Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (9005 total)
44 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 41 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 881,036 Year: 12,784/23,288 Month: 509/1,527 Week: 188/207 Day: 10/39 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008

Message 35 of 519 (482067)
09-14-2008 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Jason777
08-04-2008 5:31 PM

Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Jason mentioned volcanic activity in a previous post. Just thought I'd throw this fact in the mix... In southern Italy you can find marine shells inside volcanic craters. You can also find them along slopes in volcanic tuff, as well as Roman bricks, pieces of pottery etc. Proof that the earth "regurgitates" itself via volcanism.

Creationists, Evolutionist and Geologists alike are often "perplexed" about layers of rock and assume they were "deposited" over great lengths of time, or a relatively short period of time. Early geologists warned about this illusion. Keep in mind ALL rocks at one time were molten, and "deposited" in great mass (the greatest masses occur in fissure eruptions), and when they dry....they stratify due to the intense heat and pressure.

Remember, the earth was not only flooded, but utterly destroyed (read Gen. ch. 6 KJV). And the mass part of the destruction was clearly through volcanic activity on a massive, massive scale.

Buon divertimento.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Jason777, posted 08-04-2008 5:31 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2008 1:40 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2008 1:54 PM Architect-426 has responded

Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008

Message 39 of 519 (482131)
09-14-2008 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
09-14-2008 1:54 PM

Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Thanks for the welcome and the tips on the quotes RAZD.

This is a science thread, not a fantasy thread, and as such you would need to provide evidence of actual physical objective reality, not biblical references, to show that such things actually occurred.

Alright, maybe I misunderstood. I thought this whole website is devoted to Creation that is Scripturally based, vs. Evolution based on Darwinism. If we are talking about the flood of Noah here, and the question regarding marine fossils scattered on mountains and all over creation, then it does apply. If you are going to debate the great flood, you have to grasp the entire event and the purpose. I am supporting the flood with real science AND Scripture, is that not what I am supposed to do here? If anyone does not want to hear what I have to say, I will not participate. If you do wish for me to participate, then I will continue to use Scripture along with science, and I will debate politely and respectfully. Its your call....

Which are exposed layers inside or have fallen from the exposed surfaces afterward?

You do understand, don't you, that shells can be melted in furnaces as part of standard manufacturing processes for making lime, and so they would not survive as shells when mixed with volcanic lava. Romans used lime to build their roads.

These fossils are found inside the craters, Somma, Visuvio, Monte Nuovo etc. The bricks are also found in the craters and tuff. I will be there again next month so if I have time I will verify for myself and let you know.

Yes, I have visited many furnaces. Everyone should visit a brick manufacturing plant or a foundry if you have the chance. Intense heat dramatically changes the composition of materials.

There are various types of volcanic eruptions, not just a "lava flow". Depending on the depth of the eruption, type of explosion (stromboli, gaseous, phreatic etc.) the result will be various types of ejections which in turn later crystallize into various types or rock. Volcanos even eject mud and water. Moreover, volcanic dikes spread out from volcanos, and deep down into the earth thus drawing up the local rock and eventually ejecting it out of the vent. So it is not out of the question, that these marine shells or fossils, were mixed in with other rocks and eventually were erupted, in tact. The earth, thru volcanism, becomes very plastic.

If there was a massive volcanic or flood event it would show clearly in the soil layers.

I'm not talking about soil layers but rock. The evidence is below the soil layers, and yes sometimes even above. Also, volcanic activity results in soil, very good soil, that is why the wine from Italy is so wonderful, due to the volcanic soil. Your coffee...volcanic soil. We can open up another topic on this alone so I won't go into depth on this. I can also go on and on talking about Mt. Mazama, but again I think it will be off topic perhaps??

Sorry, many of my geology books are very old so I don't have a link, but I will work on that, I guess I'm "old school". I did find this link regarding fossil shells written in the 1700's by the Italian scientist/naturalist Anton Lazaro. Its quite lengthy and in Italian, sorry. I have not read all of it yet myself.


Cheers everyone.

Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : No reason given.

Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2008 1:54 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2008 7:51 PM Architect-426 has responded

Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008

Message 53 of 519 (483494)
09-22-2008 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
09-15-2008 7:51 PM

Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Hi Razd, I only have a few moments to spare so I will have to keep my responses brief for now.

Perhaps you can check out the sites where he investigated this matter when you return: it would be pretty cool to walk in his footsteps for a bit eh?

I like this idea, could be fun and interesting. I spend most of my time in southern Tuscany, but its not too far from where Leonardo lived. I'll get one of my sons to work on tracking down his footsteps.

For instance, you said "Remember, the earth was not only flooded, but utterly destroyed (read Gen. ch. 6 KJV)" - so what is your evidence of this destruction? How can we test for that condition?

I won't go into the "chapter and verse" that support this but will say the flood was a huge "dynamic" occurrence in which everything was destroyed (at least all terrestrial life), and this account is not only in the book of Genesis. The destruction was through various forms of volcanism that I mentioned earlier, and was not just a "rain event" that most people associate the great flood as being. Very heavy rain is a result of large phreatomagamatic eruptions, by the way.

Deep down in the earth the temperature and pressure transform rocks (see metamorphic rock), and thus the marine fossils would be completely altered of not destroyed, and I take if from your argument that this is not the case.

They would certainly die, but may not be completely destroyed. What we mainly see are trace fossils i.e. the shape or imprints. It is possible that they can be ejected from an eruption fairly intact. A volcano in Peru sucked up a lake, erupted the water and left a town littered with dead fish. (Gieke, A Textbook of Geology) Also, there is an abundance of life very deep. Some of the trilobites are blind, so they could have certainly been living in deep, subterraneal seas or bodies of water that were ejected onto the surface in huge eruptions. They would then harden along with other ejecta into rocks, and the rocks then layer as they dry (stratification phenomena).

You also hit a key term "metamorphic", the earth during this event metamorphed. It was completely and forever changed, this is also in Scripture, and supported by science. During the event land was destroyed, mountains rose, valleys sank, etc. My favorite science is dynamic geology (the study of volcanism and earthquakes).

The problem I have is that geology and archeology and paleontology and astronomy all have evidence....

We all have the same problem, so I could not agree more! For now lets just consider the geological veiwpoint. In order to fully understand the geologic time-clock, you must go to the beginnings. It started with classifying fossils, in layers, and went from there. Lord Kelvin first came up with the multi-billion year idea through calculating the cooling of the earth, but his calculations left out a huge factor, water! (don't get me wrong, he was absolutely brilliant). Then here comes c14, radiometric, argon-argon, etc. In a nutshell, the geologic time-clock was built upon because it was "accepted" and not often challenged until fairly recently. I won't go into the problems with the methods above, (maybe another topic), but I do concur with this statement, from a "old earth" geologist......

"There are many situations where radiometric dating is not possible, or where a dating attempt will be fraught with difficulty. This is the inevitable nature of rocks that have experienced millions of years of history: not all of them will preserve their age of origin intact, not every rock will have appropriate chemistry and mineralogy, no sample is perfect, and there is no dating method that can effectively date rocks of any age or rock type."

I will have to go back to your initial topic quote sometime later.

Ciao for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2008 7:51 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Coragyps, posted 09-22-2008 7:45 PM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2008 10:53 PM Architect-426 has responded

Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008

Message 56 of 519 (484583)
09-29-2008 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Coragyps
09-22-2008 7:45 PM

Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Hi Coragyps,

I stand corrected, my source states he came up with 98 million years, so he was one of the first to come up with "multi-million" years. Sorry about that.

The amount of water "estimated" is grossly underestimated. The continents are saturated with water, not to mention deep subterranean water. During the deepest exploration drilling to date, to much of their surprise scientists found water 6 miles deep. The earths mantle could very well be full of super-heated/super-critical water, which brings up another interesting fact....The formation of magma requires water as a flux, further proof of abyssal water.

Absolutely the Himalayas and other mountains are formed via tremendous pressure (vertical) and temperature. Volcanism can raise mountains quickly and have all the ingredients of temperature, pressure, explosive dynamics, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Coragyps, posted 09-22-2008 7:45 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by JonF, posted 09-29-2008 6:22 PM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 65 by Coragyps, posted 09-29-2008 9:37 PM Architect-426 has responded

Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008

Message 58 of 519 (484588)
09-29-2008 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
09-22-2008 10:53 PM

Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
Hi Razd,

Yes, I will take some photos if I have time to journey on some of his paths (I'll take photos anyhow). By the way, this summer my clan dug up quite a few fossils at my cousins ranch in Texas. Mainly shells, ammonites, and various pieces that appear to be bones. I will be glad to take photos of those and post them if they may be of interest.

Back on the subject of destruction....

Go back to Genesis chapter 6. It says that "all flesh" will be destroyed "with the earth", including the "creeping things" (insects). Now we all know that insects can certainly survive in/on water, could hold onto debris, etc. In order to "wipe out" all living things "with the earth", volcanism would certainly do the "trick". Of course along with flood waters, earthquakes, etc. to complete the destruction and ultimately transform the face of the earth. This also has profound spiritual meaning in which I will not go into here.

Volcanism is highly complex and extremely powerful, and the main ingredient is WATER. In a phreatic type of eruption, steam is ejected thus causing heavy torrential downpours. Study the events that took place during the eruption of Krakatoa.... Ships encountered heavy rain (ash as well) along with hurricane force winds, tsunamis (felt all the way in Africa). Also note LAND WAS LOST....quickly. The personal accounts of the event are horrific to say the least.

Now take this event, say times 1,000, and apply it in dozens of regions all over the globe. You get massive rain, massive tsunamis, massive loss of land, massive fissure type eruptions, massive mountains, massive quakes, earth debris mixed with super-heated water and hard shelled aquatic "critters" turning into layers of rock and fossils, etc.....

Regarding your comments on the age of the earth/rocks (thanks by the way for the link to the other thread, it looks like you guys have that one well covered)... for me the "show stopper" is simply the beginning assumptions that are made of "known conditions" prior to the "eruption" of the rock and that their "clocks" are reset to zero. This is the "foundation" if you will of radiometric dating. So if the foundation is flawed, the results will therefore be riddled with flaws. Someone can show me detailed calculations all day long, but I will say "back to the drawing board folks". Someone can probably produce calculations that the Empire State Building can turn a backflip......but you and I know the reality of that happening.

The other factors probably no one is considering (maybe this should be moved to the other thread) may not be as "scientific" but certainly have profound effects on science;

POLITICS - Yes, good 'ol politics, especially university politics will affect the work of scientists. Gotta keep the funding for the research...

THE MORTGAGE - If you don't think this has anything to do with scientific results think again. If you are a geologists wanting to advance your career and pay the mortgage, you will play the "old earth" game to make your peers look good and to solidify what you have been taught. If you don't, your job might be in jeopardy and the mortgage might not get paid.....its a game of "lets make each other look good here".....

THE BIG SHIP - What the??? The big "geology ship" has been launched and its TOO BIG and the earth is TOO OLD to turn around! Yes, it would be a HUGE embarrassment to the profession if they admitted the results were off. "We have told too many people, written too many books, articles, museums etc, etc.....lets just keep feeding the public with the million-billion scenario and they won't be able to refute it..."

LIABILITY - Now when was the last time you heard of a geologist sitting in a court room getting sued over stating the earth, and its formations are millions-billions of years old? A geologists can say "the Rockies are 70 millions years old" and to everyone else they say "man thats old" and life goes on. You have to admit it sounds cool to say something is millions of years old. Now if you are an Engineer, Architect, Doctor, and you make a mistake, and peoples lives are at risk, believe me you will end up facing the bench. So what we put on paper better darn well work, no guessing or "fudging it".

All right enough for now. I'm sure this post will heat things up a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2008 10:53 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2008 8:19 PM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2008 11:46 PM Architect-426 has responded

Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008

Message 83 of 519 (485390)
10-08-2008 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by JonF
09-29-2008 6:22 PM

Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Hi JonF, thanks for the link. I am actually surprised to see Geikie on the list, one of my favorite Geologists. He actually taught not to attempt to "look for a beginning", but I guess he threw some calcs in there for good measure.

Another thought, the sun is cooling, someone needs to inform Al.....

It's not water in a form available for flooding.

Actually it is. Magam is formed by water, and when it reaches the atmosphere it gives off water in the form of steam. Also the most powerful "natural" explosion is when magma comes into contact with more subterranean water (phreatomagmatic) then all hell breaks loose, more water released into the atmosphere.

The vast majority of mountains, including the Himalayas, are not volcanic and bear many marks of having taken millions of years to form.

Actually, the vast majority of mountains are volcanic, and were formed via volcanic dynamics. The Colorado Rockies for example, all volcanic. Alaska and the Canadian Rockies, volcanic. Appalachians, deep volcanic roots. The Andes, probably the highest concentration of "active" volcanoes in the world (over 2,000 in Chile alone and counting....) Mexico, Japan, Indonesia, Turkey, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Iran, France, Italy (yes, even in the Alps there are volcanic dikes and the Dolomites were forced upward via volcanic action). The Himalayas, you bet those suckers blew their lids (no one lived to see it) and were then badly eroded by denudation followed by glaciation. Just north of the mountains is the Tibetan Plateau, a huge volcanic "field". Further north, the Tian-Shan mountains were known to have volcanic activity.

Volcanoes everywhere, did I mention the ones in Texas?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by JonF, posted 09-29-2008 6:22 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by anglagard, posted 10-08-2008 1:03 AM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 85 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-08-2008 1:15 AM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 89 by edge, posted 10-12-2008 8:04 PM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 90 by roxrkool, posted 10-12-2008 11:16 PM Architect-426 has responded

Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008

Message 94 of 519 (486075)
10-15-2008 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
09-29-2008 11:46 PM

Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
Hi Razd, thanks for your reply, just a few explanations.

So it is your interpretation that volcanism was used even though the bible does not explicitly so state.

What else do you suppose "with the earth" could be? It does not say "with a bunch of rain". Yes it did rain of course, but that was a result of the destruction (volcanic) action, and then the mega tsunamis causing the waters to rise. Read on in Scripture, you'll find it, seek and you will find my friend....keep in mind, the word "volcano" did not exist in Hebrew (volcan was the roman god of fire).

Again, I see no mention of earthquakes, nor of transformation, just flood water.

I recommend reading the book of Job. He lived shortly after the flood. Quakes and volcanism go hand-in-hand as you probably know that St. Helens blew its lid after a series of quakes. Quakes are also referred to quite a bit in Scripture by the way.

And interestingly, none of these kind of accounts are recorded in the flood story, as far as I can remember: please cite your chapter and verse for that evidence.

Well no one survived but 8 people, and I think they had a few things to do while it was all happening. Accounts were passed on, thats why we have the story today.

Back to Krakatoa...

Yes in fact there was heavy rain, mud rain to be exact as recorded by a sea captain (by the way 33 ships were sunk). I don't have the account in front of me but I will post some of it later.

And yes, sea water was the source of the tsunami. If a "little" volcano like Krakatoa can cause this much devastation, just think what a mega Krakatoa could do! What I meant was Krakatoa eruption X 1000 X dozens of global localities for a "series" of explosions = mega disaster. I'm actually working on the numbers so I will need more time on this...

Ah yes, the old world wide conspiracy theory.

Just simply the reality of politics here. I am an architect by profession, but I am also a politician.....I have to "feed the machine". All professions are riddled with politics, its the way of the world, unfortunately.

By the way here is a recent article on "science woes" as a result of politics.


Well, interestingly I didn't think of is as a conspiracy theory, but now that you mentioned it, Charles Lyell and 'ol Chucky D had a thing going on. Theories are built upon until you get a "mountain"....which is what were really talking about here so yes, lets get back to your topic. I'll address some of the mountain formation in other posts as I see I need to respond to.

Of course the other alternative is the reality that the earth IS in FACT old.

Of course its old. How old? Well it looks like that debate will go on into infinity. For me, I'm not going to take any assumptions as hard facts simply because the "known" conditions are, in fact UNKNOWN, added to imperfect rock samples, added to imperfect humans, added to imperfect equipment, then you get FAAAR from perfect results. Then come the "fudge factor"...

Anyway enough on this subject, but I tell you what....if a scientist can successfully retrieve a sample of iron, nickel, or God knows whatever else is in the very CORE of the earth, put it into a spectro-blaster and come up with 4.6 billion years on the nose, then I'll say "your right, its OLD!", but it won't shake my Faith, the earth was still made, and destroyed, by God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2008 11:46 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Coragyps, posted 10-15-2008 6:23 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 97 by bluegenes, posted 10-15-2008 6:50 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2008 10:02 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008

Message 96 of 519 (486081)
10-15-2008 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Coyote
09-29-2008 8:19 PM

Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
Hi Coyote, some additional thoughts..

At this very recent age you must look to archaeologists and sedimentologists, not geologists, for your evidence.

We obviously see this event completely differently. I see the evidence (as recorded in Scripture as "my" opinion really makes no difference whatsoever) in the rocks, sediments, history etc. Mountains were thrown down, land was tilted, overturned, the earth was "melted", land was lost, etc. so the rocks were definitely changed, they were "metamorphed". The entire map was changed as the earth was completely obliterated.

You bring up an interesting point on sediments. I work with geotechnical engineers quite a bit on construction projects. Here, just under the topsoil, you have "sandy-silty-clay", or "silty-sandy-clay" or even "clayey-silty-sandy" material, and there are always boulders scattered throughout before you hit solid rock. Now where do you think all this material here in the Appalachians came from?

Sand - formed via mechanical (water)erosion of rocks , also formed when molten material is ejected into water as it immediately explodes into pieces.

Clay - bits of igneous rock flattened and mixed with water and sometimes organic material. Bentonite (as an example of a clay, not found here)in particular is volcanic and is formed as it is filtered through seawater.

Silts - grain size rocks mixed with organic material, typically formed at the bottom of bodies of water.

Boulders - well we all know what a boulder is but you should see some of the monsters we dig up. You have to ask, "now how did that 10 ton mass get there?" Then I have to get more money from the client to remove it....

Conclusion - mass destruction and flooding.

Besides, you would think that the Egyptians and other early civilizations would have noticed.

The Egyptians did not exist before the flood, they are in fact Mizraim (Arabic Misr). Probably a bit off topic but an interesting one as I am also fascinated by archeology.

Face it, the idea of a global flood 4,350 years ago is a religious belief, one that is contradicted by the overwhelming evidence of science.

Oh I love science, and science, archeology, history, current events, etc. all prove Scripture. Besides the Bible is not a religious book, I am not religious, so how could it be a "religious belief"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2008 8:19 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by bluescat48, posted 10-15-2008 7:14 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 99 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2008 7:36 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 101 by roxrkool, posted 10-15-2008 10:14 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008

Message 102 of 519 (486098)
10-15-2008 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Coragyps
09-29-2008 9:37 PM

Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Would that be the Bertha Rogers well drilled in the 70's out near Elk City, Oklahoma? If so, I'm a little puzzled that "scientists" were surprised at finding water there. It was drilled into the Arbuckle, which was known long before then to be an ocean-laid limestone that was later changed to dolomite - by rainwater. The petroleum folks would have been very surprised to not find water there.

The one I was referring to was the one in the Soviet Union.


Its interesting, isn't it that petroleum is found floating on top of subterranean water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Coragyps, posted 09-29-2008 9:37 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008

Message 103 of 519 (486099)
10-15-2008 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by anglagard
10-08-2008 1:03 AM

Re: Misconception Concerning Igneous Rock
I think you are confusing the term volcanic with the term igneous.

I'm not confused.... Igneous rock = "eruptive" rock...that didn't erupt...i.e. crystallized dried up Magma that originated very deep, and was very, very hot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by anglagard, posted 10-08-2008 1:03 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by roxrkool, posted 10-15-2008 11:36 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 107 by anglagard, posted 10-16-2008 2:09 AM Architect-426 has responded

Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008

Message 105 of 519 (486101)
10-15-2008 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Minnemooseus
10-08-2008 1:15 AM

Re: Way off-topic, and probably very wrong
Hey Minnemooseus,

How about some references for these assertions? My impression is that you are pulling this info out of thin air, or perhaps just misunderstand what is volcanism.

Sure. Some recommended reading:
Encyclopedia of Volcanoes
Volcanism; Hans-Ulrich Schmincke
Volcanoes; Rosi, Papale, Lupi
All Geology books by Geikie (he was fascinated by volcanism and had a very keen eye)

A few web sites:

The Canadians have done a great job identifying volcanic edifices and calderas. Browse thru this and you will be amazed just how many are "known".

Now this is way cool!! (as my sons would say). I hope you can see the video of this underwater eruption recorded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA (gotta love that name!)

It is estimated that 75% of all volcanoes are undersea. A lot going on down there to say the least. Now just think what will happen to little hard-shelled sea critters if they get caught up in that mess...

Here is some info on the largest tephra eruptions known. Note the Fish Canyon Tuff and La Garita caldera in the San Juan Mtns Colorado. Snowshoe mountain is a huge resurgent dome complex just south of Creede.

Interesting article on Soufrière Hills volcano.

Article on mass extinction by undersea volcanoes. Of course I don't agree with the time scale...

I hope this helps.

Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : wrong link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-08-2008 1:15 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by bluescat48, posted 10-16-2008 12:10 AM Architect-426 has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008

Message 108 of 519 (486175)
10-16-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by edge
10-12-2008 8:04 PM

Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Hi Edge

Please explain. Certainly there is some water in most magmas, but to say that water forms magma is kind of an esoteric argument that I would like to hear your explanation of.

It is recognized by volcanologists that water acts as a heat transfer source or flux to melt rocks. This makes perfect sense as water deep within the earth would be at super-heated and super-critical temperatures due to enormous pressure.

Here are a couple of articles on lab magma. Scientists at MIT have proven this.

Some do, some don't. Sometimes the water comes off without eruption.

This depends on the amount of water/magma mixture. The most powerful water/magma contact ratio is understood to be 1:10. If there is more water, the eruption is "wetter", if less, then its "dryer".

And where did most of that water come from?

The deep abyss of the earth we don't know much about and can only assume by reading P and S seismic waves unless there is another method I'm not aware of Other than exploration drilling). There could be, and probably is, a lot more deep abyssal waters. Psalm 136.

The waters for phreatomagmatic explosions comes from either ground water, aquifers, subterranean rivers, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by edge, posted 10-12-2008 8:04 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by edge, posted 11-07-2008 9:20 PM Architect-426 has responded

Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008

Message 109 of 519 (486176)
10-16-2008 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by roxrkool
10-12-2008 11:16 PM

Re: How long under water is the issue here.
The vast majority are, in fact, the result of tectonism.

Will you please elaborate on the documented rate of movement of these plates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by roxrkool, posted 10-12-2008 11:16 PM roxrkool has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by roxrkool, posted 10-17-2008 9:06 PM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 112 by NosyNed, posted 10-18-2008 6:04 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008

Message 113 of 519 (486424)
10-20-2008 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by anglagard
10-16-2008 2:09 AM

Re: Misconception Concerning Igneous Rock
Hi anglagard,

Since you are using 'made up definitions' instead of definitions agreed upon by the scientific community of geoscientists, I would certainly argue that either you are confused or you intend to confuse.

OK, I see where your coming from and I respect that. Great comment because it made me think and realize perhaps you, and others don’t see where I’m coming from. So let me try to do some explaining here….

Consider me as a “layman” looking into the world of geology. In order for me (and I’m sure many others) to fully understand and/or grasp terms/concepts, I like to “simplify” things a bit. Now while my abridged definition of igneous rock may not be, well let’s say “scientifically” accurate, it is in fact true that igneous rock was once magma, forcing its way through the earth’s crust (intruding) and not quite making it to the surface (not erupting), and thus solidifying beneath the surface forming these great masses, bosses, dikes, etc. in which now many are exposed.

As an example of how science and other professions can get a bit muddy or overly complex, consider the US tax code, which was written by attorneys, revised by attorneys, expanded by attorneys, etc. Now we have a tax code that only people who are fully educated in the “interpretation” of the code (our accountants) able to understand it. My accountant (God bless him!) is quite gifted with the ability to explain things to me in terms that I can understand, or, the “bottom line”……do I owe, or will the Uncle give me at least some of my hard earned money back….

It’s certainly no different with my profession. I can throw out some architectural lingo to my clients and get the “deer in the headlights” look, or I can explain things in terms that they can understand. Once I do that, then the doors of communication open up to better understanding each other, and we will therefore have a more successful project.

I also think you were referring in particular to the wonderful examples of plutons that we have here in the Appalachians while I was making more of a general reference to igneous rock. As you probably have already noticed, I also try to make “light of things”, in other words joke around a little. That’s just me, we all need to “loosen up” a bit and not take ourselves too seriously.

One other thought, and then we’ll get back to the topic of trilobites on mountains, keep in mind that all earth science terminologies are, in fact, man-made. What I mean by this is they are simply terms/definitions we have created in order to help us understand this awesome, mind-boggling complex world in which we live. We are simply “observers”, and nothing more. Furthermore, when we consider our “allotted” time to observe this world, it is very, very, very humbling. Whether you chose to believe the world is billions or thousands of years old, we are ONLY here for a very small blip of time, and what we do with our God given time then becomes paramount. Tomorrow may never come for any of us.

I hope this all make sense. Sometimes we have to get a bit “off topic” in order to get back on topic.

All right, no more lecturing or “preaching”……the topic at hand is very interesting and perplexing. I believe that we are actually now getting to the “meat” of the topic by discussing mountain formations. So I think the following must be explored:

1. Origins and various mountain formations.
2. How fossils are formed/made.
3. The mechanisms of transporting, placing, or mixing of these fossils in the rocks.
4. How the Flood did, or did not, have anything to do with the placement of fossilized specimens on mountains.

I will do my best to go back and respond to some earlier posts, but I only have so much time….

Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : I misspelled deer!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by anglagard, posted 10-16-2008 2:09 AM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 10-20-2008 1:12 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008

Message 123 of 519 (488747)
11-16-2008 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by edge
11-07-2008 9:20 PM

Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Hey Edge,


Really? As something of a volcanologist myself, I find this to be a remarkable statement. You are saying that water will transfer enough heat from one place to another to melt rocks in that new location?

First off I never said I am a volcanologist, but utterly interested and fascinated by the phenomena? Absolutely, and I believe it was the scientific mechanism in which the earth was utterly destroyed. Why wouldn’t a body of water act as a heat transfer? In engineering it’s simply called convective heat transfer. The earth is dynamic, not static at all and there’s a heck-of-a lot going on down there. If there are large abyssal bodies of water at these extreme temperatures, then they could certainly be able melt the rock at their boundary. At that point volcanism begins with the vertical movement of the magma body through the crust. And of course depending on their viscosity, temperature, mineral makeup, local geology etc. will determine weather they become intrusive or extrusive.


Actually, it doesn't make sense at all. Most water in volcanic rocks is bound water. It is not a separate water or steam phase untill the body cools.

This can potentially open up a bigger discussion of which rocks are “volcanic” and which are “not”. I’ve always been perplexed by this in studying geology. Virtually all rocks, with the exception of some sedimentary rocks, were at one time molten, and had to be “placed” in their current position by a huge mechanism. If this is true, then technically all rocks are “volcanic”. Not all erupted out of a conical volcano, but were spread across the face of the earth in a “volcanic” fashion. So where do geologists conclude rocks originate from if not via a volcanic mechanism?

In addition, yes the water at that point will certainly be bound water after cooling. The fact is there is dissolved water in all magmas. Some types of magmas more than others of course. Where does this water come from? It must be buried deep. And if the water is given off too quickly, the magma body will stop it ascent and dry.

Neither of these say anything like what you seem to be talking about.

I’m somewhat at a loss on your comment here. My point is magma needs water. Water reduces the melting point tremendously. It is the most important volatile in magma “production”, followed by CO2. Here are a few more links that may help.


Click on the video of the lava fountain recorded in Hawaii earlier this year. No fishing allowed!

This one in particular talks about the aqueous fluids released in mid-ocean crusts.


Do you really think that seismology has found bodies of water in or below the crust of the earth?

You bet they have.


Ah, good! A biblical reference to tell us about the structure of the earth. Now that makes sense. However, I'd like to see some data.

Provided above.

Have you ever seen a subterranean river?

Quite frankly I try to spend most of my awake and vertical time above ground, and yes I have witnessed subterranean water.

Do you understand what an aquifer is?

Of course. Ever heard of the Quarani’ Aquifer or the Ogallala Aquifer systems? There is plenty of water available inside the earth for phreatomagmatic and hydrovolcanism.

And why would any of these not be dexcribed by a mainstream model?

These models do exist and are certainly described in phreatomagmatic and hydrovolcanism as well as other types of volcanism. One more scientific link to bore everyone with:


Let me summarize this.

1. The Scriptures describe deep abyssal waters. Also read Psalm 24 as well as Genesis Chapter 1. Go ahead, it won’t hurt you…
2. Magma needs water as a flux to form and contains dissolved water.
3. Seismic anomolies have produced results of deep abyssal waters.
4. The interior of the earth was first thought to be molten, then solid, and now the conclusion is both. I agree that it is both.
5. Crustal waters provide the needed “coolant” interaction with magma to produce large scale volcanic explosions. Los Alamos National Laboratories have proven the larger the magma, water contact area, the greater the power of the eruption. In other words, volcanic explosions can be utterly colossal.
6. It has been observed that when large scale eruptions and earthquakes occur, other regions of the earth are affected. This was the case this year when shortly after the Sichuan earthquake occurred, new geysers opened up in Iceland. Also volcanologists are a bit perplexed by the eruption of three volcanoes in Alaska this year and have concluded that these eruptions are most likely interconnected. Scripture supports this type of action-reaction phenomena.
7. Water always wins in the water-rock battle. Always. It melts rocks, turns rock into mud, explodes, flips rocks over, makes mountains out of them and blasts them into smitherines. It floods, erodes, and freezes causing more and more damage to rocks. The very element that sustains and gives life has the utter power to completely destroy it, and God destroyed the earth with water.

I hope this helps to clarify my hypothesis. Thanks.

Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : bad joke

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by edge, posted 11-07-2008 9:20 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Coyote, posted 11-16-2008 3:50 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 125 by bluescat48, posted 11-16-2008 4:56 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 127 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2008 8:08 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 129 by roxrkool, posted 11-17-2008 1:32 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020