Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
I was planning on just doing another combined post for the two of you again, but it appears I first need to give you some remedial instruction first.

---

Good, I'm ready.

quote:

---

Now Edge, I have not been trying to prove a global flood in my recent posts, I have lately been discussing non isostatic elevation changes.

---

Oh, I thought the subject of this thread was the global flood.

quote:

---

Just as I stated to you in Post-365 "Now I have not been trying to prove a global flood with our little digression here, at least not directly, all I have been trying to do here is show that not all changes in sea level have direct isostatic explanations in terms of weight on or in the lithosphere."

---

Seems to me that is exactly what you are talking about. Weight on the lithosphere.

quote:

---

I am explaining a theory on the effects of sea volume changes on ocean island elevation. These shifts have occurred with the glacial cycles a number of times and is not limited to just the sudden end of the last stage of the ice age and the resulting flood.

---

Good, please give us a chart showing this relationship. Handwaving is nice, but to defend your flood model you need more than that.

quote:

---

This is something I found in examining the details of how the deluge occurred, and how the earth was able to recover. My contribution to island theory solves the mystery of the raised shorelines.

---

Good, then I'd like to see it in the peer-reviewed literature. Can you give me a reference?

quote:

---

I wanted to clear this up for you, (again) before I go into more detail on this in my next post to the two of you. Later, we can return to our main topic, the deluge.

---

I can't wait. But I'd like to see some documentation of your island theory first. So far, all I have is your word that these things correlate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
I my last post I was focusing on changes in the profile of the magma chamber caused by large changes in sea level which in turn would affect the resulting island elevation.

---

I know what you are trying to argue, but you are not addressing the issue of how ocean level changes can move such an enormous mass of rock.

quote:

---

The uplift do to this type of action is more dependent on the chamber and island factors than on the size of sea level change, which is why the uplift or depression can be far larger than isostactic forces can account for.

---

You've just undercut your own argument by taking the driving force AWAY from the sea level changes.

quote:

---

We all agree that the uplifted shorelines found in the islands are caused by uplift, there is no other explanation. My argument is that changes in sea level can act as the trigger for that uplift.

---

And I have gone to great lengths to show why this is silly.

quote:

---

Such wide spread uplift must have a common cause.

---

Not really, and even if they do have common cause you haven't shown why it must be your common cause.

quote:

---

To sum up, I am saying that at the retreat of each glacial advance there was a large increase in ocean volume and depth which resulted in sea floor depression and resulting uplifting of the islands.

---

The mass of the volume of water vs the mass of the affected rock is trivial.Really, I have countered everything you posted here and so has Edge.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
I my last post I was focusing on changes in the profile of the magma chamber caused by large changes in sea level which in turn would affect the resulting island elevation.

---

I know what you are trying to argue, but you are not addressing the issue of how ocean level changes can move such an enormous mass of rock.

quote:

---

The uplift do to this type of action is more dependent on the chamber and island factors than on the size of sea level change, which is why the uplift or depression can be far larger than isostactic forces can account for.

---

You've just undercut your own argument by taking the driving force AWAY from the sea level changes.

quote:

---

We all agree that the uplifted shorelines found in the islands are caused by uplift, there is no other explanation. My argument is that changes in sea level can act as the trigger for that uplift.

---

And I have gone to great lengths to show why this is silly.

quote:

---

Such wide spread uplift must have a common cause.

---

Not really, and even if they do have common cause you haven't shown why it must be your common cause.

quote:

---

To sum up, I am saying that at the retreat of each glacial advance there was a large increase in ocean volume and depth which resulted in sea floor depression and resulting uplifting of the islands.

---

The mass of the volume of water vs the mass of the affected rock is trivial.Really, I have already countered everything you posted here and so has Edge. You aren't really addressing the issues we raise, but instead are just restating your theory.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 08-13-2002]

John & EdgeI am just amazed by your total lack of counter arguments. You need to cite specific problems with my theory and offer a better explanation for the evidence. Failure to offer a better explanation is a tactic admission of defeat. Judging from the quality of your posts, I have totally blown you guys away. Maybe you just need to get your thoughts together, because I know you want to make a better showing than you did in your last posts. Otherwise as it stands, I have demonstrated my theory on island elevation as being a very workable theory that it's detractors are unable to find specific fault with. The only part of either of your posts that came close to counter argument was a brief reference to increased hot spot activity. The problem with that is that is what I am saying happen, only that it was caused by an increase in ocean volume. If you wish to argue against my theory, you need to come up with another explanation for what caused the surge in activity that raised ocean islands at the end of the ice age and explains the periodness seen in the uplift.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
I am just amazed by your total lack of counter arguments.

---

I am amazed at your total lack of ability to understand the multiple counter-arguments we have given you.

quote:

---

You need to cite specific problems with my theory and offer a better explanation for the evidence.

---

This has been done.

quote:

---

Failure to offer a better explanation is a tactic admission of defeat.

---

I think you are misinterpretting the decision to stop head butting a brick wall with an admission of defeat.

quote:

---

Judging from the quality of your posts, I have totally blown you guys away.

---

You have totally ignored everything we've said.

quote:

---

Maybe you just need to get your thoughts together, because I know you want to make a better showing than you did in your last posts.

---

ouch.... ohh.... you're hurting me. How I wish this forum were peer reviewed. But I guess you'd ignore that input as well.

quote:

---

Otherwise as it stands, I have demonstrated my theory on island elevation as being a very workable theory that it's detractors are unable to find specific fault with.

---

Like hell....

quote:

---

The only part of either of your posts that came close to counter argument was a brief reference to increased hot spot activity.

---

Which is not a good explaination, why?

quote:

---

The problem with that is that is what I am saying happen, only that it was caused by an increase in ocean volume.

---

You have never countered various and sundry questions as to how such a miniscule mass as the ocean could manipulate the oceanic crusts.

quote:

---

if you wish to argue against my theory, you need to come up with another explanation for what caused the surge in activity that raised ocean islands at the end of the ice age

---

No we don't. The unworkable-ness of one theory is not dependent upon the veracity of another theory.

quote:

---

and explains the periodness seen in the uplift.

---

You've never shown any kind of significant correlation.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
I am just amazed by your total lack of counter arguments. You need to cite specific problems with my theory and offer a better explanation for the evidence.

---

Well, I suppose if you ever presented any evidence for your flood scenario we could discuss it, but you haven't. You have simply presented a half-baked mechanism for an event that there is no evidence for. There is really nothing to respond to. You have also been given alternative explanations which have modern, observable analogs, but you simply pass them of with a wave of the hand.

quote:

---

Failure to offer a better explanation is a tactic admission of defeat.

---

You have been given alternatives. You have chosen to ignore them. That is perhaps the most frustrating part of this discussion.

quote:

---

Judging from the quality of your posts, I have totally blown you guys away.

---

I will admit to not having put much work into my reponses since it didn't seem to be called for. Now, if you actually presented some evidence for a global flood and something other than your own word regarding you model, then we might have something to discuss."Blown away?" Well, I guess that could be one way of looking at it, but probably not in the the way you'd like to think. But then I'm sure you can't see anything from a point of view other than your own.

quote:

---

Maybe you just need to get your thoughts together, because I know you want to make a better showing than you did in your last posts. Otherwise as it stands, I have demonstrated my theory on island elevation as being a very workable theory that it's detractors are unable to find specific fault with. The only part of either of your posts that came close to counter argument was a brief reference to increased hot spot activity. The problem with that is that is what I am saying happen, only that it was caused by an increase in ocean volume. If you wish to argue against my theory, you need to come up with another explanation for what caused the surge in activity that raised ocean islands at the end of the ice age and explains the periodness seen in the uplift.

---

I don't know whether to laugh or cry, wmscott. For someone who has made up an ad hoc theory with absolutely no evidence to back it up and no experience in the field, you are incredibly self-assured. You have never answered, for instance, why the 'magma' should flow inward, toward Hawaii, when it would appear that this avenue of escape should have been cut off in short order. Your example of stepping on a tile in cement has exactly the opposite effect, but when this is pointed out to you, you ignore us.In fact, I would say that not only is your understanding of geological processes confused, but as these examples indicate, you are disrespectful to anyone disagreeing with you.

JohnYou don't have to be amazed at my total lack of ability to understand your multiple counter-arguments, the reason is simple, you haven't posted them. I am not clairvoyant, what ever your great counter-arguments are, you have to post them if you want to bring them into the discussion. I was hoping my last post would get you or somebody else to post some good counter arguments. But all you have posted, once again, is hot air.Arguing that increased hot spot activity caused the uplift is not an argument since we both accept this part of the cause. I am saying that the increase in ocean volume triggered or controlled the uplift. Just as the pressure of your foot on the gas petal controls the speed of your car, your foot doesn't supply the energy to push the car down the road.This is how the islands were lifted above the waters at the end of the ice age. In areas where on going glacial rebound has occurred we find a continuous progression of raised beaches leading down to the water's edge. In the islands (and some other areas) we find greatly raised beaches with large gaps in-between. This indicates that the uplift was sudden and occurred in cycles. What I am saying is that uplift occurring a cross wide areas occurring in this pattern is obviously connected with the cycles of changes that occurred in ocean volume in connection with the ice ages. The two patterns are too similar and too closely related not to be connected.Come up, you guys are such push overs! You have the whole weight of orthodox mainstream science behind you and here I am pushing a theory supposedly totally disproved over two hundred years ago, and you can't even give me a good counter argument to my island uplift theory!

EdgeI am not ignoring your alternatives, how can I ignore something you haven't posted. Your post, like your pervious one, fails to offer an alternative. Come on, what is your great alternative explanation for the cause of the surge of island uplift?As for me being disrespectful to anyone disagreeing with me. I would suggest you take some of your own posts and read them as if they were addressed to you. If you want more respect, you should show it to others and then perhaps you will receive more of it in return. But if you don't show it to others, isn't it hypocritical to expect it?My theory is also not 'ad hoc' since it is based on an interpretation of the evidence, even if you don't agree with it. As for evidence, I have been citing evidence such as the raised shorelines, just because you disagree with my interpretation doesn't make it disappear. You need to over come my theories by providing a better explanation of the evidence, then you can dismiss it, not before. As for having no experience in the field, writing a book on the geology of the flood must count for something, not to mention the on going success of this thread.As for the example of stepping on a tile in cement having exactly the opposite effect, of course it does if you change the model as you did in your argument. The purpose of any model or example is to illustrate a point so the student can understand it and grasp the concept. If the student has problems with the illustration it is generally best to drop it and use another that he hopefully will be able to grasp. Since you do not want to understand and try very hard to reject what I am trying to say, this requires that any illustration I use with you be extremely simple. The point I was trying to get across was that a rising sea level results in the mass above the island displacing water which reduces the island's weight at the same time an increasing ocean depth increases pressure on the surrounding ocean floor which also results in island uplift, due to the island's pressure is in comparison to the surrounding sea floor is now less. (pressure on sea floor has increased due increased ocean depth, while the portion of island beneath the part that sticks above water does not increase.) I wish I could show this to you with a nice little animation with moving arrows. The possible uplift due to these two factors is also only part of the total that I am looking for. Don't look at it as if I were saying that one effect all by its self explains everything, this kind of misconception will only make it harder for you understand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
I am not ignoring your alternatives, how can I ignore something you haven't posted. Your post, like your pervious one, fails to offer an alternative. Come on, what is your great alternative explanation for the cause of the surge of island uplift?

---

It is something that we know happens at hotspots elsewhere and have actually observed. Can you guess?Both John and I have mentioned this to you. It appears that my observation suggesting that you really do not respect other posters is accurate.

quote:

---

As for me being disrespectful to anyone disagreeing with me. I would suggest you take some of your own posts and read them as if they were addressed to you. If you want more respect, you should show it to others and then perhaps you will receive more of it in return. But if you don't show it to others, isn't it hypocritical to expect it?

---

I don't expect it. I was just making a point. You could have started this whole discussion on a better note. When I started responding to you, it was in the spirit of helping you improve your understanding of geology and the second edition of your book. You have spurned everyone here and some will no longer even respond to you.

quote:

---

My theory is also not 'ad hoc' since it is based on an interpretation of the evidence, even if you don't agree with it.

---

Once again, the point is that you have NOT provided evidence. You have taken a piece of information and turned it into a fantastic story.

quote:

---

As for evidence, I have been citing evidence such as the raised shorelines, just because you disagree with my interpretation doesn't make it disappear.

---

The raised shorelines are evidence for a host of explanations. They are not diagnostic of your scenario. In return, we have given you actual observations and you simply ignore them and go off on your merry way.

quote:

---

You need to over come my theories by providing a better explanation of the evidence, then you can dismiss it, not before.

---

You have been given this on a number of occasions for a number your stories. For instance, to you, finding diatoms at an elevation of 600 feet means there was a worldwide flood. For us it could mean many things such as a rise in sea level related to melting glacial waters. But a global flood is one of the LEAST likely explanations.

quote:

---

As for having no experience in the field, writing a book on the geology of the flood must count for something, not to mention the on going success of this thread.

---

Long lived thread are not necessarily a testimony to quality of a thread. You will notice that very few people participate because of your unrelenting bull-headedness. And yes, experience in the field is an absolute necessity, especially when lecturing to a university professor. I don't care what you have written. I can tell when a geology book is written by a non-professional.

quote:

---

As for the example of stepping on a tile in cement having exactly the opposite effect, of course it does if you change the model as you did in your argument.

---

I quoted your statement exactly. How did I change the model?

quote:

---

The purpose of any model or example is to illustrate a point so the student can understand it and grasp the concept. If the student has problems with the illustration it is generally best to drop it and use another that he hopefully will be able to grasp. Since you do not want to understand and try very hard to reject what I am trying to say, this requires that any illustration I use with you be extremely simple.

---

I think you will have a hard time disabusing anyone here of the notion that you use simple examples because that is all you understand.

quote:

---

The point I was trying to get across was that a rising sea level results in the mass above the island displacing water which reduces the island's weight at the same time an increasing ocean depth increases pressure on the surrounding ocean floor which also results in island uplift, due to the island's pressure is in comparison to the surrounding sea floor is now less.

---

It couldn't have anything to do with heating of the upper mantle and increasing the buoyancy of the lithospher, I don't suppose. Now, what was that arcane explanation you gave, again?

quote:

---

(pressure on sea floor has increased due increased ocean depth, while the portion of island beneath the part that sticks above water does not increase.)

---

It has been explained to you why this is insignificant several times, but you have ignored those posts.

quote:

---

I wish I could show this to you with a nice little animation with moving arrows.

---

I don't think you get it. I understand the kinematics of your model. It simply will not work.

quote:

---

The possible uplift due to these two factors is also only part of the total that I am looking for. Don't look at it as if I were saying that one effect all by its self explains everything, this kind of misconception will only make it harder for you understand.

---

Nonsense. What you are saying is that the weight of water will displace basaltic material upward thousands of feet. Why don't we see mantle diapirs penetrating the earth's crust due to simple loading? Why is it always a light material, like salt, that has risen under the influence of gravity?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
You don't have to be amazed at my total lack of ability to understand your multiple counter-arguments, the reason is simple, you haven't posted them. I am not clairvoyant, what ever your great counter-arguments are, you have to post them if you want to bring them into the discussion. I was hoping my last post would get you or somebody else to post some good counter arguments. But all you have posted, once again, is hot air.

---

I wish there were a scorecard off to the side so that lurkers could vote on this sort of thing.All I can say is that your comments above are absurd. You've been given numerous examples and counter-examples and you have chosen to ignore them all, even to the point of denying that those arguments exist.

quote:

---

I am saying that the increase in ocean volume triggered or controlled the uplift.

---

And Edge and I both have argued that such a scenario is unworkable, and we have given you reasons for such belief.

quote:

---

Just as the pressure of your foot on the gas petal controls the speed of your car, your foot doesn't supply the energy to push the car down the road.

---

uhhh.... that is because there is an engine under the hood... surely you can't be serious about this analogy?

quote:

---

What I am saying is that uplift occurring a cross wide areas occurring in this pattern is obviously connected with the cycles of changes that occurred in ocean volume in connection with the ice ages. The two patterns are too similar and too closely related not to be connected.

---

No problem, but where is the part about the oceanic crust and the mantle being deformed by miniscule water level changes?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

John;Could you please post the numerous examples and counterexamples that I am supposedly ignoring?The 'engine under the hood' is the heat of the earth which is the driving force behind plate tectonics and hot spot uplift. I have been suggesting that changes in ocean volume can act as a throttle on the rate that uplift occurs at.The 'minuscule water level changes' we are discussing here are possibly on the order of several thousand feet.

EdgeNo I can't guess (at least with any high degree of accuracy) what your counter argument is, nor can I read your mind. So, could you please post it so we can make it a part of this discussion? I honestly don't know if you are referring to a real counter argument, or if you just don't have an answer, but are too proud to admit it.On my finding diatoms at an elevation of 600 feet, it was 1,000 feet, and I am saying that it was due to a rise in sea level related to melting glacial waters. Now if there was a 1,000 ft meltwater flood at the end of the ice age, who is to say it wasn't deeper. I am hoping to be able to examine high elevation locations for marine traces. Now positive findings from such locations would put this discussion on a different footing.If a long lived thread is not necessarily a testimony to quality of the thread, then why do they keep posting? A number of people have dropped out because they couldn't hold their own. No one has yet to post evidence that would be fatal to my theory on how the flood happened. That is why I keeping posting, I want to see what the best arguments against my theory are, so I can find out what needs to be corrected or discarded. Thank you very much for the complement on my "unrelenting bull-headedness." I count it as a virtue to be stubborn for the right reasons. It would be foolish to change my understanding on something just because it disagrees with yours, you have to convince me with solid evidence. Which I believe is also your position as well, and is that of any experienced person with any wisdom. Am I really lecturing to a university professor? If you really want people to look up to you when you announce this, perhaps you should try standing on a chair when you do it. I am not impressed by decrees nearly as much a good argument based on even better evidence.On the model, you changed the model by moving where the person was standing, which of course changes the weight distribution."What you are saying is that the weight of water will displace basaltic material upward thousands of feet. Why don't we see mantle diapirs penetrating the earth's crust due to simple loading? Why is it always a light material, like salt, that has risen under the influence of gravity?" No that is not what I am saying, no wonder you don't think this will work. The weight of the water accounts for perhaps one third of the movement due to water having roughly a third the weight of rock. Then we have other effects such as changing the profile of the magma chamber the island sits on. The main uplift comes from the action of the hot spot activity, the weight of water pushing the ocean floor down into the earth causes a surge of hot magma to move up the connecting thread to the chamber beneath the island that feeds the island's volcanoes, which is why there was a post ice surge in volcanic activity on the islands, particularly resurgent volcanic activity. The cycles of glacial activity results in a modulation effect of the on going uplift due to hot spot activity. The shifts in ocean depth cause what would otherwise would have been a slow steady uplift, to turn into a stepwise pattern as seen in the pattern the uplifted shorelines are found in.I do have one confession to make about 'my theory' on changes in ocean volume affecting island elevations due to isostatic adjustments, it isn't my theory. "During each Glacial stage, a weight of water scores of meters deep was removed from a wide area of the crust around each island. That lowering of water pressure removed some support for the volcanic mass. Hence, the island tended to sink" (The Changing World of the Ice Age by Reginald Aldworth Daly 1934, p.155) This is part of what Daly called his theory Glacial Control theory. Basically that changes in sea level effected island subsidence and reemergence and was a factor in the creation of coral islands. Since you guys attack everything I post, I though I would let you chew on a somewhat obscure mainstream geological theory for a while before I revealed its source. I have merely used an existing theory as part of my overall theory. Poor Daly, you guys have really given him a rough time. But, since you have yet to post a better explanation for the periodness seen in island uplift and depression, Daly's theory seems to have stood the test of time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
No I can't guess (at least with any high degree of accuracy) what your counter argument is, nor can I read your mind. So, could you please post it so we can make it a part of this discussion? I honestly don't know if you are referring to a real counter argument, or if you just don't have an answer, but are too proud to admit it.

---

That is the point. You can't guess, but you have been told. It is a measure of your stubbornnes, disrespect and pride that you have chosen not to listen.

quote:

---

On my finding diatoms at an elevation of 600 feet, it was 1,000 feet, and I am saying that it was due to a rise in sea level related to melting glacial waters. Now if there was a 1,000 ft meltwater flood at the end of the ice age, who is to say it wasn't deeper.

---

That is fine. Just give us evidence to that effect.

quote:

---

I am hoping to be able to examine high elevation locations for marine traces. Now positive findings from such locations would put this discussion on a different footing.

---

Perhaps, but it would seem to me that there is a generation of work ahead of you. You need some grad students to do all the footwork.

quote:

---

If a long lived thread is not necessarily a testimony to quality of the thread, then why do they keep posting?

---

They?? You mean John and me. Joe has given up. Pat has given up. Others have ignored this thread for weeks.

quote:

---

A number of people have dropped out because they couldn't hold their own.

---

I don't hold up very well against a brick wall either, but I refuse to admit that it is more clever than I.

quote:

---

No one has yet to post evidence that would be fatal to my theory on how the flood happened.

---

But then you have never posted any evidence either. Refutation of a just-so story is impossible.

quote:

---

That is why I keeping posting, I want to see what the best arguments against my theory are, so I can find out what needs to be corrected or discarded.

---

I this you will fail, because you refuse to listen.

quote:

---

Thank you very much for the complement on my "unrelenting bull-headedness." I count it as a virtue to be stubborn for the right reasons.

---

Do you mean 'wrong for the right reasons?'

quote:

---

It would be foolish to change my understanding on something just because it disagrees with yours, you have to convince me with solid evidence. Which I believe is also your position as well, and is that of any experienced person with any wisdom. Am I really lecturing to a university professor?

---

You were until he decided it was a waste of time.

quote:

---

If you really want people to look up to you when you announce this, perhaps you should try standing on a chair when you do it. I am not impressed by decrees nearly as much a good argument based on even better evidence.

---

I have no idea what you are talking about.

quote:

---

On the model, you changed the model by moving where the person was standing, which of course changes the weight distribution.

---

Well, I disagree. The person is actually the volcanic edifice. Your 'model is completely unclear.

quote:

---

No that is not what I am saying, no wonder you don't think this will work. The weight of the water accounts for perhaps one third of the movement due to water having roughly a third the weight of rock.

---

Actually more like a quarter.

quote:

---

Then we have other effects such as changing the profile of the magma chamber the island sits on. The main uplift comes from the action of the hot spot activity, the weight of water pushing the ocean floor down into the earth causes a surge of hot magma to move up the connecting thread to the chamber beneath the island that feeds the island's volcanoes, which is why there was a post ice surge in volcanic activity on the islands, particularly resurgent volcanic activity. The cycles of glacial activity results in a modulation effect of the on going uplift due to hot spot activity. The shifts in ocean depth cause what would otherwise would have been a slow steady uplift, to turn into a stepwise pattern as seen in the pattern the uplifted shorelines are found in.

---

Why can't it just be related to magma intrusion and uplift of the crust? We know this happens. And there is basically no reason why the water would have a measureable effect. Why all the byzantine machinations?

quote:

---

I do have one confession to make about 'my theory' on changes in ocean volume affecting island elevations due to isostatic adjustments, it isn't my theory. "During each Glacial stage, a weight of water scores of meters deep was removed from a wide area of the crust around each island.

---

So, the glaciers reached Hawaii?

quote:

---

That lowering of water pressure removed some support for the volcanic mass. Hence, the island tended to sink" (The Changing World of the Ice Age by Reginald Aldworth Daly 1934, p.155) This is part of what Daly called his theory Glacial Control theory.

---

1934??? Got anything a bit more recent? Like since plate tectonics has been accepted?

quote:

---

Basically that changes in sea level effected island subsidence and reemergence and was a factor in the creation of coral islands. Since you guys attack everything I post, I though I would let you chew on a somewhat obscure mainstream geological theory for a while before I revealed its source.

---

Sorry, but I'm not sure that this can be called mainstream. Daly didn't even know about the asthenosphere.

quote:

---

I have merely used an existing theory as part of my overall theory. Poor Daly, you guys have really given him a rough time. But, since you have yet to post a better explanation for the periodness seen in island uplift and depression, Daly's theory seems to have stood the test of time.

---

So uplift and depression are periodic? Please provide evidence for this. By the way, he's talking about depression of the islands after glaciation, while you are talking about uplifting of the beach terraces. Not exactly a supporting document.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Could you please post the numerous examples and counterexamples that I am supposedly ignoring?

---

Well, there is post 384 and 387 for example.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

John;

quote:

---

Well, there is post 384 and 387 for example.

---

Very good, I am glad you finally responded. Now I have already responded to posts 384 & 387 in posts 386 & 390, I had thought that I had answered all the points you had raised. So I will attempt to explain things more clearly this time. If I fail to answer a specific point, or if you see a new flaw, let me know and I can try to answer any specific questions you may still have.I don't know if you have been following my recent exchanges with Edge, in which I posted the following quote. "During each Glacial stage, a weight of water scores of meters deep was removed from a wide area of the crust around each island. That lowering of water pressure removed some support for the volcanic mass. Hence, the island tended to sink" (The Changing World of the Ice Age by Reginald Aldworth Daly 1934, p.155) This is part of what Daly called his theory Glacial Control theory. Glacial Control theory is a mainstream theory that is still referred to today. This is just the basic isostatic shifts volcanic islands experience in connection with glacial induced changes in ocean volume. The trick to see how this works, is you have to remember that the heavy mass of the volcanic island is in isostatic equilibrium, it's weight is supported by the buoyancy of the hot material beneath the island which is lighter than the comparatively colder material beneath the surrounding ocean floor. The island is floating in a delicate balance, any shifts will alter the balance and change the island's elevation. Now as Daly pointed out, lowering the ocean level reduces the pressure on the ocean floor, the island rises above the water so that portion of the island's foot print doesn't experience any reduction in pressure at all. In fact, as the water level drops the pressure on the center of the island's footprint increases as more of the island is now above water and is no longer supported by the buoyancy of the water. This combination of more pressure on the island due to loss of buoyancy combined with less pressure on the surrounding ocean floor due to reduction in ocean depth, results in the island sinking down into the crust as the surrounding ocean floor rebounds. Then as the glaciers melt and water returns to the sea, the effects are reversed. The ocean floors are pushed down under the increasing water depth and the island rises a bit as buoyancy helps lift it as the part of the island remaining above water does not experience a pressure increase due to the rising water and so is now uplifted as a result.This pattern of uplift and subsidence is simple isostatic shifts, and are less than the shifts in the ocean level and are thus only part of the movement that I am saying occurred. But the fact that these movements have occurred in connection with the ice ages, does open up a way to explain how larger uplifting has happened. As the sea floor is depressed and pushed down into the earth, the material beneath the sea floor is pushed down as well, while the area beneath the island in comparison is actually rising. Remember the density difference of the hot magma is what supports the weight of the island compared to colder denser magma beneath the rest of the ocean floor. There is a natural tendency for a lighter fluid to rise to the top, especially when the colder fluid is being pushed down. This shift results in some of the hot rising magma rising above the surrounding colder magma, creating a local uplift in the midst of a general subsidence.Now if we look at this in connection with the recent glacial history of the earth, what I am saying happened is that when each advance of the ice sheets retreated and ocean volumes increased, the isostatic depression of the ocean floor caused a surge in uplift as rising hot magma was given a upward push. The glacial induced pressure swings on the ocean floor, thus modulated the rate that on going uplift has occurred at, and is what has produced the elevation spaced raised shorelines on the islands. Without the ice age, any island uplift would have been more of a slow steady uplift as we find in other settings such as glacial rebounding.At the start of the Pleistocene, the oceanic volcanic islands were in isostatic equilibrium and had grown steadily. Then as the first advance of the Pleistocene ice age started, water was withdrawn from the oceans and sea level dropped. As Daly pointed out this resulted in some island subsidence in respect to the level of the sea floor. Then as the glacial advance retreated and earth entered a inter glacial period, ocean volumes increased and sea levels rose, this resulted in the islands being uplifted t nearly their old position due to isostaticasy and some being uplifted to new higher elevation due to the upward movement in the hotter magma beneath the respective island. Then as time passed during the inter glacial, due to normal cooling of the magma beneath the island, the island slowly sank. Then the next glacial advance pulls water out of the ocean causing more subsidence. Then as that stage ends, the returning water causes another cycle of island uplift. This series of events results in the island following a saw tooth pattern of subsidence and uplift caused by glacial changes in ocean volume. This explains the otherwise mysterious greatly uplifted and submerged shorelines found on a number of island around the world. On this pattern of uplift, one book stated. "It is possible that . . . much of the total movement was concentrated in brief intervals of 5500 yr or less. . . . we cannot disprove that those average rates consisted of shorter intervals of alternately fast and slow vertical movements." Sea-Level Change by the National Research Council, page 109. The same book on page 111, shows the type of sawtooth pattern the pattern of uplift I am talking about would produce. at Not Found |The National Academies Press In connection with Noah's flood, towards the end of the last glacial advance, the islands would have been at a low elevation due to subsidence during the long period of low water. Then a sudden return of water would have raised sea level above them, the sudden shift then caused island uplift just as it had with the ending of each pervious glacial advance and lifted the islands to the elevations they now have. (allowing for the normal rate of subsidence that has occurred since then.)