|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When the flood waters receded, where did they go ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, I know. I live of ground composed of these deposits.
quote: But land doesn't. Percentage of landmass flooded on one continent doesn't imply that the same percentage on another would be flooded. Showing a flood over fifty percent of North America is not the same as showing a flood over fifty percent of the Tibetan Highlands for ex.
quote: Not at all. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5711 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Over-generalization. Much of interior Gondwana remained largely emergent during the Paleozoic. Where are these flood surges represented in Gondwana strata? What you are doing, as can be seen by your posts, is defining a global tempest on a local scale. So, the question then becomes why not concede that there were simply a number of local 'flooding' events? If you disagree, then show the global strata marking the peak flood. Baumgardner's rapid decay does not alter my criticisms one bit. In fact, the speed of radioactive decay is irrelevant. As for your knowledge of the Precambrian, it is important. Remember, Barry Setterfield claims that's when the flood occurred! So, why can't creationists agree on this global-changing event and the evidence. It's features are so nebulous that one wonders why you cling so closely to the adaptation of a Sumerian myth! Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 07-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Joe
I'm quite happy to concede that the data is compatible with local flooding. However that doens't explain the lack of birds in the palezoic etc. To explain that data we need globality. Of course the data is compatible with the mainstream view too. The question is which view is the total data most compartible with? Your points do not address my point that the ultimate covering strata would be the most heavily eroded. And what does Setterfield put the mesozoic/cenozoic down to? I explain the alck of Gondwana Paleozic marine strata the same way you do - it was more elevated than North America etc! How about the Gondwana Mesozoic (at least the continents that used to be Gondwana)? [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
John
Whatever the final analysis, there is plenty of water to cover most of the earth as empirically observed. It is only highlands where there will be diffuiculty and many of these do have marine strata! The ones that don't could have had theirs washed away. None of us knows the exact % becasue it's probably not an issue considered most of the time. Andor cited a Spanish example earlier toady. If you don't think I've argued plausibly that's fine with me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Nonsense. We know that the Rocky Mtns., for instance have been uplifted at least three times. There is evidence for this in syntectonic conglomerates. If there is no or little relief, you will not get such deposits. By the way, one of those uplifts was during your surges in the Pennsylvanian of the east coast, where water was flowing off a mountain range that rose much earlier. Why is it that creationists have such problems with sequential events?
quote: However, there is absolutely no evidence that all of the earth was completely covered at one time. This is not a global flood. I checked some columns earlier today. It is virtually impossible to find a time when there was no erosion somewhere in the world giving rise to coarse grained sediments.
quote: Actually, this can be done. What do you think the paleogeographic reconstructions are based on? Unconformities.
quote: You may argue it all you want, but there is no evidence for this.
quote: In that case you have constant "nuclear winter" for most of the 4000 years since the flood. There is no way to pack all of that volcanic ejecta into 4000 years without dramatic changes in the climate. Just look at what the eruption of Laki did in 1783, and imagine that times a thousand for 4000 years. Not a pretty site. The heat flows would be pretty destructive as well. Please give me some evidence for you hypothesis other than your suspicions.
quote: This is irrelevant. I don't care if every location has 100% marine strata. The presence of coarse terrigenous clastics and unconformities tell me that you are sadly misinformed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Silliness again. There is water to cover most of the earth right now. Does this mean that we are in a state of flood? After all, if it is most of the world, it could be all the world!
quote: Sure, it's called plate tectonics. Why is it that you only want all the benefits of plate tectonics but expect to do only your bidding?
quote: Actually, as stated above, this can be done. Tedious and really not of any values, so it probably won't be done. Just look at any paleogeographic map and calculate the percentages of emergent land through time.
quote: I don't and that is fine with me, too. [This message has been edited by edge, 07-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
The exact amount of land depends on the depth of the ocean basins and the heights of the continents given the amount of water. This amount of land has been variable due to tectonics. Why argue on the subset of issues we actually agree on?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
You'll have to tell me about syntectonic conglomerates. With a catastrophic flood I wouldn't be surprised if we don't need your relief and if we still get conglomerates. Who is arguing that the volcanic activity occurred in the last 4000 years? I put it primarily during the flood itself. It wasn't pretty. The nuclear winter cuased the ice ages post flood in our scenario.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
So was there much less water on earth prior to the flood ?
That is God created the excess waters ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Of course there is, and you could flood the entire planet with that water if you squished the continents enough. Herein lies your problem. 'Continental squishing' is a young field and there is much to learn. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Where are you putting the flood? The nuclear winter cuased the ice ages post flood in our scenario.[/B][/QUOTE] And the ice ages where when? ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Plate tectonics explains why there are marine sedimentary rocks at most locations.
quote: Or I could pull a Fred... Syntectonic conglomerates are formed by erosion of mountains undergoing rapid uplift.
quote: You cannot get them if there are no strongly positive land elements. No land, no terrigenous clastics.
quote: This is even more fantastic. We know there is some volcanic activity now. We know that there was volcanism in the Precambrian. How can you assign all of it to the flood period? Do you realize what the output of ash and heat would do to the planet? Sterilization, ark and all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5711 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Indeed! Let's take some of the Large igneous provinces and erupt them all in a years time:
Siberian traps: 4 x 10^6 km^3Karoo: 2.5 x 10^6 km^3 Parana: 2.0 x 10^6 km^3 Deccan: 8.2 x 10^6 km^3 Columbia River: 2 x 10^5 km^3 Total (non-eroded material)=1.7 x 10^7 km^3 of volcanic material erupted in one year. That is 0.5 km^3/sec! or 46,301 km^3/day Let's imagine that 1% of the material makes it into the atmosphere. That puts ~1.7 x 10^5 km^3 of dust into the atmosphere. If we assume a density of this particulate of ~1000000 kg/km^3 (very conservative=.001 kg/m^3), then 1.7 x 10^11 kg of dust enters the atmosphere! Since 99% of the volume of the earth's atmosphere is contained in the first 40 km or so---that means that the volume occupied by the atmosphere is 5.1 x 10^8 km^2. In the year of the flood, the atmosphere contained 333 kg of volcanic dust in every square kilometer of air. Someone else can calculate the heat released into the water by all this volcanic activity. I want to know if God provided oxygen masks to Noah and how did the boat survive? If one assumes more realistic densities for the particulate well....Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 07-08-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3854 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
Somewhere amidst all that volcanic devastation we need to fit in at a least a few caldera collapses and schedule 130 crater-forming terrestrial impacts.
Shall we arrange them for before, during, or after the Flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Peter
The flood waters innundated the land b the same mechanism that it did for mainstream science. Tectonic shaping of the ocean basins and continent levels. It's a mainstream fact that our continents have been largely covered by water. No miracuous water tricks by either of us. Can you imagine continents moving around the planet and the creation of large swags of ocean floors without sea-level changes?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024