Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When the flood waters receded, where did they go ?
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 131 (13389)
07-11-2002 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Andor
07-11-2002 9:59 PM


"I must rectify my previous post. Coccolitophores are not foraminifera, but golden-brown, single-celled algae (Prymnesiophyta).
Actually the intention of my first post was only to emphasize that a very fine grained sediment need a very slow and quite water to deposit, hardly compatible with the Flood."
--Not exactly, apparently this has the approach of saying that is incompatible with Flood waters because of vigorous wake structure of the sea surfaces on the earth. But this really doesn't effect deposition as at very shallow increasing depths, this activity ceases to be active. I won't argue that deposition is relatively slow of the fossil constituents of chalk limestones.
An addition to the mainstream POV for chalk depositional environment:
"The Chalk of NW Europe was deposited on the continental shelf during the earliest stages of the opening of the Atlantic Ocean (Biscay to Labradore opening at the beginning of Chalk deposition) . The sea level was much higher than the present day with the Chalk of Kent typically being deposited in a depth range of 100-300m. The sea levels varied through its deposition. However, not all Chalk was deposited at this depth with some marginal (shallow) marine deposits being recorded both in Devon and NW France."
-- http://www.geologyshop.co.uk/chalk.htm[/URL]
"But now I'm going to quote D.R. Prothero (Bringing fossils to life):
",i>...These algae form spherical cells about 15 to 100 microns in diameter, enclosed in a ball of calcareous plates called coccoliths, which are about 2 to 25 microns in diameter. Are so tiny that can fit into the pores of the foraminifera...,/i>
...Are also subject to significant post-morten transport, since they sink in the water column at a rate of only about 1 to 2 microns per second. At this rate, an individual coccolith would take 50 to 150 years to reach the bottom at 5000 m...However most coccoliths sink inside fecal pellets of zooplankton, and sinks to 5000 m in 22 to 100 days, while protecting the coccoliths from dissolution..."
--It is difficult to pinpoint the correct context with your quotes, in the most part due to the snips, characteristic of "...". The latter segment is interesting also. As for the former quote in italics, I am struggling to see exactly what it is he is saying. How could the enclosed section (spherical cells) be larger in diameter relative to the outer(?) "ball of calcareous plates".
--What text is written in between "[...]pores of the foraminifera..., ...Are also subject to[...]"
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Andor, posted 07-11-2002 9:59 PM Andor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Andor, posted 07-12-2002 5:44 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
Andor
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 131 (13407)
07-12-2002 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by TrueCreation
07-11-2002 11:15 PM


TC, may be I copied wrongly the data, I was almost slept. I can't consult the book right now, that would have to wait till this night (local time
). The platelets are biosinthesized inside the cell and then extruded. There are a few little platelets surrounding the cell. http://www.marbot.gu.se/SSS/others/XEmiliania_huxleyi.htm
There is a lot of writing between the two selected paragraphs because I wanted only to correlate the little size and weight and the corresponding minimal rate of sinking.
There is a lot of information in these two places:
http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/staff/tt/
http://geology.er.usgs.gov/paleo/nannos.shtml
I like you to visit also this two pages about chalk:
http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/Fichter/SedRx/Rocks/chalk1.html
And this from "Answers in Genesis", which seems to accept interesting geological data:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_chalk.asp
[This message has been edited by Andor, 07-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by TrueCreation, posted 07-11-2002 11:15 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by TrueCreation, posted 07-13-2002 12:34 AM Andor has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 131 (13462)
07-13-2002 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Andor
07-12-2002 5:44 AM


Thanks for the link information, I'll have to read through them, they look considerably short so that won't be a problem. I don't read very much Creationist material, though the AiG citing may be interesting. I'll post my comments in a few.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Andor, posted 07-12-2002 5:44 AM Andor has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 131 (13523)
07-14-2002 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by John
07-11-2002 6:04 PM


John
Good, let's talk gross issues of our starting point.
Here it is.
Everyone laughs at the idea of a recent Noahic global flood. But it is rather interesting for believers in the Bible that the geological column does record major marine transgression on land sufficient to cover all land below say 1000 feet. If such a transgression happened today about 50% of the earth's land surface would be covered.
So if we look at the geological data and ask - what if the Bible is accurate - what if the marine innundations recorded in the geological column are recent events of the Genesis flood?
The marine transgressions make up the majority of the geolgoical reocrd on land - they are not a side-issue. In between the main global innundations we have smaller (but 1000s of feet) of fresh water formations. These marine innundations go back until the time that there was a single continent Pangea.
Piecing this all together we are forced to conclude that if the Bible is correct then the tectonics of mainstream scinece simply occurred very quickly and the 1000s of feet of sediment were rapidly dumped by surges of marine innundaitons and fresh water flooding. The continetnal drift also occurred during this time and the associated sea-floor spreading would have caused the sea-level changes.
The tectonic events also generated the modern mountain chains and it is conceivable that the earth was flatter and that even the entire globe could have been covered at the peak of the Genesis flood.
Well that's quite some story. Next we need to look at the details and predictions made as well as potential mechanisms. The point is that there is nothing wrong with this gross level of arguement and it may actually document the truth!
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by John, posted 07-11-2002 6:04 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by John, posted 07-15-2002 12:45 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 131 (13533)
07-15-2002 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Tranquility Base
07-14-2002 10:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Everyone laughs at the idea of a recent Noahic global flood. But it is rather interesting for believers in the Bible that the geological column does record major marine transgression on land sufficient to cover all land below say 1000 feet. If such a transgression happened today about 50% of the earth's land surface would be covered.
So if we look at the geological data and ask - what if the Bible is accurate - what if the marine innundations recorded in the geological column are recent events of the Genesis flood?
The marine transgressions make up the majority of the geolgoical reocrd on land - they are not a side-issue. In between the main global innundations we have smaller (but 1000s of feet) of fresh water formations. These marine innundations go back until the time that there was a single continent Pangea.
Piecing this all together we are forced to conclude that if the Bible is correct then the tectonics of mainstream scinece simply occurred very quickly

Ok. This is where the details start to be important.
What mechanisms drive these rapid techtonic processes? Or, first off, what evidence is there that the process was rapid rather than sluggish?
quote:
and the 1000s of feet of sediment were rapidly dumped by surges of marine innundaitons and fresh water flooding.
How are the marine and freshwater floods seperated? In other words, over the time frame, why aren't the fresh and salt waters mixed even if just by the rapid switching of one to the other?
How do you account for the order of fossils in the sediments?
And assuming Noah is afloat on this surging ocean, what keeps him from smashing into the ground between these surges? Or pounding his brains out against the hull of the ark as it rushes back and forth in the sea? The forces generated in such an ocean could easily sink anything mere mortals could build.
[QUOTE][b]The continetnal drift also occurred during this time and the associated sea-floor spreading would have caused the sea-level changes.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Again, what drives this rapid continental drift?
quote:
The tectonic events also generated the modern mountain chains
Mechanism?
It seems to me that to accomplish what you propose you would have to postulate the release of energy comparable to an asteroid the size of the moon crashing into the Earth. The effects would be catastrophic in the extreme, resulting in far more than a year long flood. We'd still be in the midst of the chaos ( in spirit anyway, because the flesh wouldn't have made it)
I can guess at some of your responses based upon your past posts in other threads, but humor me.
Take care.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-14-2002 10:47 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-15-2002 1:57 AM John has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 131 (13535)
07-15-2002 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by John
07-15-2002 12:45 AM


John
The basic evidence of tectonics does not particularly argue for rapid or slow. It is slow now but that is the way every catastrophic event ends too. The actual data itself - lava flows, cross-matching biogeography, sea-floor magnetic anomolies do not argue for slow except if we do not accept accelerated radiodecay. I will grant that without acclerated decay then it all took millions of years. No arguement from me on that. But the mechanism that we propose drove it all rapidly is radiogenic heat - crustal and deep. All of the non-radioisopotic data is consistent with both fast or slow. It is not as if simply looking at the ancient sea-floor can tell us whether it was fast or slow. A computer simualtion might ultimately help distinguish these issues.
There is good evidence of incredibly intense periods of vulcanism - that would cover the enitre earth in X feet of magma - the Siberian traps. This is the sort of thing we expect in our model. Your framework interperates the geological column as the story of hyndreds of millions of years of serenity broken by the occasional catastrophe. We see it as creation and then the mother of all catastrophes.
In our model the fresh water flood was happening all of the time (at least for the first 40 days obviously). So it was a fresh water flood with tectonically induced marine inuundations. (The 40 days of rain were also tectonically hgerneated - condensed steam from vast trenches of hot magma). So you get alternating marine/non-marine beds. The rain during a marine innundation does not stop it from being marine. So the alterations must be due to the flood occurring as multiple marine surges. Tidal waves is one possibility although with the sea-floor spreading occurring during the flood there would have been genuine changes in ocean basin sizes with plate subduction slippages generating regressions.
The order of fossils we put down to biogeography, differential mobility and hydrodynamic sorting. The ark survived by providential positioning (eg on an ocean edge) and the surges don't have to necessarily be tidal waves. The ark was big.
Our energy source as explained is acclerated radiodecay. If the decay constants changed as we require then the energy is there in the rocks. Our scenario for generating all of this is the same as your scenario. If we could play it out on a computer screen we would agree with the sequence of events. We just would disagree with the timing and the crustal and mantle temperatures. But neither would violate any physics - both timings would be due to the amount of crustal an mantle heating.
I actually love mainstream science and do not mock it.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by John, posted 07-15-2002 12:45 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by John, posted 07-15-2002 7:38 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 131 (13591)
07-15-2002 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Tranquility Base
07-15-2002 1:57 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]The basic evidence of tectonics does not particularly argue for rapid or slow. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
It seems to me that it does. The mechanisms of plate techtonics are moving massive lumps of rock around the planet. Accelerate them quickly, as you would have to do, and those big lumps will be pulverized. We do not observe this.
Once you get them moving you have to stop them. More pulverizing. Try putting the brakes on a few zillion tons.
Essentially, any pre-flood sediments would be scrambled. This is bad for the hypothesis.
Then there is the temperature of the semi-liquid mantle upon which the continents float. Heating that rock to a temperature high enough for the continents to move across it/through it at these accellerated rates would perhaps heat it to a high enough temperature that the continents would sink into it and disappear. If I am not mistaken, the continents float on the mantle because of density differences. Increase the heat of the mantle, decrease the density. Also, increase the heat, melt the continents.
Then there is the problem of cooling it all down.
quote:
The actual data itself - lava flows, cross-matching biogeography, sea-floor magnetic anomolies do not argue for slow except if we do not accept accelerated radiodecay.
Am I mistaken in thinking that accelerated radio-decay is otherwise known as a thermonuclear explosion?
I imagine that you have studied Joe Meert's web-page concerning the effects of accelerated radio-decay. It isn't pretty.
quote:
All of the non-radioisopotic data is consistent with both fast or slow.
No it isn't. I am not the first to point out that there are full grown forests represented in the sediments between your flood surges.
quote:
There is good evidence of incredibly intense periods of vulcanism - that would cover the enitre earth in X feet of magma - the Siberian traps.
If you are postulating that this vulcanism corresponds to the flood, where is the lava now? A few thousand years is not enough to erode it away and/or cover it with what 30 feet to a few hundred feet of sediment?
And what about the air quality?
quote:
In our model the fresh water flood was happening all of the time (at least for the first 40 days obviously). So it was a fresh water flood with tectonically induced marine inuundations.
The sheer volume of the ocean should wash out the freshwater contributions, yes?
And shouldn't you see a global band of salty sediment?
[QUOTE][b](The 40 days of rain were also tectonically hgerneated - condensed steam from vast trenches of hot magma).[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Again you have an atmospheric temperature problem.
quote:
So the alterations must be due to the flood occurring as multiple marine surges.
A question about surging? When the ocean surges onto land and then retreats, where does it go until the next surge?
[QUOTE][b]The order of fossils we put down to biogeography, differential mobility and hydrodynamic sorting.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
But the fossil records don't support this. I have seen this debated before on hte forums and I am unconviced.
[QUOTE][b]The ark was big.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Not that big.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-15-2002 1:57 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-15-2002 9:05 PM John has replied
 Message 114 by TrueCreation, posted 07-15-2002 11:45 PM John has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 131 (13596)
07-15-2002 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by John
07-15-2002 7:38 PM


John
How can you say so confidently that 'The mechanisms of plate tectonics are moving massive lumps of rock around the planet. Accelerate them quickly, as you would have to do, and those big lumps will be pulverized. We do not observe this.'
In our scenario we are probably talking about a much hotter, and therefore less viscous, mantle as well as perhaps a more pliable crust.
I wont try to pretend fro a second that anyone has proven this but neither can we pretend it has been ruled out. We can't even pretend that the data doesn't even tell this story! Do you really think geologists can always look at rocks and tell how they formed? It's done by fitting to a framework, it's not 'ab initio' or 'first principles'.
The continents would of course automatically gradually slow down by friction once the cooling began winning over the heating.
The pre-flood sediments were sitting on top of the continents - they just took a ride - and yes they did get folded, twisted and rifted. Take a look at any geology textbook.
There is no way I could make such pronouncements in my field about someone else’s model that is so different. Any paradigm fro complex phenomena is essentially a fitted model. Half of what you say about it is because you fitted the data and taught yourself to associate X with Y.
And the continents did sink! It is known by mainstream science that vast areas of continents sank at the same time (leading to horizontal drops across vast areas) by 1000s and 1000s of feet! I fully agree with you about the continent elevations being dictated by relative density differences and this is what partially accounts for the elevation changes as well as the sea-floor spreading.
Without performing any detailed calculations passive cooling may have been sufficient.
What do you mean by 'accelerated radio-decay is otherwise known as a thermonuclear explosion'. The universe has certain parameters, some of which are constant some are not. The decay constants are linked to parameters that are known to be changing at the ppm level. If certain combinations of such universal constants changed in the correct way one could easily get accelerated decay. The only conneciton to thermonuclear explosions would be to check the extent to which their spontaneous occurance would be effected. Neutrons decay into protons, electrons and neutrinos. The rate is dictated by these 'constants'. Similarly for the spitting out of helium by the strong nuclear force.
I looked at Joe's web page and I just don't have the time yet to do the maths. In any case I don't think he takes accelerated decay into account there because Baumgardner's model of runaway subduction is a pre-acc-decay idea.
Your full grown forests have in some cases been shown to be explainable by burial of log debris. Such floating log mats automatically insert vertically into sludge. You have all ignored that fact.
The Siberian trap volcanism occurred during the flood and is found exactly where it is now! We explain everything exactly as you do except it happened in a short time. Lava flows are interspersed with sedimentation. It's only mainstream bias that translates these data automatically into long ages!
The air quality would have been pretty ordinary during the flood.
If catastrophic rains deposit a 100o feet of non-marine sediments from the highlands into a basin in between marine surges then why would a marine surge wash it all away?
A global band of salty sediment? We see about five near global bands of salty sediment! The majority of the geological column on land is salty sediment! We don't see one entirely global layer only because of erosion.
The surges were probably tectonically driven causing ocean basin size changes just as you yourselves believe. We go by the same model as you. I'm not kidding. So the water goes back into the ocean because of a tectonic event that made the ocean bigger again - probably a plate subduction slippage. I am very happy to tell you about how your scenario works but the point is why pretend the question is unique to us - it is an issue for both of us equally.
The fossils are something that would ultimately need to be explained in detail. I am personally satisfied that our 3-point explanation could achieve the known ordering and that the gross ordering is already consistent with qualitative expectations.
Most of your argument is based on claiming that you can estimate whether the event could have occurred quickly and yielded the same data. Since this is a such a different paradigm your statements primarily amount to 'I don't think it would work'. I simply myself prefer to say 'it is possible and a lot of data suggests rapidity'. Your other main argument is based on whether the conditions would have killed the occupants of the ark in which case we would agree that the conditions would have made it difficult but we would say not impossible. Lastly you rightly bring up the very good point of fossils for which we only have a hand-wavy answer.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by John, posted 07-15-2002 7:38 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by edge, posted 07-15-2002 11:50 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 118 by John, posted 07-16-2002 12:06 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 131 (13605)
07-15-2002 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by John
07-15-2002 7:38 PM


Sorry about the summarization, this is my 3rd attempt at posting.
"It seems to me that it does. The mechanisms of plate techtonics are moving massive lumps of rock around the planet. Accelerate them quickly, as you would have to do, and those big lumps will be pulverized. We do not observe this.
--pulverized? Also, we aren't supposed to to be observing this anyways. Its kinda like the big bang, only happens once.
"Once you get them moving you have to stop them. More pulverizing. Try putting the brakes on a few zillion tons."
--'More pulverizing', see above, I don't understand your word usage. And 'putting the brakes on a few zillion tons' of MORB is not difficult at such a velocity.
"Essentially, any pre-flood sediments would be scrambled. This is bad for the hypothesis.
--Scrambled? If you mean to imply a reference toward metamorphism, we find more than enough of this globally correlated. I'm not sure the Himalayan orogenic construction will satisfy you, but that's a pretty big one .
"Then there is the temperature of the semi-liquid mantle upon which the continents float. Heating that rock to a temperature high enough for the continents to move across it/through it at these accellerated rates would perhaps heat it to a high enough temperature that the continents would sink into it and disappear. If I am not mistaken, the continents float on the mantle because of density differences. Increase the heat of the mantle, decrease the density. Also, increase the heat, melt the continents. "
--Mantle-surface heat flow isn't going to 'melt the continents'. And your correct that the continents 'float' (ie, are buoyant) because of density differences. I'm sure you remember my breif explanation for chemical fractionation of the earths early crust. Forming crust didn't sink into the mantle because it cooled while the mantle was still extremely hot. Your statement, 'Increase the heat of the mantle, decrease the density', it just isn't that simple. Chemical differentiation gave the forming continental crust buoyancy (see: principal of isostacy).
"Then there is the problem of cooling it all down.
--To be honest, when I make assertions of this likeness, I get picked at for details. ie, the mathematics.
"I imagine that you have studied Joe Meert's web-page concerning the effects of accelerated radio-decay. It isn't pretty."
--That would be a good idea. Do you fully understand the theoretical geodynamic applications in his reasoning?
--You just can't have the mind-set that I 'just know enough to know it is a problem', thats where Hovind messed up.
"If you are postulating that this vulcanism corresponds to the flood, where is the lava now?"
--Buried.
"And what about the air quality? "
--And what about? Volcanic ashes and meteoric impact dusts would make perfect cloud condensation nuclei for precipitation. Assuming of course that volcanic activity were not submarine, the majority of which were.
"The sheer volume of the ocean should wash out the freshwater contributions, yes?"
--washout of freshwater contributions? What problem has this detail stemmed from?
"And shouldn't you see a global band of salty sediment?"
--This is one detail taken into consideration when identifying sea/fresh water marine deposition. And the majority of salt depositions are found within evaporital deposits. You don't think that the extraneous salt pouring into the ocean comes from nowhere do you?
"Again you have an atmospheric temperature problem."
--How do you know? What have you taken into consideration in coming to this conclusion?
"A question about surging? When the ocean surges onto land and then retreats, where does it go until the next surge?
--Back into the main body ocean, unless it is a globally correlated sea-level increase. If not it is also possible that it would have left a 'puddle' behind if hypsography allowed.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-15-2002]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-15-2002]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by John, posted 07-15-2002 7:38 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by edge, posted 07-16-2002 12:01 AM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 120 by John, posted 07-16-2002 12:56 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 115 of 131 (13606)
07-15-2002 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Tranquility Base
07-15-2002 9:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
John: How can you say so confidently that 'The mechanisms of plate tectonics are moving massive lumps of rock around the planet. Accelerate them quickly, as you would have to do, and those big lumps will be pulverized. We do not observe this.'
TB: In our scenario we are probably talking about a much hotter, and therefore less viscous, mantle as well as perhaps a more pliable crust.
Yes, so hot in fact, that the earth would be sterilized of all life, land-, sea- and ark-dwelling. We would have evidence in the volcanic record, expressed as different compositions, textures and areal extent, but these do not exist. Have you not been reading our posts, TB?
quote:
I wont try to pretend fro a second that anyone has proven this but neither can we pretend it has been ruled out. We can't even pretend that the data doesn't even tell this story! Do you really think geologists can always look at rocks and tell how they formed? It's done by fitting to a framework, it's not 'ab initio' or 'first principles'.
It has been ruled out. You go and find me regional ultramafic ash flows and continent scale ophiolites, and maybe I'll begin to listen. There is no evidence for any unusual volcanic activity of the type that would occur under your scenario.
quote:
The continents would of course automatically gradually slow down by friction once the cooling began winning over the heating.
When did this happen? Why did the plates not start sliding around sooner? What was the rate of cooling? What was the mechanism for heating? Give us data!
quote:
The pre-flood sediments were sitting on top of the continents - they just took a ride - and yes they did get folded, twisted and rifted. Take a look at any geology textbook.
Gee, how did pre-flood sediments get on the continents? What about the later sediments, how did they get folded? Are you saying that mainstream geology does not have an explanation? Why do you dismiss it so casually?
quote:
And the continents did sink! It is known by mainstream science that vast areas of continents sank at the same time (leading to horizontal drops across vast areas) by 1000s and 1000s of feet!
How do you know that they sank? Why couldn't sea level simply rise? And once it has done so, how is that evidence for a global flood? We're dying out here for lack of data, TB.
quote:
Without performing any detailed calculations passive cooling may have been sufficient.
Might'a been. But let's ignore any details, eh? This is your whole problem TB, no details, no calculations, no data, no evidence, nothing.
quote:
I looked at Joe's web page and I just don't have the time yet to do the maths. In any case I don't think he takes accelerated decay into account there because Baumgardner's model of runaway subduction is a pre-acc-decay idea.
This has been addressed elsewhwre. Once again, there is no EVIDENCE for accelerated decay, just a bunch of might'a beens and could'a beens; along with a whole bunch of wishful thinking.
quote:
Your full grown forests have in some cases been shown to be explainable by burial of log debris. Such floating log mats automatically insert vertically into sludge. You have all ignored that fact.
No. This is NOT a fact. Several rooted forests have been found in succession. Believe it or not, geologists reason these things out. Please give us specifics and we will explain it to you.
quote:
The Siberian trap volcanism occurred during the flood and is found exactly where it is now!
Wow, must be a miracle. Thousands of cubic kilometers of basalt didn't move! Another creationist revelation and a sure fire death blow to evolution!
quote:
We explain everything exactly as you do except it happened in a short time. Lava flows are interspersed with sedimentation. It's only mainstream bias that translates these data automatically into long ages!
You do not have the time nor the mechanisms unless you suspend the laws of nature. There is no evidence for such mechanisms.
quote:
The air quality would have been pretty ordinary during the flood.
LOL! Look at what the relatively small eruption of Laki in 1783 did. Can you imagine this multiplied thousands of times? Look at the eruption of Toba, the largest eruption during the existence of mannkind, and yet miniscule compared to the magnitude of eruptions you must envision.
quote:
If catastrophic rains deposit a 100o feet of non-marine sediments from the highlands into a basin in between marine surges then why would a marine surge wash it all away?
How does this happen? How do floods deposit thousands of feet of sediment in the highlands?
quote:
A global band of salty sediment? We see about five near global bands of salty sediment! The majority of the geological column on land is salty sediment! We don't see one entirely global layer only because of erosion.
Wrong. We don't see it because there is no evidence that it was ever deposited. There is no time in geological history when there were no coarse grained terrigenous sediments being deposited somewhere. Those clastics had to be eroded from an emergent land mass.
quote:
The surges were probably tectonically driven causing ocean basin size changes just as you yourselves believe. We go by the same model as you. I'm not kidding. So the water goes back into the ocean because of a tectonic event that made the ocean bigger again - probably a plate subduction slippage.
Well, not really, but that is irrelvant at this point. You have no evidence for a global flood.
quote:
The fossils are something that would ultimately need to be explained in detail.
No. Everything needs to be explained in detail. Mainstream science does this. Why should you be exempt?
quote:
I am personally satisfied that our 3-point explanation could achieve the known ordering and that the gross ordering is already consistent with qualitative expectations.
Details, please.
quote:
Most of your argument is based on claiming that you can estimate whether the event could have occurred quickly and yielded the same data.
Actually, not. The argument is based on the fact that there are not the rock types, compositions and physical properties necessary to make your scenario remotely possible.
quote:
Since this is a such a different paradigm your statements primarily amount to 'I don't think it would work'.
Not at all. See above. We are asking for evidence of a flood, not more just-so stories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-15-2002 9:05 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-16-2002 12:04 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 116 of 131 (13607)
07-16-2002 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by TrueCreation
07-15-2002 11:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Sorry about the summarization, this is my 3rd attempt at posting."It seems to me that it does. The mechanisms of plate techtonics are moving massive lumps of rock around the planet. Accelerate them quickly, as you would have to do, and those big lumps will be pulverized. We do not observe this.
--pulverized? Also, we aren't supposed to to be observing this anyways. Its kinda like the big bang, only happens once.
So, all this pulvirization and it leaves no record? Indeed, you believe in miracles.
quote:
"Once you get them moving you have to stop them. More pulverizing. Try putting the brakes on a few zillion tons."
--'More pulverizing', see above, I don't understand your word usage. And 'putting the brakes on a few zillion tons' of MORB is not difficult at such a velocity.
And on what basis do you say this? Not difficult, eh?
quote:
"Essentially, any pre-flood sediments would be scrambled. This is bad for the hypothesis.
--Scrambled? If you mean to imply a reference toward metamorphism, we find more than enough of this globally correlated. I'm not sure the Himalayan orogenic construction will satisfy you, but that's a pretty big one.
"Then there is the temperature of the semi-liquid mantle upon which the continents float. Heating that rock to a temperature high enough for the continents to move across it/through it at these accellerated rates would perhaps heat it to a high enough temperature that the continents would sink into it and disappear. If I am not mistaken, the continents float on the mantle because of density differences. Increase the heat of the mantle, decrease the density. Also, increase the heat, melt the continents. "
--Mantle-surface heat flow isn't going to 'melt the continents'.
Well, let's just look at where we have high geothermal gradients. Hmm, lots of volcanos. Maybe the continent won't melt, but it sure will get hot. In fact, John Baumgardner admits the a signigicant portion of the oceans would boil away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by TrueCreation, posted 07-15-2002 11:45 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 131 (13608)
07-16-2002 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by edge
07-15-2002 11:50 PM


Edge
You are just doing the usual Edge - 'there is no evidence for a global flood' even though we use the same evidence that you use to pronounce marine innundations! You have misunderstood a fitted framework as data itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by edge, posted 07-15-2002 11:50 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by edge, posted 07-16-2002 10:52 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 131 (13609)
07-16-2002 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Tranquility Base
07-15-2002 9:05 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]How can you say so confidently that 'The mechanisms of plate tectonics are moving massive lumps of rock around the planet. Accelerate them quickly, as you would have to do, and those big lumps will be pulverized. We do not observe this.'
In our scenario we are probably talking about a much hotter, and therefore less viscous, mantle as well as perhaps a more pliable crust. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
Still, you have to accelerate huge masses of rock.
I didn't intend any hubris in making the comments I did. It seems pretty obvious to me, but let me try again.
A continental mass is, well, a very big mass and prior the flood (correct me if this isn't what you postulate) if would have been more or less at rest. It would take a tremendous amount of energy to get this mass moving and then to accelerate it to speeds enough to get the continents into their current positions from thier pre-flood positions. You mentioned pangea. I'm not sure if you meant this to be your start. Assuming we have the energy and apply it to the continents, I postulate that the forces generated would be greater than the forces that hold the rock together. Every rock, or composite of rock, has a breaking point. I don't have the background to calculate what those forces would be exactly. Nonetheless, I think it is a problem worth considering.
quote:
Do you really think geologists can always look at rocks and tell how they formed?
No, I do not believe this, but I do believe the origins of most rock can be deduced.
quote:
The continents would of course automatically gradually slow down by friction once the cooling began winning over the heating.
How do you cool a superheated planetary mantle in a matter of months? That energy has to go somewhere-- into the atmosphere? Then you superheat the atmosphere. Very bad for living organisms. Back into the mantle? Not quick enough? Into the continental crust? Serious melting issues.
quote:
There is no way I could make such pronouncements in my field about someone else’s model that is so different. Any paradigm fro complex phenomena is essentially a fitted model. Half of what you say about it is because you fitted the data and taught yourself to associate X with Y.
So I can't comment on your model? Seems to be the gist of this paragraph.
Yeah, I fitted the data. So did you. Is there something irrational about what I've said that would lead you to dismiss it?
[QUOTE][b]And the continents did sink! It is known by mainstream science that vast areas of continents sank at the same time[/QUOTE]
[/b]
This is confusing as mainstream science doesn't have a 'same time as when the flood occurred'
[QUOTE][b]Without performing any detailed calculations passive cooling may have been sufficient.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
This I doubt seriously, but the burden is on you to do the calculations.
[QUOTE][b]What do you mean by 'accelerated radio-decay is otherwise known as a thermonuclear explosion'.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Well, this was mostly a joke. Note the smiley face.
[QUOTE][b]The decay constants are linked to parameters that are known to be changing at the ppm level.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
It took me fifteen seconds to find an article stating that evidence suggests that the constants have changed at most 1 percent over the lifetime of the universe.
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/constant_evidence.html
quote:
If certain combinations of such universal constants changed in the correct way one could easily get accelerated decay.
Ok. What changes? What combinations? What experimental evidence have you?
quote:
Your full grown forests have in some cases been shown to be explainable by burial of log debris. Such floating log mats automatically insert vertically into sludge.
Do you have mainstream links to support this?
quote:
The air quality would have been pretty ordinary during the flood.
But are you not depending upon massive volcanism? Volcanism and bad air go hand in hand.
[QUOTE][b]If catastrophic rains deposit a 100o feet of non-marine sediments from the highlands into a basin in between marine surges then why would a marine surge wash it all away?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I didn't mean wash away, more like mix.
Have you actually calculated how much water you are talking about? There is a limit to how much can be suspended in the air. A thousand feet of sediment? You are washing whole mountains away in a matter days or weeks.
quote:
A global band of salty sediment? We see about five near global bands of salty sediment!
You've missed the point I made of all the sediments mixing due to the incredible forces involved in the flood.
quote:
The surges were probably tectonically driven causing ocean basin size changes just as you yourselves believe. ... So the water goes back into the ocean because of a tectonic event that made the ocean bigger again - probably a plate subduction slippage.
Back to moving masses chunks of continent very rapidly. Once you clear that up, I'll consider this.
quote:
I am very happy to tell you about how your scenario works but the point is why pretend the question is unique to us - it is an issue for both of us equally.
Timeframe is critical. It isn't the same model if you change the timeframe from one year to 500 million.
quote:
The fossils are something that would ultimately need to be explained in detail. I am personally satisfied that our 3-point explanation could achieve the known ordering and that the gross ordering is already consistent with qualitative expectations.
If you can model this, I'll consider it.
[QUOTE][b]Since this is a such a different paradigm your statements primarily amount to 'I don't think it would work'.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Please, TB. What I've said is far beyond 'I don't think it would work.'
quote:
Your other main argument is based on whether the conditions would have killed the occupants of the ark in which case we would agree that the conditions would have made it difficult but we would say not impossible.
Just a thought really, not exactly an arguement. I had a flash of being in a boat on those chaotic seas.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-15-2002 9:05 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-16-2002 12:44 AM John has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 131 (13611)
07-16-2002 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by John
07-16-2002 12:06 AM


John
Thank-you for taking this series of posts seriously. I will treat yours with that same respect.
I agree we are proposing something bizaree. But the Bible does claim something bizaree. And the data IMO does look like something bizaree happened.
So, yes we do have to acclerate huge plates. If I ever get the time I'll get into the maths and compare Joe vs Baumgardner etc (as TC has asked me too).
Yes, we can assume Pangea was at rest initially. Pangea then broke up, new combinations formed and byt the end we got today's continents. The energy required could probably be calcaulted. Since much of the heat comes from radiodecay we of course provide the mainstream amount of energy in a short timeframe.
You raise a very valid point about the forces required to do this over a few years/decades vs the pulverisation threshold. On the other hand the forces are distibuted. This would have to be calculated/simulated. I don't think these calculations can be 'pronounced' in advance.
The cooling could have taken decades and millenia. It was probably an exponential drop after some point.
I didn't say you can't comment on the model but I didn't think your pronouncements were justifable.
The data fit to gradualism is fine - but if it was the flood then it will be wrong. The point is that both are fits to a framework.
By 'same time' as sinking I meant that the drops were neat vertical drops maintainng horizontality.
Sure, cooling calculations would have to be done.
De Young is working on the combination of constants required. Preliminary results are in the RATE book. One hint that we are on the right track is the ppm level change in alpha.
The forest stuff is well documented by creationists. But both sides argue a lot about it. It comes down to the extent of rooting. But it is indispuitable that the mechanism exists! Have you seen the floating log piles from Mt St Helens? I have an underwater video showing those logs sinking vertically into sludge. Filmed by Austin, from ICR.
Yes the volcanism would have geenrated very bad air.
Surges would mess up the top of a previous bed sure - but via hydrodynamic sorting it would deposit as new layers.
The 40 days of rain doesn't need to be in the air simulataneously. Steam would have risen until oceanic rifts were cooled. This represents a continuous source of water for the atmosphere to continuously take in and condense out as rain.
Yes whole maountains were washe away. Ever seen the Mt St Helen's mud slide?
I simply do not expect the sediments all to mix with each new surge. The surges don't have to be a tidal waves.
You've challenged me to exlaio he 'moving chunks'. The lcosest is probably Baumgardner. I could not do better than him but if I get around to it I'll translate his writing from professional geologese into English.
I agree that fundamentally the timeframe should be distinguishable from the data. I don't think that has been done and it is not easy.
Woodmorape is the closest to modelling the flood fossil record.
OK - you said more than 'I don't think it would work' but all you have argued is that a detailed analysis may falsify a rapid geo-column flood. I agree.
If the flood is true it was the most incredible phenomenon on this planet ever.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by John, posted 07-16-2002 12:06 AM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 131 (13612)
07-16-2002 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by TrueCreation
07-15-2002 11:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--pulverized?
Yes. squashed pounded twisted crushed powdered broken warped mashed
quote:
Also, we aren't supposed to to be observing this anyways. Its kinda like the big bang, only happens once.
and like the big bang, it should leave a trail
quote:
'More pulverizing', see above, I don't understand your word usage. And 'putting the brakes on a few zillion tons' of MORB is not difficult at such a velocity.
ummmm..... mass times (velocity squared)
quote:
If you mean to imply a reference toward metamorphism
No, TC. I meant mud. I believe this was a comment on the layering of sediments.
quote:
--Mantle-surface heat flow isn't going to 'melt the continents'.
This is not a weird as you seem to think. If the mantle were hot enough this is exactly what would happen. Of course, no one has yet to risk giving an actual postulated temperature for the mantle during this time.
quote:
I'm sure you remember my breif explanation for chemical fractionation of the earths early crust.
Correct. That and some research. I hate being wrong-- makes me look things up.
quote:
Forming crust didn't sink into the mantle because it cooled while the mantle was still extremely hot.
Interesting, but that doesn't seem the mesh with this very well. Also reference this link for the continental crust melting argument above.
[QUOTE][b] Your statement, 'Increase the heat of the mantle, decrease the density', it just isn't that simple. Chemical differentiation gave the forming continental crust buoyancy (see: principal of isostacy).[quote][b]
Yes, I realize this. Still you do decrease density as the temperature goes up. The bouyancy is partially dependent upon temperature. Is this a problem? Could be. This has to be taken into account.
[quote][b]"Then there is the problem of cooling it all down.
--To be honest, when I make assertions of this likeness, I get picked at for details. ie, the mathematics.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I am not making the iconoclastic claims.
[QUOTE][b]"I imagine that you have studied Joe Meert's web-page concerning the effects of accelerated radio-decay. It isn't pretty."
--That would be a good idea. Do you fully understand the theoretical geodynamic applications in his reasoning?
--You just can't have the mind-set that I 'just know enough to know it is a problem', thats where Hovind messed up.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
ad hominem thanks... If I said I do fully understand it, I'd be lying.
It doesn't matter if I fully understand it. What matters is that it is a problem for this theory.
quote:
"And what about the air quality? "
--And what about? Volcanic ashes and meteoric impact dusts would make perfect cloud condensation nuclei for precipitation.

Sounds like a formula for acid rain.
quote:
"The sheer volume of the ocean should wash out the freshwater contributions, yes?"
--washout of freshwater contributions? What problem has this detail stemmed from?

.... from the problem of having alternating fresh and salt water deposits in rapid succession.
quote:
"Again you have an atmospheric temperature problem."
--How do you know? What have you taken into consideration in coming to this conclusion?

hmmm...... This was a response to the idea that the mantle convected its extra heat into the atmosphere as it cooled. So, the mantle is very hot and very large-- orders of magnitude larger than the atmosphere. It stands to reason that the atmosphere under this scenario would have to absorb a lot of heat. Ergo, the it gets really really hot.
quote:
"A question about surging? When the ocean surges onto land and then retreats, where does it go until the next surge?
--Back into the main body ocean, unless it is a globally correlated sea-level increase. If not it is also possible that it would have left a 'puddle' behind if hypsography allowed.

Am I right in thinking that there is never a 100% global flood? Seems like we always have a bit of dry land somewhere.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by TrueCreation, posted 07-15-2002 11:45 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by TrueCreation, posted 07-16-2002 2:23 AM John 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