Polar ice caps and possible rise in sea level

I can well imagine.

quote:

---

Many creationists do invoke the polar ice but others don't.

---

Well, both of them can't be right, so which is it? What evidence falsifies one and supports the other? Oh, that's right. The evidence is taken on faith.

quote:

---

Anyways accounting for the water is a very off broadway thing for creationists.

---

It is off Broadway because creationists can't explain it. Even with all of the ground water and atmospheric water the rise in waterlevels would be miniscule. This is another example of creationists playing the ostrich, sticking their heads in the sand.

quote:

---

Anyways accounting for the water is a very off broadway thing for creationists.

---

You're saying that any connection to worldly reality is irrelivent to believing in "the great flood"?OK - "It really happened. We don't know how it happened. It left no trace of having happened. But it still really happened." Is that what you're saying?Mooseps: Rather off-topic, but I think Bill terminated the real topic with his message.{Edited to change ID from "admin mode" - Moose}This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-16-2004 02:43 PM

What are you talking about. i gave a answer and you use the opputunity to just make a gereral denunciation against the time honoured belief of Christianity. This was a particular subject as a part of a discussion between evolution and creation open to the public.
I follow the rules and cause of the forum so why not you. Unless your out of your league then make a point a creationist can answer. If I answered you in kind I would be said to be off thread and repeating myself.
Nothing personal Rob

I think you misunderstood where the replies, including from Moose, are coming from. If you accept flood geology as a religious belief, then I think no one here would have a problem with that. But if you further believe that there is scientific support for flood theory and that it should be part of science, then the evidentiary questions make sense.This is the proper forum for discussing flood theory from a scientific perspective. If you wish to discuss it from a more theological perspective then you should propose a topic for the [forum=-6] forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Actually it was a surprise to me to learn that if the ground water of earth was on top it would flood the earth to a significent depth. This plus the melted polar ice caps and the rain and that the envirorment back then was different since it had never rained all make it very plausible to stop any serious criticism of a water shortage problem.
Also it must be remembered the Bible is a witness. Someone must first cross examine that witness and show unreliability before discounting the witness.
Rob

I just came back from heaven and god told me that I'm the only person who will go to heaven after I die. The rest of you guys will burn in hell forever. I am a witness. I have first hand experience with what I just said.Now really, how reliable do you think my account is?Read Kiss Hank's ass and tell me how reliable of a witness Mary and John are?

---

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

quote:

---

Actually it was a surprise to me to learn that if the ground water of earth was on top it would flood the earth to a significant depth

---

Source: Nace, USGS, 1967, via the USGS website
Water, volumes in cubic miles:
Oceans: 317,000,000
Icecaps and glaciers: 7,000,000
Ground water: 2,000,000
Freshwater lakes: 30,000
Inland seas: 25,000
Soil moisture: 16,000
Atmosphere: 3,100
Rivers: 300Try again, please.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Dear IrishRockhound;It is obvious that if there was a global flood, it occurred in connection with a rapid deglaciation event at the end of the last ice age. What probably happened was there was a large impact event on one of the large ice sheets that released enough water into the sea to raise the world sealevel by few feet or more. At the close of the last Ice Age, even a small rise in sea level may have been enough to destabilize the edges of the then existing Ice sheets. The impact event only had to cause a large enough sea level rise to trigger the surging of a few coastal edges of the Ice Sheets, which would raise sea level further which would cause more surging in a positive feed back chain reaction, a domino effect of rising sea level and glacial surging.I agree with you entirely that melting todays glaciers would not be anywhere enough water to flood the world, you need to consider the glacial ice volume at the LGM (Late Glacial Maximum). The much larger ice volumes in existence at that time would of had much greater impacts on sea level rise then the mere Ice Age left overs we have today. It would be expected that large scale removal of water from the oceans durning the ice age would cause the ocean floor to rebound which would cause a general subsidence of the continents. This reduction in relief combined with glacial covering of the high points beneath glacial ice, may have allowed the entire earth to be covered by 'water' if the sea level rise reached the edges of the ice sheets and mountain glaciers before Hydroisostatic adjustment could compensate for the shift in weight.On the Pleistocene Extinctions which occurred at the end of the ice age, I am greatly encouraged by the new reports that are beginning to show that many of the extinctions occurred in narrow time windows, of course I am disappointed that the windows don't all line up. But previously the extinctions have generally been viewed as happening progressively over a long period of time towards the end of the Ice Age. This newer view will no doubt be a major blow for the over hunting theory, while sudden climate change theories will have gained more support. A global flood would certainly be a sudden climate change, the differences in the timing of the events may become more alined with more research in the future. I don't view the dates as cast in stone, I think we will see some shifts yet on when these events happened. I also allow for preflood extinctions due to climate change and other effects and I allow for post flood extinctions as well. Perhaps some areas had high rates of local survival which couldn't handle the post flood climate in the long term. Wangel Island probably represents an isolated group of survivers who managed to survive for quite some time after the flood, sort of a Lost World, or a simple dating error.Hydroisostasy, the continents sank beneath the ice and the oceans rebounded. Water is only one third the weight of rock, but with Hydroisostasy you get to count it twice since you are using it twice, one in the sea by removing it and once on the land by placing it. That is a lot of displacement.Glaciers & Glaciation by Douglas I.. Benn & David J.A. Evans,1998 Oxford University Press Inc., On pages 29-30 states."This concept of hydroisostasy suggests that oceanic crustal up lift may occur during glaciations when large volumes of water are locked up in continental ice sheets, and that the return of this water during deglaciation will result in the redepression of the oceanic crust. Very few data are available on the amount and rate of hydroisostatic responses to glacial cycles, and the concept of sea floor rebound due to water unloading has been challenged by Morner (1987). some studies have inferred post-glacial hydroisostatic depression of the crust (e.g. Hopley, 1983, for Queensland, Australia), although estimates of the amount of ocean floor depression vary considerably, which is not surprising given the scattered study sites. Given the paucity of data, it is of no surprise that estimates of hydroisostatic impacts on global sea-level histories are mostly available only in geophysical models (e.g. Clark et al., 1978; Clark, 1980). . . . More accurate sea-level data can be obtained from the distribution of marine sediments, which can be identified using microfossils such as diatoms."Hydroisostasy is according to this book, is challenged by some and does not have a lot of supporting data, so it is not possible to dismiss it as a minor effect of no real significance since not enough is known about at this time to do so. Marine diatoms can be used to chart sea-level changes, that is what I am doing. If I can accurately document the extent of late ice age marine diatoms far inland, I would have proof of a massive late ice age marine transgression and strong evidence of hydroisostatic influenced sea-level rise.Studies In Geophysics; Sea-Level Change, Geophysics Study Committee commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources National Research Council, National Academy Press, 1990."Estimates for ice-volume sea-level equivalent tied up in equilibrium ice sheets range from as high as 163 m to as low as 102 m. Importantly, all of these calculations presume the ice sheets were at equilibrium."Just using their figure of a possible 163 m, you would have a drop in the shoreline of only 54 m since the sea floor has rebounded 54 m and the continent has sunk 54 m. A sudden return of the water to the sea all at once would result in a flood 108 m above the then existing shoreline flooding a continent with a reduced relief due to the flatten effect of the weight of glacial ice. This flood would be a temporary flood as the shift in water would cause a very rapid hydroisostatic adjustment. Now the low stands for ice age shorelines are much lower than 54 m, which indicates a greater LGM ice volume than has been estimated. Such as the figure of 120 m, if that was hydroisostatically compensated for as it undoubtedly was, there would have been a 240 m flood above the ice age sea-level. With the reduced ice age relief, maybe that would have been enough to reach the now existing 1000 ft contour line, but if the marine diatom layer is mapped to even higher levels as it probably will, the rise of sea-level in the flood was probably higher. As the extent of the marine diatom layer is mapped to higher and higher elevations, it maybe a challenge for existing models of ice age sea-level and ice volume to explain. If such results are documented it will be interesting to see the impact on future scientific papers on the subject.For further information I would suggest reading my book "Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood" available at https://www1.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid...Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson{Edited to add the "(Late Glacial Maximum)" to the subtitle. I'm curious to find out if this will carry through the chain of replies. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-19-2004 11:23 PM

Well you ever manage it in a convincing fashion, let us know and I'll buy that book.

I don't mind if you just say "Goddunnit", but please don't recite pseudoscience here.

quote:

---

At the close of the last Ice Age, even a small rise in sea level may have been enough to destabilize the edges of the then existing Ice sheets.

---

Q: Which is more stable, a block of ice that is freestanding, or a block of ice for which 90% of its mass is bouyed by water?Now, water will convey heat to the ice faster than air would, if the water is warm enough to do so. However, you would have to have tiny blocks of ice to overcome the surface area problem - something that your "edges of an ice sheet holding back a torrent" case doesn't come close to representing.

quote:

---

I agree with you entirely that melting todays glaciers would not be anywhere enough water to flood the world

---

That's an understatement of a ridiculous degree,

quote:

---

you need to consider the glacial ice volume at the LGM (Late Glacial Maximum). The much larger ice volumes in existence at that time would of had much greater impacts on sea level rise then the mere Ice Age left overs we have today.

---

So, in short, you think that glaciers on earth *AVERAGED* several *MILES* high at the end of the last ice age? Are you serious? Mount Everest is 8.8km high. Even with your completely incorrect "hydrostatic equilibrium adjusting landscapes on the order of miles" notion, do you have even a remote explanation for this?By the way, have you ever heard the term "megatsunami"? The water under your scenario of a feedback mechanism of glacial melting would release water in massive bursts (and probably huge landslides as well). This water would not arrive gently on foreign shores - it would arrive as a megatsunami that puts anything in recorded history to shame. The potential collapse of La Palma, one of the Canary Islands, has been modelled to produce a wave 90 meters high. What you propose would make the collapse of La Palma look like the ripples from a light breeze on a pond.

quote:

---

It would be expected that large scale removal of water from the oceans durning the ice age would cause the ocean floor to rebound which would cause a general subsidence of the continents.

---

About a 20th of earth's crust is water; furthermore, water is relatively light. So, no, right out, that's impossible.Furthermore, there's the heat problem. Bending rock releases a *tremendous* amount of heat on the scale that you're talking about. Have you ever felt an iron bar that someone has just bent in half? Picture that much heat being released from every bit of bedrock around the entire planet at once. Earth would be turned into a pressure cooker. Noah wouldn't be worrying about water, he'd be worrying about the fact that he's breathing high pressure scalding steam.

quote:

---

This newer view will no doubt be a major blow for the over hunting theory

---

Are you kidding? The extinctions - which you correctly state occur at different times - almost always follow the arrival of humans in the new areas.

quote:

---

some studies have inferred post-glacial hydroisostatic depression of the crust (e.g. Hopley, 1983, for Queensland, Australia), although estimates of the amount of ocean floor depression vary considerably, which is not surprising given the scattered study sites.

---

Please, quote us from Hopley, 1983, the depth which he cites. I have little doubt that the statement "vary considerably" is because the amounts are far, far, far, far, far, far, far too small for your hypothesis.

quote:

---

(e.g. Clark et al., 1978; Clark, 1980)

---

Please, quote from Clark et al, 1978 and Clark, 1980 as well.

quote:

---

Marine diatoms can be used to chart sea-level changes, that is what I am doing. If I can accurately document the extent of late ice age marine diatoms far inland ...

---

Please state your methodology, so we can all get a kick out of it. What is your background for identifying fossilized marine diatoms and distinguishing them from freshwater diatoms? What is your background for dating strata? What geological training do you have at all that would make you even remotely qualified enough for such a task? What method would you use to weed out potential errors, such as long-term inland seas?

quote:

---

"Estimates for ice-volume sea-level equivalent tied up in equilibrium ice sheets range from as high as 163 m to as low as 102 m. Importantly, all of these calculations presume the ice sheets were at equilibrium."

---

Not present-day ice sheets.

quote:

---

Just using their figure of a possible 163 m, you would have a drop in the shoreline of only 54 m since the sea floor has rebounded 54 m and the continent has sunk 54 m.

---

As discussed before, it will either A) take ages, or B) fry the entire planet, due to the bending of the rock. Take your pick.

quote:

---

With the reduced ice age relief, maybe that would have been enough to reach the now existing 1000 ft contour line

---

What on earth are you talking about? "1000 foot contour line"?

quote:

---

If such results are documented it will be interesting to see the impact on future scientific papers on the subject.

---

I'm seing a "Creationists Say The Darndest Things!" email circulating in the future.This message has been edited by Rei, 09-17-2004 08:20 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Dear Rej;There are two very long threads on this board on "Solving the Mystery of the biblical Flood", I suggest that you look them over to answer the questions you have. I don't have the time to educate you on the many basic points that you seem to need instruction on. For example, water is roughly one third the weight of rock, moving water from the ocean to the land is like moving it from one side of teeter tooter to the other, so you have the effect of the weight twice, or 2/3's the weight of rock. The ice age ice sheets were huge, the volumes of water involved were simply massive. Your metal bar analogy betrays your lack of understanding about the make up of the earth, the earth has a molten interior and surface flexing is spread out. You do belive in the ice age, right? So you belive in post ice age glacial rebounding. If you will check, you will find that there are no signs of high temperature effects in rebounding in formerly glaciated areas do to flexing.As for flooding higher elevations I allow for the possibility that they had their covering of water in the form of glacial ice which at that time, existed at all higher elevations, so the flood water level only had to reach the edges of the glaciers to be global."megatsunami" interesting argument, can you cite any examples of glacial surges or outbursts causing such an effect?As for my experience and education, I am just someone who reads a lot of books.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

EvC Forum is a discussion board, with the emphasis on discussion. While members are encouraged to provide references that support or augment their arguments, the actual arguments and relevant information should be provided in the discussion thread. This applies even when the exact same arguments and information have been provided in other threads, and especially when those other threads are old and hundreds of messages long. In particular, members are not required or asked to read any thread other than the one their participating in.Naturally this has to be moderated with common sense. There will be times when it makes sense to simply refer someone to a message in another thread (but not to an entire thread, unless it is very short). And there will be times when even though the information is present in the current thread, just telling someone to "read the thread" isn't really practical when the thread is hundreds of messages long, and so the specific message should be called out or the same information provided again in a new message.We approach discussion this way because when a member takes the position that other threads or other material should be read before another member can participate in the current thread, it is usually an evasive technique.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I think that Rei has really said everything pertinent already, but something has occurred to me...Exactly what timescales are we talking about here? All the processes you mention operate on geological time, which is much, much slower than normal human time.

quote:

---

On the Pleistocene Extinctions which occurred at the end of the ice age, I am greatly encouraged by the new reports that are beginning to show that many of the extinctions occurred in narrow time windows, of course I am disappointed that the windows don't all line up.

---

"Narrow time windows" for a geologist means about 100,000 to a million years. I may be assuming too much about your particular view here, but that's a whole lot longer than forty days and forty nights.Kudos for taking up the gauntlet, anyway (and thanks to Bill for his excellent input).The Rock Hound

You didn't sum it. I don't know how much would be needed to cover the earth. I will look for the ground water quote in my notes. Also it must be remembered that the mountains of today are not the mountains of pre-flood world. Of coarse both parties use the fossils on top of mountains info. It can be assumed the mountains whatever their makeup were low ones.
Rob