Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II
jar
Member
Posts: 34051
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 212 of 234 (135224)
08-19-2004 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by wmscott
08-18-2004 9:17 PM


Re: Need to focus on getting my research done.
Please also remember to address the issue of some of the great coral reef systems around the world. You will need to explain not finding a single correlated gap in their core samples showing a period of extended submergence.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by wmscott, posted 08-18-2004 9:17 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by wmscott, posted 08-19-2004 6:34 PM jar has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4207 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 213 of 234 (135226)
08-19-2004 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by wmscott
08-18-2004 9:17 PM


Danger Will Robinson!
One of the things I have learned from you Bill is that the scientific community is open to new ideas if they are supported by the evidence, I hope you are right about this and the community is not closed minded. But I do find your prejudicial views troubling, it makes me wonder just how much evidence it would take to change your mind, and if the rest of the community is just as rigid in their thinking, I am apparently going to need a mountain of evidence.
Well of course you are - all peer-reviewed papers do, why bother otherwise?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by wmscott, posted 08-18-2004 9:17 PM wmscott has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6327 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 214 of 234 (135378)
08-19-2004 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by contracycle
08-19-2004 7:45 AM


Re: Need to focus on getting my research done.
Dear Contracycle;
quote:
If you were able to find them, then you should be able to outline your methodology and write down a process by which the extraction can be performed. Then your method could be applied to the existing cores we have "on file", and the thesis could be thereby be tested.
I have published my process in my book, so that any one can replicate my results. If the cores are large enough or a better extraction process is used, yes it should be possible to find the marine layer in existing cores, in fact have speculated in earlier posts on this board that someday that will be done.
quote:
But as I recall the last tinme I saw you make the diatom argument, the only evidence for the existance of diatoms you had was a photograph, which you had not yourself taken, of a boulder in Colorada, and which you had not yet visited to verify with your own eyes. Have things improved since then, wmscott?
I shot all my diatom pictures myself, you maybe are half remembering when I posted the pictures and we were arguing whether or not they were indeed what I said they were by comparing them with pictures of the same species of Marine diatoms found on the web. The boulder in Colorado rings no bells, maybe you are referring to the discussions we had about rare drop stones found in the non-glaciated Driftless Area in SW Wisconsin. The reference I had on those was by a geologist who wrote them off as the work of pranksters, so they exist, it is just their origiin that is in question. The reference I have on this didn't give any locations, so it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack, but if I am ever out that way hiking around, I will certainly keep my eyes open for them.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by contracycle, posted 08-19-2004 7:45 AM contracycle has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6327 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 215 of 234 (135381)
08-19-2004 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by jar
08-19-2004 10:58 AM


Re: Need to focus on getting my research done.
Dear Jar;
quote:
Please also remember to address the issue of some of the great coral reef systems around the world. You will need to explain not finding a single correlated gap in their core samples showing a period of extended submergence.
With the wide swings in late Ice age sea level there are probably a number of correlated gaps. The few that I have checked show a number of such gaps. Plus with the deep submergence being so brief, some coral species may have survived directly and did not have to regrow. The tree-ring record shows no gaps, in the Northern Hemisphere the submergence occurred in the winter time and was brief enough that no large scale die off of trees occurred. So the impact on corals may also have been fairly light, so that any gap may not be present in all coral records. It will be necessary to consider how high sea level rose and how long it stayed there, and how long it took to come down to the post flood level. Since some of these details are yet unknown, I can't say for sure what the impact was on various coral records. Hopefully as the elevation extent of the post flood marine diatom layer is mapped, it will be possible to know how high sea level rose and possibly by checking what if any coral species survived in place, it will also give us an idea of how long the flood was.
Sinerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by jar, posted 08-19-2004 10:58 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 08-19-2004 6:48 PM wmscott has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34051
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 216 of 234 (135388)
08-19-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by wmscott
08-19-2004 6:34 PM


Re: Need to focus on getting my research done.
Well, the Great barrier reef has been cored back far enough to show several orders of magnitude beyond the alleged time of the flood, so that would be the place to look.
This message has been edited by jar, 08-19-2004 11:49 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by wmscott, posted 08-19-2004 6:34 PM wmscott has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by John Williams, posted 08-20-2004 12:47 AM jar has not replied

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 5078 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 217 of 234 (135510)
08-20-2004 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by jar
08-19-2004 6:48 PM


Re: Need to focus on getting my research done.
I'm open to the possibility that the great flood was world wide, but I don't think the evidence for that huge of a catastrophy has been found yet.
I like the Black Sea theory proposed by some scientists, that it was a local flood. But, I think that the flood described in the religious tradions was bigger than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 08-19-2004 6:48 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by John Williams, posted 08-20-2004 1:47 AM John Williams has not replied

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 5078 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 218 of 234 (135529)
08-20-2004 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by John Williams
08-20-2004 12:47 AM


Re: Need to focus on getting my research done.
I take that back.
Here's a scholarly site that attempts to solve the Noah's flood myth:
Forbidden!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by John Williams, posted 08-20-2004 12:47 AM John Williams has not replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2611 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 219 of 234 (135538)
08-20-2004 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by wmscott
08-18-2004 9:17 PM


Re: Need to focus on getting my research done.
First, some interesting and recent research:
1. Satellite reveals the biggest of big bangs by JAMES REYNOLDS
The Scotsman (Scotland) August 19, 2004
Home | The Scotsman
2. Antarctic craters reveal strike - BBC News - August 19, 2004
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Antarctic craters reveal strike
The asteroid may have raised sea levels by up to 60cm
Scientists have mapped enormous impact craters hidden under
the Antarctic ice sheet using satellite technology.
"The scientists told a conference this week that the
impacts occurred roughly 780,000 years ago during
an ice age."
"This would have melted about 1% of the ice sheet,
raising water levels worldwide by 60cm (2ft)."
The interesting thing is that according to this statistic is that if a hypothetical impact managed to melt all of Antarctica, it would only raise sea level by at least 200 ft.
If a person searches the internet, they would find "Estimated Present-Day Area* and Volume* of Glaciers and Maximum Sea Level Rise Potential" at:
USGS URL Resolution Error Page
According to the USGS data and calculations on this web site, sea level would rise 7.0 meters (23 ft) if all of the ice in Greenland and mountain glaciers melted and 73.44 meters (241 ft) if all of the ice on Antarctica melted. At best, sea level would rise only 80.44 meters (264 ft) if some hypothetical catastrophe managed to melt the world's ice sheets. Although substantial, the melting of modern ice sheets falls far short being able to flood land anywhere near the 1,000-foot contour.
Of course, a person can use a tsunami to flood above the 1,000-foot contour. However, as noted below, any process that can push water that far up on land will leave tear up the land and ecology to the point that well-defined evidence of its occurrence will remain behind long after it had occurred.
Mr. Scott wrote:
...Vogon Poetry about talking to the audience omitted... :-) :-)
"Never heard of the Pleistocene Extinction event"
The problem here is that it is "events" not "event". The extinction of Pleistocene megafauna occurred at different times on different continents separated by thousands to tens of thousands of years. Therefore, it simply impossible for a single event to be responsible for the extinction of megafauna all over the world. There is no single "Pleistocene Extinction event", but a number of extinction events, which is discussed in more detail by Scott A. Elias in an article at:
http://www4.nau.edu/...n1/quaternary_paleobiology_update.htm
One example of this is the dates at which mammoths became extinct. As summarized by Claudine Cohen in her book, "The Fate of the Mammoth: Fossils, Myth, and History", Mammoths became extinct in central Europe between 14,000 to 12,000, years BP; in China about 14,000 years BP; and in Siberia about 9,000 years BP.
In North America, it becomes more complicated as discussed in "Quaternary Paleobiology Update: Debate continues over the cause of Pleistocene megafauna extinction" by Scott A. Elias in Volume 29 Number 1 May 1999 of "The Quaternary Times Newsletter of the American Quaternary Association" at:
http://www4.nau.edu/...n1/quaternary_paleobiology_update.htm
In this article, Scott A. Elias stated:
"It now appears that the major megafaunal exinction
event took place at 11,400 14C yr B.P. This event
included the extinction of camels, horses, giant
sloths, Pleistocene bison, and all other genera
of megafaunal mammals that did not survive beyond
11,400 14C yr B.P. , with the exception of the
proboscideans. Mammoths and mastodons persisted
beyond 11,400 yr B.P. Stafford et al. have dated the
extinction of North American mammoth and mastodon to
10,900-10,850 yr B.P. So it now appears that there
were two distinct extinction episodes. Each event
took less than 100 years."
According to the dates, at which, mammoth became extinct in various parts of the world, Mr. Scott's global flood would had first struck China about 14,000 BP to kill off the mammoths and then taken 2,000 years to reach Europe and kill off the mammoths there. After wiping out the mammoth in Europe, it would have had to taken a 600 years to cross the Atlantic Ocean to wipe out the camels, horses, giant sloths, Pleistocene bison, and all other genera of megafaunal mammals, except for mammoths and mastodons in North America. Then it would have had to sloshed back and forth around the Atlantic Ocean for 500 years and come back to North America to wiped out the mammoths and mastodons. Then Scott's global flood would have had to spend 1,800 years travelling back across the Atlantic and Europe and, 5000 years after leaving China, into Siberia to wipe out its mammoths by 9,000 BP. A 5,000-year long flood isn't a brief event.
Finally, on Wangel Island, about 140 miles off the coast of eastern Siberia, mammoths became extinct about 3,700 years BP. This is a problem for Mr. Scott's theory. His global flood would have had to travel at a rate of 0.026 mile (139.47 ft) per year for 5300 years after having killed off the mammoths in Siberia to have reached and finally finished off the last of the mammoths on Wrangel Island. From this brief travelogue, it is quite clear that any explanation of Pleistocene extinctions needs to explain why the extinction of mammoths occurred over 5,000 years, 10,000 years if Wrangel Island is included.
Mr. Scott wrote:
"We have had this discussion before, and as I have told
you, the thin dusting of marine diatoms left by a brief
marine flood would be too sparse to turn up in convectional
examinations of sediment cores. I have to take a fair sized
sample and process the whole thing and manage to strain
out only a few marine diatoms. How on earth do you
expect such a brief event to show up prominently in
outcroppings?"
The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that any catastrophe or movement of shoreline capable of flooding the land above the 1,000-foot contour would certainly leave behind something more substantial than a "dusting of diatoms". Any event of the magnitude of which you are proposing, no matter how brief is going to leave an event bed that will be preserved in protected areas, as in the thousands of lakes that have been cored and analyzed for paleoenvironmental data.
An excellent proof of this argument is the 7200-7300-year old landslide, the Storegga Slide, which occurred on the continental slope west of Norway. It created a tsunami that propagated across the North Atlantic and Norwegian Sea regions. Although the Storegga tsunami, which this slide created, was much smaller and briefer by orders of magnitude than the event proposed by Mr. Scott, it left a clearly recognizable event bed at locations within western Norway, Scotland, Faeroe Isles and as far south as eastern England. For example, the event bed associated with this tsunami can be found in coastal lakes coastal lakes all along the coast of eastern Scotland, where it is as thick as 10 cm. Although this event happened 7200-7300-years ago; was much briefer in duration than Scott's proposed Global Flood; and is event much smaller than Mr. Scott's proposed event, it left a well-preserved event bed. In fact, enough remains of the event bed created by the in coastal lakes and other locations that the run-up of this a tsunami can mapped with great confidence as discussed in:
The Storegga Slide and Tsunami in the North Atlantic
Region by Alastair Dawson. Environmental Catastrophes
and Recoveries in the Holocene, August 29 -
September 2, 2002 Department of Geography & Earth
Sciences, Brunel University Uxbridge, United Kingdom
Emuparadise 2022
Thus, it is well documented that a very brief and relative small event such as the Storegga tsunami left a well-defined event bed all across a large portion of the east side of the Atlantic Ocean from western Norway, Scotland to the Faeroe Isles and as far south as eastern England. The Storegga tsunami is excellent proof that large events, no matter how brief their duration leave deposits that should have by now been recovered and recognized in some of the cores analyzed for paleoenvironmental data from hundreds of coastal lakes and deltas all over the world. This fact strongly argues that the event proposed by Mr.Scott certainly should have left an even better developed and well-defined event bed.
Ancient tsunamis, other than the Storegga tsunami and much briefer in duration and smaller than it and Scott's proposed global flood, have also repeatedly left readily recognizable event beds. Some documented examples are:
Benson, B. E., Grimm, K. A., and Clague, J. J., 1997,
Tsunami deposits beneath tidal marshes on northwestern
Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Quaternary Research.
vol. 48, pp. 192-204.
Kelsey, H. M, Witter, and Hemphill-Haley, E., 2002, Plate-
boundary earthquakes and tsunamis of the past 5500 yr,
Sixes River estuary, southern Oregon. Geological Society
of America Bulletin. vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 298-314.
Minoura K., Nakaya S. and Uchida M., 1994, Tsunami deposits
in a lacustrine sequence of the Sanriku coast, northeast
Japan. Sedimentary Geology. vol. 89, no.1-2. Pages 25-31.
Minoura, K., Gusiakov, V. G., Kurbatov, A., Takeuti, S.,
Svendsen, J. I., Bondevik, S., and Oda, T., 1996, Tsunami
sedimentation associated with the 1923 Kamchatka earthquake.
Sedimentary Geology, vol. 106, pp. 145-154
Pinegina, T. K., Bourgeois, J., Bazanova, L. I, Melekestsev,
I. V., and Braitseva, O. A., 2003, A millennial-scale record
of Holocene tsunamis on the Kronotskiy Bay coast, Kamchatka,
Russia. Quaternary Research. vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 36-47.
"Deposits from as many as 50 large tsunamis during
the last 7000 years are preserved on the Pacific
coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula near the mouth
of the Zhupanova River, southern Kronotskiy Bay.
These deposits are dated and correlated using
Holocene marker tephra layers."
Pinegina, T. K., and Bourgeois, J., 2001, Historical
and paleo-tsunami deposits on Kamchatka, Russia: long-
term chronologies and long-distance correlations Natural
Hazards and Earth System Sciences. vol. 1, pp. 177-185
Copernicus.org - 404
Even hurricanes can, under the right circumstances, produce event beds that are readily recognizable. This is well documented in:
Liu, K. B. and Fearn, M. L., 2000, Reconstruction of
prehistoric landfall frequencies of catastrophic hurricanes
in northwestern Florida from lake sediment records.
Quaternary Research. vol. 54, pp. 238-45.
Liu, K. B. and Fearn, M. L. 2000. Holocene history of
catastrophic hurricane landfalls along the Gulf of
Mexico coast reconstructed from coastal lake and marsh
sediments. In: Ning, Z.H. and Abdollahi, K.K. (eds.)
Current Stresses and Potential Vulnerabilities:
Implications of Global Climatic Change for the Gulf
of Mexico Region of the United States, Franklin Press,
Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, pp. 38-47.
Liu, K.B. and M.L. Fearn. 1993. Lake sediment record of
late Holocene hurricane activities from coastal Alabama.
Geology. vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 793-796.
Hunting Prehistoric Hurricanes: Storm-tossed sand
offers a record of ancient cyclones by John Travis
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000520/bob9.asp
The above references clearly prove that geologic events, such as hurricanes and tsunamis, that are shorter in duration and considerably less in magnitude than the global flood hypothesized by Mr. Scott repeatedly create event beds / deposits that can be recognized in cores and outcrops. That events lessor in intensity and duration than the global flood advocated by Mr. Scott regularly create recognizable event beds, which can remain intact for many thousands of years, readily refutes the contention that such global flood could have occurred and left only a "thin dusting of marine diatoms". Such a global flood would have substantially altered the landscape it covered and left a well-defined and recognizable event bed because of its intensity regardless of how brief it might have been. It nothing more than wishful thinking to propose that a catastrophic global flood would only leave a "thin dusting of marine diatoms" given the intensity and scale of the proposed processes involved. Similarly, such an event would have had a devastating effect on coastal and lowland ecosystems that would have been even more painfully obvious than an event bed. That is another story and fatal problem to Mr. Scott's ideas.
Mr. Scott wrote:
"So the raised shorelines near Lake Baikal are imaginary?
Perhaps I will have to edit them from my book, got any
references on this? Seems like an awfully odd thing for
someone to imagine."
Unfortunately, the references are still packed from moving. From what I found, the person, who mapped this shoreline, mapped it along with a number of other shorelines elsewhere in the former Soviet Union. Given that later geologists, in detailed mapping of the areas where this and his other shorelines had been, found nothing remotely resembling either a shoreline or any associated deposits, I feel quite safe in concluding that they were imaginary. I will look around for the references as it is an excellent example of antiquated research that has been completely refuted by later studies.
In using the "raised shorelines" as evidence of his global flood, Mr Scott grossly contradicts himself. He argues for a "brief" marine flooding to explained the absence of an event bed. However, Mr. Scott overlooks the fact that brief catastrophic events, i.e. hurricanes and tsunamis don't produce shorelines. Well-defined shorelines are only produce if the boundary between land and water remains relatively stable for a long period of time. In the solid metamorphic, igneous, and sedimentary country rock of the near Lake Baikal area, it would have taken decades, even hundreds of years of a stable water level for any sort of recognizable shoreline to form. If this global flood was a brief event, it is impossible for it to have formed any sort of recognizable shoreline. Thus, even if this shoreline was for real, it can't be used as evidence of a brief catastrophic flood as proposed by Mr. Scott.
Best Regards.
Bill Birkeland
Operation Air Conditioner
http://www.operationac.com/
http://www.operationac.com/dw_pages/whatwedo.htm
This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 08-20-2004 01:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by wmscott, posted 08-18-2004 9:17 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by wmscott, posted 08-21-2004 3:25 PM Bill Birkeland has replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6327 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 220 of 234 (135957)
08-21-2004 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Bill Birkeland
08-20-2004 2:41 AM


Still missing the target Bill.
Dear Bill Birkeland;
I must confess that I am fascinated by the Antarctic impact craters, this is just the sort of event I am theorizing, if only they were dated at the end of the Ice Age instead of 780K, half my work would be done. I want to look into this more, thanks for pointing it out.
At the close of the last Ice Age, even a 2 ft 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. You also keeping missing the fact that todays thousand foot contour line was probably at a lower elevation in the Ice Age due to the shifts that have occurred with the shifts of the weight of water from the seas to the glaciers. It would be expected that large scale removal of water from the oceans 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. No tsunamis are invoked here, so I am not expecting to find such wide spread evidence.
As you know, tsunamis and hurricanes are both energy intensive wave events which cause erosion. The flood model I am proposing would not have that kind of intensity. A gradual but progressive and on going rise in sea level caused by distant glacial melting and surging would cause a high tide that just keeps on coming. The sea water would simply rise and flow over the land like the tide. There is very little suspended sediment in the ocean and as long as the rise in sea level wasn't fast enough to cause a incoming 'tide' with enough speed to cause wide spread erosion, there wouldn't be any sediment layer to be found save for what sediment you would expect from ocean water, things like diatoms. Erosion would be limited to the bottle necks where the flow would be funneled, such as the straits of Gibraltar, the Bosporus, etc.
On the Pleistocene Extinctions I was greatly encouraged by the new reports that they are beginning to see 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.
The raised shorelines near Lake Baikal, if they exist, were viewed as post flood, not as being created by the flood since as you pointed out there would not have been time. The possibility of raised shorelines is that some areas may have rebounded since the flood, or there may have been water bodies trapped on land for a time that created the raised shorelines.
"Vogon Poetry"? No I checked by reading what I wrote a loud and I wasn't strangled by my large intestine, so it clearly wasn't. (shouldn't I know science fiction? according to you I write it!)
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Bill Birkeland, posted 08-20-2004 2:41 AM Bill Birkeland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Bill Birkeland, posted 08-26-2004 10:56 AM wmscott has replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2611 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 221 of 234 (137000)
08-26-2004 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by wmscott
08-21-2004 3:25 PM


Re: Still missing the target Scott.
wmscott wrote:
"It would be expected that large scale removal of water
from the oceans 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. No tsunamis are invoked here, so
I am not expecting to find such wide spread evidence."
The effects of large-scale removal of waters from the oceans and formation of ice caps in terns of what it would cause in terms of ocean floor uplift and continental subsidence has been modeled using data and field observations from the real world. The amount of water removed by the formation of ice sheets was simply too small, 120 meters of sea level rise, relative to a total depth of 4,000 to 5,000 meters, to have cause the ocean floor to rebound as much as Mr. Scott claims. At most, the removal of water from the world's oceans, would have caused only several meters of rebound. This is far, far, far, far too little to have caused what Mr. Scott claimed it did. Within continents, the isostatic depression of the crust beneath continental ice sheets, in fact caused a wide strip, called the "forebudge", of the continents adjacent to the ice sheet to be elevated, not depressed by tens of meters.
Some examples of the published research, which completely refutes Mr. Scott's ideas about the extent of ocean floor rebound includes:
Clark, J. A., 1980. A numerical model of worldwide sea-level
changes on a viscoelastic earth. In Earth Rheology, Isostasy
and Eustasy. N.-A. Morner, ed., pp. 525-534. Wiley & Son,
New York.
Clark , J. A., Farrell, W. E., and Peltier, W. R., 1978.
Global changes in post-glacial sea level : a numerical
calculation. Quaternary Research. vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 265-287
(This paper received the Kirk Bryan Award for Best
Publication from the Geological Society of America,
Geomorphology and Quaternary Geology Division in 1979)
Morner, N.-A., 1971, Relations between ocean, glacial and
crustal changes. Geological Society of America Bulletin.
vol. 82, pp. 787.788.
Morner, N.-A., 1976. Euastasy and geoid changes. Journal
of Geology. vol. 84, pp. 123-151.
Morner, N.-A., 1987a. Models of global sea level changes.
In Sea level Changes. M. J. Tooley and I. Shennan, eds.,
p. 333-355. Blackwell, New York.
Some web pages:
Isostasy
Sea Level Changes
IIS 10.0 Detailed Error - 404.0 - Not Found
In addition, Mr. Scott ideas are refuted by research concerning volcanic islands, which act as sea level dipsticks, within the Pacific ocean and elsewhere, which failed to show any significant rebound of the floor as he advocates. The mapping of submerges shorelines around all of these islands show that sea level **fell** by amounts roughly equivalent to the amount of sea level change caused by withdrawal of water from the oceans to create global ice sheets. The amount of rebound was less than several meters at most. This is completely insignificant relative to the depths of the oceans. Thus, the hypothesis that the ocean floors rebounded as much as Mr. Scott proposes is completely refuted by such research.
For example:
Shinn, E. A., 2001, Geological perspectives of global
climate change. L. C. Lee, W. Harrison, and B. M. Hanson,
eds., pp. 251-264, AAPG Studies in Geology. vol. 47,
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
Shinn (2001) stated:
"Drowned coral reefs and oolitic beaches indicate sea
level was about 100 m below present during Stage 2 as
little as 12 ka."
to repeat what wmscott wrote:
"entire earth to be covered by 'water' if the sea level
rise reached the edges of the ice sheets and mountain
glaciers."
Finally, if flooding up to the edge of the ice sheets had actually happened, it would have caused among land plants and animals and coastal ecosystems equivalent to what occurred at either Cretaceous-Tertiary or Permian-Triassic boundary. Coastal and lowland plants and animals communities would have been completely obliterated by it. Contrary to what Mr. Scott falsely claims, the extinctions at the end of Pleistocene in no fashion approaches this degree of extinctions.
wmscott wrote:
"As you know, tsunamis and hurricanes are both energy intensive wave
events which cause erosion. The flood model I am proposing would
not have that kind of intensity. A gradual but progressive and on going
rise in sea level caused by distant glacial melting and surging would
cause a high tide that just keeps on coming. The sea water would
simply rise and flow over the land like the tide. "There is very little
suspended sediment in the ocean and as long as the rise in sea level
wasn't fast enough to cause a incoming 'tide' with enough speed to
cause wide spread erosion,..."
In the real world, this is all nonsensical wishful thinking on the part of Mr. Scott. Even under the best of circumstances, the placid surging envisioned by Mr. Scott simply doesn't occur. It is impossible for a body of water of any size, especially anything from the size of large lakes to seas and oceans, to be perfectly still all of the time. Because of the weather, i.e. prevailing winds and storms, winds at some time almost always generate waves of some type. Also, the circulation of water masses, including diurnal tidal currents, and major storms frequently generate significant bottom currents. As a result, by waves or currents of some type impact every shoreline of a major body of water at some time of the year.
These currents and waves always result in the erosion of shorelines of oceans, seas, and any large body of water. Regardless of how slowly or fast sea level rose, there is always going be some sort of erosion by currents, waves, or combination of both, at the shoreface of the shoreline in which any loose sediments, specifically soil horizons, are stripped off of the ground surface. This erosion creates a readily recognizable erosion surface, called a "ravinement surface". Where tidal currents are active, the lateral migration of tidal channels along a trangressing coast will create a tidal ravinement surface. In the real world. studied in great detail by geologists, it is physically impossible for a "a gradual but progressive and on going rise in sea level" to submerge an area without land surface being deeply eroded as the shoreline moves landward across it. If Mr. Scott would visit the Louisiana coast, he anyone else would see that even during "a gradual but progressive" rise in sea level, significant and detectable erosion of the land's surface will always occur.
Why this happens is discussed in:
Bruun, P. 1962. "Sea Level Rise as a Cause of Shore Erosion."
Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division. vol. 88(WW1)
pp. 117-130.
Papers that document in great detail the erosion and
sedimentation that occurs even with "a gradual but
progressive and on going rise in sea level" submerges
dry land are:
Rodriguez1, A.B., Fassell, M. L., Anderson, J. B., 2001,
Variations in shoreface progradation and ravinement along
the Texas coast, Gulf of Mexico. Sedimentology. vol. 48
no. 4 Page 837-853.
Demarest, J. M., Kraft, J. C., 1987, Stratigraphic record
of Quaternary sea levels: implications for more ancient
strata. In Sea-level Fluctuations and Coastal Evolution.
D. Nummedal, O. H. Pilkey, and J. d. Howard, eds., pp.
223-239. Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists Special Publication no. 41, Society for
Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, Oklahoma
Nummedal, D., and Swift, D. J. P., 1987, Transgressive
stratigraphy at sequence-bounding unconformities; some
principles derived from Holocene and Cretaceous examples.
D. Nummedal, O. H. Pilkey, and J. d. Howard, eds., pp.
241-260. Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists Special Publication no. 41, Society for
Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, Oklahoma
and
Siringan, F. P., and Anderson, J. B., 1994, Modern
shoreface and inner-shelf storm deposits off the east
Texas coast, Gulf of Mexico: Journal of Sedimentary
Research., vol. B64, pp. 99-110.
Mr Scott has rate of sea level rise versus degree of erosion completely backward. Here, Mr Scott doesn't understand that the slower the rate of sea level, the longer the former land surface would be subject to action of waves and currents within shoreface and the more deeply eroded the land surface would be. Conversely, the faster sea level rises, the less time a submerged surface will be subject to erosion within the shoreface and nearshore environments and the less erosion will occur. Still even with very fast rates of sea level rise, there is always a significant amount of erosion as land becomes submerged. Only if entire land surface of the continents were dropped several tens of meters instantaneously, would the surface not have been subject to wave action within the shoreface and nearshore environments. That processes, however, would create its own evidence of it having occurred.
"...there wouldn't be any sediment layer to be found save for what
sediment you would expect from ocean water, things like diatoms.
Erosion would be limited to the bottle necks where the flow would
be funneled, such as the straits of Gibraltar, the Bosporus, etc."
As documented in the publications noted above, what Mr. Scott claims here is simply not true. Even a slow submergence of the land surface would result in extensive erosion and accumulation of sediments. One factor overlook here is that while all of this is happening, volumes of sediments are still being dumped into the world oceans by rivers such as the Mississippi and melting out at the edge of the ice caps. As a result, even at high stands of sea level, large amounts of sediments would still be dumped into the world's oceans and a layer of recognizable marine clastic sediments would accumulate in some areas.
It is quite obvious that Mr. Scott has a long, long way towards constructing a viable theory.
Best Regards,
Bill Birkeland.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by wmscott, posted 08-21-2004 3:25 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by wmscott, posted 08-28-2004 8:30 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6327 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 222 of 234 (137723)
08-28-2004 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Bill Birkeland
08-26-2004 10:56 AM


Still shooting rather large and impressive holes in the sky Bill
Dear Bill Birkeland;
Yes I know about glacial "forebulges" I live in the area of a former one. Now think about it for a moment, the huge Laurentide ice sheet covering Canada extending down into the USA, that is a huge area with a lot of depression. Do you think all of that depression was simply transferred to the forebulge? (just take a look at the diagram on the web page you provided the link to for isostasy.) The Ice Sheet would have been surrounded by a solid ring of some of the tallest mountains this planet has ever seen. That clearly didn't happen, so obviously most of the depression was not transferred to the forebulge. Most of the depression was taken up by 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 for you to dismiss it as a minor effect of no real significance since not enough is known about at this time to do so. (also briefly referred to in the page you provided the link to under isostasy.) If you will notice in the latter part of the 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, 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.
quote:
Mr. Scott ideas are refuted by research concerning volcanic islands,
Not really, would be nice if you posted the relevant information, provided a link or just e-mailed me a copy. Without the evidence you are just blowing hot air, it is the facts that count, not your opinion of the facts. I would be interested in seeing your evidence, I also have some of my own ideas on the effects of large sea-level changes on island elevations.
quote:
this is all nonsensical wishful thinking on the part of Mr. Scott. Even under the best of circumstances, the placid surging envisioned by Mr. Scott simply doesn't occur. It is impossible for a body of water of any size, especially anything from the size of large lakes to seas and oceans, to be perfectly still all of the time.
You really need to pay attention to the details of the model you are attempting to refute, otherwise you are just going to be always shooting rather large and impressive holes in the sky instead of hitting your intended target. You overlooked the impact caused 40 days of global rain, a heavy rain flattens waves and claims the sea. As for the withdrawal of the sea, the hydroisostatic down warping of the ocean floor combined with the uplifting of the continents would result in a very steady withdrawal without any pauses so any wave action that occurred would be spread out and as you stated in an earlier post, shorelines take time to form. So wave action probably had little opertunity to create any erosional effects, but I would suspect that some minor effects were created and if this flood is one day supported by published data, such evidence will then be recognized and found.
quote:
if flooding up to the edge of the ice sheets had actually happened, it would have caused among land plants and animals and coastal ecosystems equivalent to what occurred at either Cretaceous-Tertiary or Permian-Triassic boundary. Coastal and lowland plants and animals communities would have been completely obliterated by it. Contrary to what Mr. Scott falsely claims, the extinctions at the end of Pleistocene in no fashion approaches this degree of extinctions.
The Permian was big, the KT was smaller and the Pleistocene was even smaller, so you would expect the same pattern in extinctions. All there were probably impact events with the Permian being something truly huge, the KT as we have learned was massive, and the Pleistocene event was much smaller and only the resulting flooding had a significant global impact. As for flooding killing off everything, without a massive flood deposit burying the preflood surface, and as long as any salt was flushed out, there would be little impact on plants as long as the flood wasn't too long. Animals may have simply fled onto glacial edges, or anything that floated and the survivors repopulate. Not all animals would survive such an event which is why in my opinion that we have the late Pleistocene extinctions.
quote:
If Mr. Scott would visit the Louisiana coast, he anyone else would see that even during "a gradual but progressive" rise in sea level, significant and detectable erosion of the land's surface will always occur.
Duh! Of course silly, your examples are of very slow rises over an extended periods of time with plenty of time for wave action to occur. My model would be a rise occurring in a few months at the most, or as little as a few days, the withdrawal would probably start slow and pick up speed and then slow down again as the final level was approached. Length of time for the main active part of the withdrawal would probably be 1 to 6 months, would be my guess, hope to tighten these figures up as more is known.
quote:
One factor overlook here is that while all of this is happening, volumes of sediments are still being dumped into the world oceans by rivers such as the Mississippi and melting out at the edge of the ice caps. As a result, even at high stands of sea level, large amounts of sediments would still be dumped into the world's oceans and a layer of recognizable marine clastic sediments would accumulate in some areas.
Yes of course, for an example of this see the loess deposits in the region of the Mississippi river valley that are possibly water deposited, some are just reworked by wind and others are probably dumped behind temporary dams, but if any turn up with marine traces, that would be what you are talking about. Plus for material dropped by glacial ice floating over flooded land, we have the reported dropstones in the Driftless Area in SW Wisconsin. This evidence exists, it just need to be recognized and identified.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Bill Birkeland, posted 08-26-2004 10:56 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by edge, posted 08-28-2004 10:42 PM wmscott has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 223 of 234 (137755)
08-28-2004 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by wmscott
08-28-2004 8:30 PM


Re: Still shooting rather large and impressive holes in the sky Bill
quote:
Yes I know about glacial "forebulges" I live in the area of a former one. Now think about it for a moment, the huge Laurentide ice sheet covering Canada extending down into the USA, that is a huge area with a lot of depression. Do you think all of that depression was simply transferred to the forebulge? (just take a look at the diagram on the web page you provided the link to for isostasy.) The Ice Sheet would have been surrounded by a solid ring of some of the tallest mountains this planet has ever seen. That clearly didn't happen, so obviously most of the depression was not transferred to the forebulge. Most of the depression was taken up by 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.
If it is so huge, where is the evidence for this displacement?
No matter what your argument, Mr. Anderson, you are still evidentially challenged on this subject. In fact, you have not even shown to anyone's satisfaction that you actually have marine diatoms. You have not found them at elevations greater than a couple hundred meters. Your theory is little more than wishful thinking. I thought you were going to collect more data to support your position, but I see nothing new since our discussions last year. It is time to stop making assertions and get the supporting data. However, my impression here is that you do not intend to do so and would rather bore us to death with stubbornness and recycled arguments; and then declare supremacy since you outlasted everyone here. You have a very simple solution: GET THE DATA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by wmscott, posted 08-28-2004 8:30 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by wmscott, posted 08-29-2004 9:58 AM edge has replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6327 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 224 of 234 (137805)
08-29-2004 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by edge
08-28-2004 10:42 PM


Working on getting the data
Dear Edge;
quote:
If it is so huge, where is the evidence for this displacement?
In the traces of evidence found pointing to a massive temporary flood and in effects that movement of such large weights of water/ice would have on the shape of the earth.
Yes I agree with you entirely that I need to "GET THE DATA" and responding to these posts interferes with doing so. I will take the time to state that I have already posted pictures of my earlier findings of marine diatoms at the 1000 foot level here in the Midwest, so I merely have to improve on what I have already done. I am refining my procedures and will hopefully start my survey work in earnest soon. So I am not interested in a lengthy debate and just want to get back to my lab work, so please excuse me, I have work to do.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by edge, posted 08-28-2004 10:42 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by edge, posted 08-29-2004 5:35 PM wmscott has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 225 of 234 (137905)
08-29-2004 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by wmscott
08-29-2004 9:58 AM


Re: Working on getting the data
quote:
In the traces of evidence found pointing to a massive temporary flood and in effects that movement of such large weights of water/ice would have on the shape of the earth.
No. I'm sorry I did not make myself clearer. In order to support your position, you need INDEPENDENT evidence. THe way you state it your reasoning is circular.
quote:
Yes I agree with you entirely that I need to "GET THE DATA" and responding to these posts interferes with doing so. I will take the time to state that I have already posted pictures of my earlier findings of marine diatoms at the 1000 foot level here in the Midwest, so I merely have to improve on what I have already done. I am refining my procedures and will hopefully start my survey work in earnest soon. So I am not interested in a lengthy debate and just want to get back to my lab work, so please excuse me, I have work to do.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
I am please that you understand this. Please proceed. And good luck to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by wmscott, posted 08-29-2004 9:58 AM wmscott has not replied

  
Kraniet
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 234 (215627)
06-09-2005 12:10 PM


this thread is indeed a long one and I havent read all of it and since i havent spent nearly as much time investigating these topics and have nowhere near the same expertice that some here seem to have I hope you bear with me. But anyways ill still try and put in some thoughts.
Like I said i only recently came in contact with subjects of these matters (interpretations of the bible, ancient cultures and cataclysmic events etc) but as all things interesting I cant avoid some pondering.
Ive read a book by a Swedish author Henry Kjellson called "Teknik i Forntiden" translated to something like techonlogy in ancient times. In the book he produces some ideas based on various ancient texts from Egypt, South America, Babylonia, India, Tibet and of course the Bible. Ill not talk about all that he does but only the parts regarding the Flood. This story seems to be existing all over the world. In south america there are writings telling about how the ancestors had to use boats to travel over land. Also there is a wall with art painted at a height to high for even the biggest construction stands (pointing to a time maybe when there where water that high). In India there is stories about a great "worm" or "dragon" diving down from the heavens and plummeting in the seas and rolling over land. In babyloinan texts the whole story of Noach and his journey is spelled out (the exact same story as the biblical version). Also in Egypt there are writings about that same event but in other words. Recently ive also come across an ancient chinese myth regarding the "Tien Kou" or "celestial hound" a myth belived to date back to a meteor strike in 6000 BC, the name is thought to refer to the shape of the tail from the comet. putting this together with the Indian myth of the worm/dragon seems to indicate that its the same meteor.
From this page you find some ideas about Hale Bop being the meteor in question of being responsible (having a cycle time of nearly 4000 years).
In that page you also find that the earth axel shifted sometime near that catastrofe. SOmething that Kjellson also is talking about in his book. A chapter recarding the Vedic Zodiac that does have the time drag of about 1/4 year every year, an phenomenon that is caused by the tilt of the earth axle and therefore indicating it was made before the time this event ocurred.
Putting this together we get that the comet most have been really big and perhaps the moon were created at the same time seeing that the earths tilt wouldnt be possible if the moon didnt act as a gyro. Also Kjellson talks about some ancient text where theres i talk about ancestors who "didnt know of the moon". In his book he dates the event to about 4000BC since this corresponds to the Christian idea of how the earth is only about 6000 years old. It is a well know fact that many cultures define their time tables after certein events so the idea about a world only 6000 years old should have something to do with a cataclysmic event "resetting" time.
To me it doesnt seem so incredible that there was a flood. Dating it seems more of a trouble. More and more evidence seems to point to ca 6000 BC (at least for me). This one for instance.
A well i shant bore you anymore with my ravings. Seeing that ive already apologized for beeing a novice in these subjects ill post this in good conscience
This message has been edited by Kraniet, 06-09-2005 12:11 PM
This message has been edited by Kraniet, 06-09-2005 12:11 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by wmscott, posted 06-09-2005 4:18 PM Kraniet has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024