, this results in some landforms that
may not truly be Carolina Bays being lumped in the
classification incorrectly. Not every oval shaped
depression is a Carolina Bay, some of the very old
dates, which are in conflict with the more modern
dates generally found could be explained in some
cases by such a misclassification. Then there are the
usual errors associated with the various dating systems
that could account for some of the other very old
dates."
This sounds like nothing more than an excuse by which
you are throwing out the data which contradicts your
hypothesis. This has been called elsewhere as "Cafeteria
Catastrophism". It is a process by which catastrophists
choose their data like they choose food at a cafeteria.
The data is "distasteful" to their hypothesis they leave
on it the counter (ignore it or discard it) as they would
leave distasteful food at a cafeteria buffet line. If
the data is "tasteful" to their hypothesis, they take
it (sort of "buy" it) and use it as they would do food
at a cafeteria buffet line.
The fact of the matter is that the Carolina Bays within
the Atlantic with the "old dates" in general show the
general morphology, internal structure, alignment, and
distribution as other Carolina Bays within the Atlantic
Coastal Plain. Given that the bays with the very old
dates are identical in nature to the Carolina Bays along
the Atlantic Coastal Plain and virtually identical to the
Gulf Coast oriented lakes indicates that they likely
were created by the same process. From the innumerable
papers I have read about Carolina Bays, I have **not**
seen any data that even suggests that Carolina Bays
consist of landforms of very different origin within the
Atlantic Coastal Plain and they are any different in origin
from similar lakes and ponds within the Gulf Coastal Plain.
The only reason that Mr. wmscott has for arguing for the
misclassification of Carolina Bays is that the OSL
dates of the Carolina Bays, which have been dated, showed
them too old to support his "comet theory". The claims of
misclassification is just one way that he can throw away
/ dismiss data that refutes his theory. This is simply
cafeteria catastrophism at work, where data that a person
finds distasteful is left behind like distasteful food of
the cafeteria shelf.
What the difference in dates indicate is that the same
processes **acted at different** times in the past either
to create or substantially modify the Carolina Bays. In
case of the Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dates,
the variance in dates simply means that at specific times
in the past the climate along the Atlantic Coastal for
reworking the rims of the Bays by eolian processes. During
each reworking, the OSL "clock" was reset when the sand
was exposed to sunlight. As a result, the younger OSL
dates are only minimum dates, which only indicate the
last period of when eolian processes eroded and redeposited
the sand along the rims and not the actual age of the
Carolina Bay dated. The wide spread of OSL dates certainly
indicate that the modern morphology of the Carolina Bays
is the result of **periodic** modification of them over
tens of thousands of years. This is totally consistent
with both their formation as siliclastic karst and later
modification by lacustrine and eolian processes. As the
least, the complete modification of the Carolina Bays
after formation over this period of time make the use
of their current morphology to infer their origin
completely impossible.
+++++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"I also allow for the possibility that the Carolina
Bays were formed earlier in the ice age such as just
after the LGM."
If Mr. wmscott would look at the pollen data that has
been acquired for numerous Carolina Bays, he would find
that the presence of full-glacial pollen assemblages
within them clearly indicate that they are, at least,
as old as the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). This clearly
refutes his theory that they belong to a terminal
Pleistocene event.
For example, the sediment filling Big Bay contains
multiple zones of differing pollen assemblages. The
pollen assemblages of the middle zones are characteristic
of cold climate, full glacial sediments. At the bottom
of the sediments filling "Big Bay" Brooks et al. (2001)
found pollen assemblages characteristic of warm climates
and plants that lived in the region during the last
interglacial between 75,00 to 134,000 BP. Thus, the pollen
assemblages from Big Bay confirm both the OSL and
radiocarbon dates that demonstrate that Big Bay is over
70 to 80 thousands years older than the model proposed by
Mr. wmscott would predict it to be.
Similarly, if a person reads through other published
studies of pollen assemblages recovered from the cores
taken from cores many other Carolina Bays, a person
finds, that the pollen assemblages show that they were
in existence **during** the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM).
This refutes the proposal that they might have formed
just after the LGM. Some of these studies are Delcourt
et al. (1984), Frey (1953,1955), Watts (1980).
Brooks, M. J., Taylor, B. E., and Stone, P. A.,
Gardner, L. B., 2001, Pleistocene encroachment of the
Wateree River Sand Sheet into Big Bay on the middle
coastal plain of South Carolina. Southeastern Geology.
vol. 40, no. 4., pp, 241-257.
Delcourt, P. A. and Delcourt, H. R., 1984) Late
Quaternary paleoclimates and biotic responses in eastern
North America and the western North Atlantic Ocean.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology.
vol. 48, no. 2-4, pp. 263-276
Frey, D. G., 1953, Regional aspects of the late-glacial
and post-glacial pollen succession of southeastern North
Carolina. Ecological Monographs. vol. 23, no. 3,
pp. 289-313.
Frey, D. G., 1955, A time revision of the Pleistocene
pollen chronology of southeastern North Carolina.
Ecology. vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 762-763.
Watts, A. L., 1980, Late-Quaternary vegetation
history at White Pond on the inner coastal plain
of South Carolina. Quaternary Research. vol. 13,
no. 2, pp. 187-199.
+++++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"The extremely early dates that would push the Bays
formation back into an interglacial are obviously wrong
considering that the bays are also found on areas of
the continental shelves that were only exposed during
glacial periods."
As far as I have found in the published scientific
literature, there is absolutely no hard evidence and
data to support the claim that Carolina Bays have
been on the continental shelf. Given that the LGM
continental shelves have been deeply eroded and
modified by shoreface and nearshore processes as it
was submerged, the only way surface landforms like
Carolina Bays would have survived inundation would
to have been buried by sediments before submergence.
Once buried, it be virtually impossible, even with
modern technology to find and identify Carolina
Bays. As a result, I find the reports of Carolina
Bay, especially since I can find no hard data to
support them, to be nothing more then catastrophist
mythology or geopeotry that has been repeated
mindlessly as fact when there is absolutely no
evidence to support it.
If Mr. wmscott can point me to a specific paper in
which specific descriptions, maps, and sketches
of Carolina Bays found on the continental shelf, I
would like him to post it and I am very interested
in finding the citation(s) to such papers. I would
challenge Mr. wmscott to produce side-scan sonar
images and sub-bottom profiler data that clearly
show underwater Carolina Bays lying on the continental
shelf to prove that they actually exist outside of
the imagination of certain catastrophists.
+++++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"The 'soft' nature of the bays restricts their
formation to fairly recent time, they could not
be an ancient land formation or they would have
faded away long ago. These factors limit the bay
formation to the last advance of the Pleistocene
ice age."
The statement "The 'soft' nature of the bays
restricts their formation to fairly recent time"
is a completely factually bankrupt statement in
two respects.
First, the flat plains, although composed of "soft"
sand, is an extremely stable surface surface as a
result of several factors. First, it is covered with
a thick cover of vegetation. The thick stabilizes the
surface by physically binding the sediment together
where it can be eroded by either surface flow or wind.
Second, the coastal plain is a very flat surface that
greatly inhibits surface runoff and encourages ponding
of water on its surface. This greatly inhibits the
development of drainage networks that would eventually
dissect its surface and encourages water to sink into
the sand instead of running off of it. Finally, the
coastal plain is underlain by thick sand, in which
water sinks into rather than running off. Overall,
the flat sandy nature of the coastal plain and its
thick vegetation cover makes for a very stable surface,
which despite being compose of sand, is very resistant
to erosion because. This is a surface, on which it
would takes tens of thousands to hundreds of years for
landforms to "fade away" as he claims. Such a stable
surface, in fact, is a prime location for the development
of siliclastic karst as argued by:
May, J. H. and Warne, A. G., 1999, Hydrogeologic and
Geochemical Factors Required for the Development of
Carolina Bays Along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico,
Coastal Plain,USA. Environmental & Engineering
Geoscience. vol. V, no. 3, pp. 261-270. (Fall 1999)
Finally, if Mr. wmscott would look at the literature
about the geomorphology of the Atlantic coastal plain, he
would find many ancient landforms, e.g. sand dunes and
beach ridges, are composed of the same sand as the
Carolina Bays that have been dated as being tens of
thousands, even about a hundred thousand years old.
These landforms **have not** faded away within a fairly
recent time as Mr. wmscott and other catastrophists
claim would happen to the Carolina Bays. The "fading
away" does occur, but its takes tens to hundreds of
thousands of years to occur. It doen **not** occur over
a "fairly recent time" as he incorrectly presumes without
reviewing the pertinent published research.
+++++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"I also noted that the third site you cited stated
"Extant SRS hay morphology formed mainly during the
Holocene and did not involve migration of bays across
the landscape." By 'hay' I assume they mean 'bay'. The
Holocene is of course the last ten thousand years. The
age of the Carolina Bays is just another of the many
facets of the Mysterious Carolina Bays that is argued
about."
Mr. wmscott grossly misinterprets this web page. It does
**not** conclude that this Carolina Bay either originated
or was first created during the Holocene. Rather, this
web page concluded is that "extent", modern, morphology
of this Carolina Bay was the result of lacustrine and
eolian processes having modified a pre-existing,
Pleistocene Carolina Bay over a large part of Holocene.
The significance of this web page is that morphology now
exhibited by this Carolina Bay is not the result of the
processes the originally created it. As a result, it is
impossible to use the shape and orientation of this and
other Carolina Bays, as Savage, and many others have
naively done.
For example, on this web page, it is stated:
"Ia, Multiple periods of bay-rim accretion with intervening
intervals of erosion may characterize the longer-term
evolution of the (sic) a, bays."
Comet impacts do **not** create a crater by eroding and
rebuilding its rim over a long period of time as happened
with the Carolina Bays. Impact processes occur over a
very, very brief period of time a and do **not** involve
periodic erosion and rebuilding of a crater over a period
of ten thousand years as has happened with various
Carolina Bays.
The web page is the abstract to "New constraints on
the evolution of Carolina Bays from ground-penetrating
radar" by John A. Grant, Mark J. Brooks, and Barbara
E. Taylor, which appeared in vol. 22 of geomorphology.
It is found at:
SREL Home page, Office of Research, University of Georgia
+++++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"If you carefully read the web sites you provided
links to, you will notice that wind was sometimes
only invoked as a modifying effect on already
existing Bays, "southwesterly winds were blowing
across ponded water-during several intervals
of the late Quaternary" even some of the sites
you cited recognize that wind is a poor explanation
for creating the Bays."
I did **not** say that eolian processes created the
Carolina Bays. I was noting that lacustrine and
eolian processes have modified the shape, size, and
orientation of the Carolina Bays once they were
created to the point that it is completely and utterly
impossible to use their orientation to infer their
origin. The web sites and papers that I cited in my
previous post demonstrate that the current / modern
shape, size, and orientation of these bays reflect
post-formation modification over the last several,
even tens of thousands of years. As a result, it is
incredibly sloppy and rather bankrupt science to use
the orientation and shape of the Carolina Bays as
evidence for them having been caused by the impact
of either a comet or meteorite.
+++++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"Both the wind and Karst or dissolution theories
are unable to account for many features associated
with the Bays."
Contrary to what Mr. wmscott falsely claims above,
May and Warne (1999) and Isphording and Flowers (1988)
clearly demonstrate that siliclastic karst can account
for all of the features of the Carolina Bays. Go read:
1. May, J. H. and Warne, A. G., 1999, Hydrogeologic and
Geochemical Factors Required for the Development of
Carolina Bays Along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico,
Coastal Plain, USA. Environmental & Engineering
Geoscience. vol. V, no. 3, pp. 261-270. (Fall 1999)
and
2. Isphording, W. C. and Flowers, G. C., 1988, Karst
development in coastal plain sands; a "new" problem in
foundation engineering. Bulletin of the Association of
Engineering Geologists. vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 95-104.
"The most basic problem is since both wind and
dissolution are on going processes, why are no
Bays currently being formed?
The dissolution of siliclastic sediments is a
very slow process. The development of a new
sinkhole would take hundreds, possibly thousands
of years. To actually observe the formation of
a sinkhole in siliclastic karst, a person would
need a sequence of either aerial photographs
or similar data covering a period of several
hundred years. Given that aerial photographs
and similar data only go back to the 1930s and
1940s, the data needed to observe the formation
of a new Carolina Bay simply does **not** exist.
Thus, given the limitations of the available
data, it is impossible for Mr. wmscott or anybody
else to know whether or not new Carolina Bays are
being forming. I would challenge Mr. wmscott to
provide hard evidence that actually proves that no
new Carolina Baysare not forming anywhere in
the Atlantic Coastal Plain.
Another problem, is that the process is climate
dependant. Within parts of the Atlantic Coastal Plain,
the lack of new Carolina Bays being developed can be
the result of the fact that modern climate differs from
the time during which Carolina Bays were active. These
very well could be relict landforms, which are now only
being modified by lacustrine and eolian processes.
However, Isphording and Flowers (1988) within the modern
Gulf Coastal Plain document active siliclastic karst that
Mr. wmscott claims does not exist. In fact, they have
describe actual damage to foundations of buildings in
Gulf Coastal Plain caused by active siliclastic karst.
In this case, the owner of the building actually
collected damages from his insurance company as the
result of the processes that create siliclastic karst and
insurance companies have had to rewrite policies to
exclude this process from their insurance coverage
(Isphording and Flowers 1988). This case, is proof
that siliclastic karst is a real process and capable of
creating the initial depressions, which can be later
modified by eolian and lacustrine processes to
create Carolina Bays.
References Cited
Isphording, W. C. and Flowers, G. C., 1988, Karst
development in coastal plain sands; a "new" problem in
foundation engineering. Bulletin of the Association of
Engineering Geologists. vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 95-104.
+++++++++++++++++++ XXXXX
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"The location of many Bays has proven to be
incompatible with the dissolution theory,
Why? Nothing that Mr. wmscott has written about the
location of the Carolina Bays is incompatible with
their formation by the siliclastic karst processes.
In fact, the Atlantic Coastal Plain is an excellent
location for the development of siliclastic karst as
discussed by:
May, J. H. and Warne, A. G., 1999, Hydrogeologic and
Geochemical Factors Required for the Development of
Carolina Bays Along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico,
Coastal Plain, USA. Environmental & Engineering
Geoscience. vol. V, no. 3, pp. 261-270. (Fall 1999)
I find it quite revealing that Mr. wmscott dismisses
the above citation off-hand very likely without even
bothering to read it. :-) :-)
+++++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"and alinement placement of many Bays is
incompatible with wind theories."
This statement is **not** supported by the facts.
Kaczorowski (1977) demonstrated, e.g. his Figure 50,
shows a very strong correlation between the orientation
of Carolina Bays and either Holocene or Pleistocene
prevailing winds depending on when they were modified.
His and other studies refute the claim that "alinement
placement of many Bays is incompatible with wind
theories" as Mr. wmscott falsely claims.
By carefully selecting the pictures used to illustrate
their papers and using averages of measured directions
of the orientation of the Carolina Bays, catastrophists
have greatly understated the large variation in
orientation that exists among Carolina Bays. As a result,
catastrophists by focusing on average direction of
Carolina Bay orientation have overlooked the fact that
the variability in the direction of Carolina Bays is far
greater than can be explained by either a meteorite or
comet impact. However, variations in prevailing wind
direction over the tens of thousands of years that
Carolina Bays were modified can explain the large
variation in orientation not illustrated either by
averaged directions or carefully selected photographs.
There are several problems with figures as at:
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cbfig5.gif
1. As discussed above, they only show the average
direction of the orientation of the Carolina Bays.
They don't show the actual spread of bay orientations,
which is wide enough to greatly contradicts any
meteorite or comet hyp0thesis.
2. This figure practices cafeteria catastrophism by
failing to show that the orientation of the Carolina
Bays in Delaware. Because they have a southwest to
northeast orientation, as seen in Figure 50 of
Kaczorowski (1977), the orientation of these Carolina
Bays cannot be explained by a meteorite / comet breakup
as shown in
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cbfig5.gif
3. Also the figure at http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cbfig5.gif
also fails to show that the Carolina Bays in New Jersey,
Maryland, and Florida, as shown in Figure 50 and 51 of
Kaczorowski (1977), lack any preferred orientation. The
lack of preferred orientation readily refutes the origin
of these Carolina Bays by either meteorite or comet impacts.
Finally, it is quite revealing that the orientation of
the Carolina Bays in Georgia and parts of South Carolina
do **not** converge as other orientations do. If all of
the Carolina Bays were created by the remnants of single
exploded meteorite, than the orientation of all of the
bays should converge on a single general point, which
despite areas having Carolina Bay orientations
contradicting the comet theory left out of the above figure,
they still do **not** do.
Kaczorowski, R. T., 1977, The Carolina Bays: a
comparison with modern oriented lakes. technical
report 13-CRD. Coastal research Division, University
of south Carolina, Columbia.
+++++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"On the Carolina bays being formed by impacts, I
highly recommend the book "The Mysterious Carolina
Bays" by Henry Savage Jr. 1982. The book is out of
print and a bit hard to get hold of, but well
worth it. It covers the history of the controversy
on how the Bays were formed and covers all of the
technical points very nicely."
Having been published in 1982, 20 years ago, the
discussion in this book is quite obviously antiquated
and badly out-of-date in terms of what is now known
about both geology and geomphology of the Carolina Bays
and what is now known about the mechanics of comet and
meteorite impacts. In the latter case, research in the
about impact mechanism in the twenty years since Savage
published this book found that much of what Savage had
to say about the mechanics of comet and meteorite
impacts is woefully wrong and violates what is now known
about the physics of impacting comets and meteorites.
Also, Savage's book contains a lot of misinformation
about the geology and nature of the Carolina Bays that
has been refuted by research conducted since his book
was published.
+++++++++++++++++++ XXXX
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"comet exploded over the Ohio river valley in the
Midwest, allowing for various effects, all of the
Bays point to this area. The individual impacting
comet fragments exploded on contact blasting open
a shallow depression. The Siberian event blast
occurred at about 10,000 ft and the area of knocked
down trees is the same shape as a Carolina Bay."
However, knocking trees is not the same as digging
a hole in the ground. These are two entirely different
processes for it is impossible to make a valid
comparison. The important thing here, is that **no**
Carolina Bay-like hole was dug. As a result, Mr.
wmscott completely lacks any observed instance where
the explosion of a comet created a Carolina Bay-like
hole.
+++++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"If the blast had occurred at ground level, a depression
in that shape would have been created in an area with a
sandy soil like the area the bays are found in."
This is pure speculation. If the blast had occurred at
ground level, very likely, a very well form crater,
with a bottom deeper than the Carolina Bays, would have
formed. Also, I have to wonder what process would cause
500,000 fragments of various sizes from a comet to all
explode at ground level.
+++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"The author even mentions "Near Camden South Carolina
is a long farm drainage ditch with a depth of about
fourteen feet. Exposed at the bottom of the ditch
are masses of prostrate timbers, many of considerable
size, indicating a massive blow-down."
There are many problems with this piece of evidence.
First, prostrate timber can occur by a variety of
processes, including trees falling down onto the
bottom of a swamp. If there was some alignment of the
individual logs, a person might conclude it was a
blowdown. However, hurricanes, tornadoes, and violent
squall lines can cause blowdowns. The problem is that
from the description provide it is impossible to know
how this bed of "prostrate logs" was created and if
they are associated with or even the same age as the
Carolina Bays. That these logs are associated with
whatever created the Carolina Bays is nothing more
than speculation without any facts to back it up.
+++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
page 96, the similarity with the Siberian event is
obvious.
What similarity?
1. the Siberian event did **not** produce a Carolina Bays-
like holes in the ground. As a result, the 1908 Tunguska
event has no similarity to the Carolina Bays.
2. Processes other then exploding meteorites blow
down trees. If they were blown down, these South Carolina
trees are similar, not only to the Siberian event, but
also trees blown down by hurricanes, tornadoes, and
microbursts in thunderstorms. There is absolutely no
evidence that demonstrates the trees discussed above
are related to the process that created the Carolina Bays.
Also, even if the trees were blown down by a comet, for
which there is no evidence, there is no evidence that
such a comet was created the Carolina Bays. Not only
is the similarity not obvious, but it is nonexistent.
+++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"Inside the Bays, coring the ground has revealed that
the original surface was removed and a raised rim
formed."
This is not true. There is nothing in the core data
that precludes ground having subsided as the result of
siliclastic karst formation. Also, when they were
completely dry, eolian processes could have been some
deflation (erosion) of the exposed bottom of these
bays to some extent. The core data does preclude
Carolina Bays from being impact craters.
+++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"This action occurred very quickly, for the bottom
of the bays show no sign of gradual action in that
the next layer is lake bottom which then filled
in over time."
This is completely false. There is simply no evidence
that shows that the Carolina Bays were created "very
quickly". In contrast, there is an abundance of
evidence discussed in the papers mentioned in Message
159 of mine that shows that the Carolina Bays have
been gradually modified by lacutsrine and eolian
processes over tens of thousands of years.
The statement "gradual action" is an example of
scientific terminology that is so vague and ill-defined
as to be absolutely meaningless in any scientific
fashion. In fact, the pollen assemblages, radiocarbon
dates, paleosols, and well-defined layers clearly show
that the Carolina Bays have filled in over an extremely
long period of time dating back into, and even past
the last glacial maximum (LGM).
+++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"The rims also contain fractured shells and pebbles,
and these same shells and pebbles are unbroken when
found in other areas.
This is some of the incredibly bad misinformation
about the Carolina Bays that catastrophists mindlessly
repeat without bothering to verify whether it is true
or not. The fact of the matter is that " fractured
shells and pebbles" are almost always **lacking** from
the sandy rims of Carolina Bays. The only places where
fractured shells and pebbles occur within the sands
composing the rims of Carolina Bays are at known
archaeological sites where they are obvious manuports.
+++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"The Bays are also found in a pattern of over lapping
and in rows that only a bombardment pattern of comet
fragments could create."
1. This is not true the erosion and rebuilding of the
rims of the Carolina Bays are very capable of producing
this pattern.
+++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"The Bays are eroding away, they are not being formed
by processes in action today."
They are **not** being "eroded away". Rather they
have been alternatively eroded and rebuilt by eolian
and lacustrine processes as they are being slowly
infilled by organic or other sediments. Go read the
article "New constraints on the evolution of Carolina
Bays from ground-penetrating radar" by John A. Grant,
Mark J. Brooks, and Barbara E. Taylor, which appeared
in vol. 22 of Geomorphology. An abstract of it is
found at:
SREL Home page, Office of Research, University of Georgia
+++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"There are no new ones forming."
As discussed above, 1. active siliclastic karst has
been observed, 2. it is impossible to directly observe
the formation of landforms that might require thousands
of years to develop, and 3. the environmental conditions
within the Atlantic Coastal Plain, which have varied
considerably over the last tens of thousands of years,
may not be those needed for the formation of siliclastic
karst. Just because the environemtal conditions now
might **not** be favorable for siliclastic karst to form
does **not** indicate that environmental conditions
at various times during the Pleistocene were always unfavorable for its formation.
Of course, from what he has written, Mr. wmscott
provides absolutely no evdience that new Carolina
Bays are **not** forming within the Atlantic Coastal
Plain. The statement that "There are no new ones
forming" is unsupported by any credible evidence.
He has no way of knowing whether new Carolina
bays are the process of forming or not.
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"and no other answer for their creation that makes
more sense then comet impacts has been put forward.
Any theory can be attacked, but let us see if you
can find a better one, otherwise if by nothing else,
the impact theory wins by default."
Given that a viable hypthesis, siliclastic karst,
does exist and the comet impact hypothesis cannot
explain many observations, e.g. the lack of preferred
orientation for Carolina Bays in Florida and New
Jersey and the NE - SW orientations of Carolina Bays
in Delaware, the comet impact hypothesis presents
many problems itself.
+++++++++++++++++ end of part 1 +++++
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
Houston, Texas
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by wmscott, posted 03-18-2003 5:09 PM wmscott has not replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2613 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 166 of 234 (35029)
03-23-2003 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by wmscott
03-18-2003 5:09 PM


Part 2 of 2 Parts
Start of Part 2
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"A web site on comet impact formation of the Carolina
Bays stated. "The proposed model with shock waves from
cometary fragments exploding above the surface creating
a series of similar landforms is conceptually very simple,
and is far less complex than most of the terrestrial
models postulated recently. For geometrically regular
forms such as Carolina Bays we prefer a simple causal
mechanism if it is feasible."
Siliclastic karst is a simple causal explanation. It
is far simpler and scientifically plausible than having
a metorite or comet explode first in the air and than
having 500,000 fragments, regardless of their size,
like a natural cluster bomb, all explode again just
above the ground without any of them actually
impacting the ground. (If they had impacted the
ground like normal meteorites, than the Carolina Bays
should all show the distinctive characteristics of real
impact craters.)
+++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"Examination of impact mechanics and Carolina Bay
morphometry eliminates traditional impact phenomena
resulting from meteoroid swarms or asteroids. However,
the unique orbital and physical characteristics of a
comet favor a model in which a high velocity retrograde
comet or a low velocity prograde comet collided with
the Earth. The incoming nucleus approached from the
northwest and fragmented. The fragments, diverging
from the main trajectory, volatized and subsequently
exploded in the atmosphere near the surface. The
resultant shock waves created shallow elliptical
depressions which are best displayed in the sandy
sediments of the Coastal Plain."
Experts in cometary and meteorite impacts would find
this explanation to be quite laughable. The problem
is that there is simply no known way to explain multiple
explosions, one high in the atmosphere, and then having
its fragments explode again exactly at the ground surface
like some sort of natural cluster bomb. After a meteor or
comet explodes high in the atmosphere, there is simply no
reason why its fragments would explode again right above
the ground. Instead, they should impact the surface any
meteorite or comet would do and leave recognizable crater.
Out of the several meteorites and comets that do explode
in the upper atmosphere each year, some with considerable
force, it quite curious that none of them, including the
Tunguska event and two other possible similar events that
have been recorded having ocurred in South America have
produced any Carolina Bays-like features. This web page
presents lots of speculation with little, if any, real science to
support their ideas.
Although twenty years ago when Savage wrote his book
this explanation might have had some credibility, however
the knowledge about how impact processes work gained
since the 1980s shows that this hypothesis simply doesn't
make any scientific sense.
Large comets and meteorites that reach the ground intact
do produce very large explosions and craters. However,
the explosions also dig deeply into the ground instead of
simply blowing a shallow patch of the surface away. If
the Carolina Bays, which are 1 to 2 km in diameter, were
created by such impacts, their original bottoms should be
over 90 to 150 meters deep, which they are not. Carolina
Bays among many other things simply too shallow to be
impact craters.
+++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
""This model is not fully substantiated. But, given
the terrestrial and extraterrestrial constraints used
in this paper, a comet remains a viable alternative
worthy of further consideration."
A RE-EVALUATION OF THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL ORIGIN OF THE CAROLINA BAYS"
The paper presented at this web page was published
in June of 1975. Since then, numerous people have given
this idea consideration and spent lots of time working
out the mathematics and physics of it needed to make it
work. Unfortunately, in the 27 years since it was
published, serious scientists have found the hypothesis
advoctaed by this paper just doesn't make any sense
in terms of what is now known about the process of
comet and meteorite impacts. As a result, the geologists
who work with impact craters and processes have all but
given up on the hypothesis proposed on the above web
page. For example, Mr. wmscott would have a difficult
time finding anyone attending the Lunar and Planetary
Conference in Houston, Texas this month that would
take "this model" seriously anymore.
+++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"Another web site had more information on comet impact
formation of the Carolina Bays and tied the event in
with the Pleistocene extinction event and a sudden
climate change event."
.....rather old and largely outdated discussion of
terminal Pleistocene megafauna extinction omitted...
The fact of the matter is that radiocarbon dates, OSL
dates, and pollen data from various Carolina Bays
previously discussed, all demonstrate that the formation
of the Carolina Bays occurred tens of thousands of years
prior to the extinction of megafauna at the end of the
Pleistocene. As a result, this discussion of terminal
Pleistocene extinction is totally meaningless as far as
the origin of the Carolina Bays is concerned.
+++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"While the comet theory is not universally accepted,"
This is a great understatement. :-) :-) Mr. wmscott
would have a very hard time finding even a sizable
minority among geologist would accept the "comet
theory".
+++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"it is by far the best theory for the formation of
the Carolina Bays and leads the pack by a wide margin"
It is the only theory to account for some features that
the other theories are unable to account for, and is
the obvious answer that pops out to even a casual viewer
of aerial shots of the Carolina Bays."
Given that the modern orientation and shape of the
Carolina Bays are the result of repeated modification
of the bays by erosion and deposition as documented by
the research, which I have cited in this and my previous
post, it is impossible, as falsely claimed above by Mr.
wmscott to determine the origin of these bays by the
observations of the casual viewer. However, by casual
observation, a person can see that the Carolina Bays in
Maryland, New Jersey and Florida, because of their lack
of any preferred orientation, cannot be explained as the
result of the impact of either a comet or meteorite.
Similarly, by casual observation, the northeast to
southwest oriented Carolina Bays in Delaware cannot be
explained by casual observation using the "comet theory"
either. The Carolina Bays are very complex landforms,
in which, more than just casual viewing is needed to
understand how they form.
In case of the aerial photographs, if a person carefully
selects the photography that best conforms to the argument
being made, casual observation will support the theory.
However, what is not usually shown, as illustrated by
Figure 51 of Kaczorowski (1977), are the many aerial
photographs of Carolina Bays of which a casual viewing
clearly refutes the "comet theory". The fact of the
matter, is that any data, e.g. aerial photographs, will
show "obvious answers" to the "casual viewer" if they
are carefully selected and illustrated because they
support the obvious answer, while contradictoty data is
ignored.
Go see:
Kaczorowski, R. T., 1977, The Carolina Bays: a
comparison with modern oriented lakes. technical
report 13-CRD. Coastal research Division, University
of south Carolina, Columbia.
+++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"Now if the Carolina Bays were formed as the result of
an exploding comet, they will of course all have the
same age. Considering the older dates given to a few
possible Bays, there seems to be only two possible answers,
either the older dated 'bays' are actually old lakes and
are not true 'Bays' or they are Carolina Bays and the
dates are in error. The evidence points to a single
event that created the Bays, as for the dating of that
event."
The problem is that people have looked at the spatial
relationships and relative degree of preservation of
the surface morphology of individual Carolina Bays. From
looking at these characteristics, it is quite clear that
Mr. wmscott is completely and utterly wrong about the
Carolina Bays having been created by a single event.
An example of such research is:
Washington, P. A., 1994, Spatial and temporal relations
among Carolina Bays in the southwestern North Carolina
coastal plain. Geological Society of America Abstracts
with Programs. vol. 26, no. 4, p. 68.
Washington (1994) stated:
"Statistical analysis of the size and areal distributions
of Carolina Bays in the southwestern North Carolina
coastal plain finds a series of distinct groups. Each
group is comprised of Bays with a very consistent size
and is found within a specific limited area, usually 15
to 30 km in diameter. The individual Bays within each
group have very similar character (depth of depression,
floor saturation, etc.) and degree of definition (clarity
of borders, etc.), suggesting the Bays within each group
are all of similar age and form a distinct genetic
population.
The areal extents of the various groups overlap, giving
the wide range of Carolina Bay sizes seen in most areas.
Within overlap regions, many Bays are terminated
(overlain) by Bays of other groups. The superposition
patterns among Bays of the various groups are consistent,
indicating that each group formed at a distinct and
separate time. Based on the successive superpositioning,
it can be shown that there are many generations of
Carolina Bays in this region. The Bays comprising these
populations become progessively less distinct with age."
The findings of this research clearly contradict the
supposition that they were created all at the same
time as required by the "comet theory". Because of
cyclic glacial-interglacial climate change,
+++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
dating is of course relative and needs calibration
according to what ever time scale we are referring
to. Whether that event occurred earlier or later
is not so much the point as the fact that it occurred."
This sounds like Mr. wmscott is throwing out scientific
data that has been validated and calibrated simply
because it contradicts his hypothesis. If the OSL and
radiocrabon dating had supported his hypothesis, we
would likely be hearing a very different story. :-) :-)
From various catastrophists, the reasoning might
be interpreted as being:
If the orientation of a Carolina Bay doesn't support
the "comet theory" then it obviously must not be a
Carolina Bay. Therefore, it doesn't have the
orientation peredicted by the "comet theory" it must
be another type of lake or pond "misclassified" as
a Carolina Bay. As a result, a person can ignore
orientation data from a "Carolina Bay" that contradicts
the "comet theory" and he and she is not obligated
to either use or show it in their diagrams and figures.
The latest version, I hear is:
If a Carolina Bay is dated as being too old to fit
the "comet theory", then either that "Carolina Bay" is
a lake or pond of different origin "misclassified" as
a carolina Bays or the dating technique used to date
needs to be calibrated. In either case, this data can
be ignored in discussing the origin of the Carolina
Bays.
The general rules, appears to be:
If data from a Carolina Bay contradicts the
"comet theory", obviously either the oriented lake it
came from has been "misclassified" as a Carolina
Bay or the data needs to calibrated to fit the theory. :-)
:-) :-) :-) If the data doesn't agree with the "comet theory",
than there must be something wrong with the data, but
certainly nothing can ever be wrong with the "comet
theory". :-) :-)
+++++++++++++++++
In message 160 of 160 wmscott further wrote:
"Since you like references, here is a whole bunch from
the first web site I cited on the Bays."
These references only shows how antiquated and obsolete
the research presented on that web page is. For example, in
terms of cratering mechanics the following are extremely
out-of-date and now worthless as scientific references:
Baldwin, R. B., 1963. The Measure of the Moon. Chicago:
The University. of Chicago Press.
Baldwin, R. B., 1965. A Fundamental Survey of the Moon.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Hartmann, W. K., 1973. Moons and Planets: An Introduction
to Planetary Science. Belmont, California: Wadsworth
Publishing Co., Inc.
Hawkins, G. S., 1964. The Physics and Astronomy of
Meteorites. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Krivov, E. L., 1966. Giant Meteorites. New York: Permagon
Press.
Wyatt, S. P., 1966. Principles of Astronomy. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Looking at these citations, it appears that the web page
understanding of the dynamics of meteorite and comet
impacts is woefully obsolete depending on references that
are over 30 years old. A person has to wonder where are
any modern citations about impact cratering, such as
Melosh's book on impact cratering to be found in this web
page.
It is interesting that list does include:
Frey, D., 1951. Pollen Succession in the Sediments of
Singletary Lake, North Carolina, Ecology, vol. 32,
pp. 518-533.
Frey, D., 1954. Evidence of the Recent Enlargement
of the "Bay" Lakes of North Carolina, Ecology,
vol. 35, pp. 78-88.
Both of these papers contain pollen data and radiocarbon
dates that refute the terminal Pleistocene age for theCarolina
Bays proposed by Mr. wmscott. (Of course
looking through the list of references, one of the
youngest of two references published in the same year is:
Daniels, R. B., and Gamble, E. E., 1971. Stability of
Coastal Plain Surfaces, Southeastern Geology, vol. 13,
pp. 61-75.
This web page apparently does not discuss any research
more recent than 1971. This just shows how out of touch
and out of date the discussion on this web page is about
what is known about Carolina Bays.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
Houston, Texas
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by wmscott, posted 03-18-2003 5:09 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Coragyps, posted 03-23-2003 8:47 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 169 by wmscott, posted 04-01-2003 8:29 PM Bill Birkeland has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024