|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Could Erratic Blocks give Flood Plausibility? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
I'd just like to get some thoughts on this article. Many will claim there is absolutely no evidence of a flood, i'd just like to know why Erratic Blocks are not evidence of a great flood...
*the article does initially say that diluvial flooding is the likely cause, but later researchers claim glaciers as the cause, it shows that there are different schools of thought and opinions from one person to another... If some of these erratic blocks have sea shells embedded into them, and have been found at hundreds of feet 'above' their original positions, does that not indicate that they could have been moved there by flooding?
The Ice Age and Its Work I. Erratic Blocks and Ice-Sheets, by Alfred Russel Wallace a few quotes state " In the last century, Swedenborg, Linnæus, Pallas, De Luc, and many other eminent writers took notice of the remarkable fact that in Scandinavia, Russia, Germany, and Switzerland detached rocks or boulders were found, often in great abundance and of immense size, and of a kind that did not exist in situ in the same district, but which were often only to be discovered in remote localities, sometimes hundreds of miles away. " "The case of the boulders in the Isle of Man, which have been carried nearly 800 feet above their source...a granite block on the top of Cronebane, a slate hill in Ireland, and several hundred feet higher than any place where similar granite was to be found in situ; and he also noticed several deposits of limestone gravel in places from 300 to 400 feet higher than the beds of limestone rock which are from two to ten miles off. " "in the other localities ...the same ice-sheets which have distributed foreign erratics so widely over our country, and which in doing so must have passed over the sea-bottom, have in a few cases carried with them a portion of that sea-bottom, and deposited it with the erratics in the places where both are now found." and no, this has not come from a creationist website! Edited by Peg, : No reason given. Edited by Peg, : fixed url Edited by Peg, : fixed url again Edited by Peg, : non erratic block quotes removed
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Peg, two requests:
Please post a note when you're done and I'll take another look.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
admin writes: 1. If you'd like to discuss erratic blocks, your excerpts from the Wallace article should only touch on erratic blocks. Please remove the excerpts that don't address the issue of erratic blocks. 2. Though written over a hundred years ago, the article is a lengthy, detailed and rather strong argument for recent ice ages, and at one point in the portion on erratic blocks he argues specifically and with evidence against a diluvial origin, so you need to explain why you think it supports your position. 1. excerpts removed 2. About the Diluvial origin, the earlier researchers went for the diluvial to explain the movement, but the latter researchers chose the glacial explaination. personally i dont think either can write the other off if evidence for both explanations is available? So, could these erratic blocks make the flood plausible? Edited by Peg, : question re arranged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
2. About the Diluvial origin, the earlier researchers went for the diluvial to explain the movement, but the latter researchers chose the glacial explaination. That is how science works, quite often theories are changed when new evidence is found. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
yes i understand that
if we look at the marine fossils found in many of the erratic blocks, it certainly must be evidence of those blocks, at some point, being in waters or somehow dislodged from water also glaciers are more likely to send debris 'down' as opposed to 'up' so what is to account for these erratic blocks being found at elevated positions? do you have any suggestions bluescat?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Peg writes: *the article does initially say that diluvial flooding is the likely cause... I think you've misread the opening paragraph. At one point it refers to "many curious phenomena that had hitherto been vaguely regarded as indications of diluvial agency," and either you've somehow misinterpreted that as an endorsement of diluvialism, or what you really meant to say is that the article mentions that diluvialism had been a common explanation in the past.
If some of these erratic blocks have sea shells embedded into them, and have been found at hundreds of feet 'above' their original positions, does that not indicate that they could have been moved there by flooding? Flood waters can move massive boulders, but not uphill. Deep water flows very slowly anyway, and water would have to be very deep for erratics raised hundreds of feet in elevation. Erratics found at elevations higher than their origins were carried along by the flow of ice, whose flow pressure is slow and relentless even when the glacier is very, very thick. A glacier a mile or two thick would have no trouble moving huge boulders over the undulating underlying landscape, even uphill hundreds of feet, as it flows more generally down toward sea level. Sometimes erratics are explained by icebergs that break off of glaciers, float out to sea, then drop their sediment content including huge boulders as they melt. This is a less common form of erratic transport, but it explains erratics laying in the middle of plains that were at one time covered by water, or in other cases were sea beds that were later raised by tectonic forces. In comparison to the huge amount of glacial evidence associated with erratics, there is a complete lack of any associated flood evidence. A flow of water capable of moving a huge boulder weighing hundreds of tons would scour the landscape down to bedrock, yet erratics are almost always found lying atop landscapes untouched by any of the indications normally associated with floods. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
do you have any suggestions bluescat? Percy beat me to it. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Percy writes: Flood waters can move massive boulders, but not uphill. Deep water flows very slowly anyway, and water would have to be very deep for erratics raised hundreds of feet in elevation. Erratics found at elevations higher than their origins were carried along by the flow of ice, yes i see what your saying there...a boulder would more likely sink then swim im not sure if i've misread the article though, it does say that earlier geologists pointed to diluvial flooding to explain the phenomenon of erratics, but later researchers pointed to glaciers what is impressive is that the land has gone through changes of gigantic proportions... the earths crust is relatively thin so could it be that a deluge of gigantic proportions would have the capability of changing the landscape to such an extreme? effectively uprooting mountains/glaciers??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
could it be that a deluge of gigantic proportions would have the capability of changing the landscape to such an extreme? Maybe that could be - but there would be evidence left behind! That's the biggest problem with a global flood - it had to have happened without leaving traces of itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Coragyps writes: Maybe that could be - but there would be evidence left behind! That's the biggest problem with a global flood - it had to have happened without leaving traces of itself. so you dont think the geological upheaval such as erratic blocks is evidence of something catastrophic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
so you dont think the geological upheaval such as erratic blocks is evidence of something catastrophic? Erratics are readily explained by glaciation. There has been a lot of research on the subject, and erratics can be seen in motion today associated with the many glaciers that are still active. With erratics, there is simply no need to stretch for another explanation. The current explanation explains all of the relevant facts, while the global flood idea was dismissed about 200 years ago by early geologists who had been seeking to prove that the flood actually happened. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
marine life up high
marine life = water presence how much water and the cause of the water remains to be seen... i really dont think that it can easily be explained away as a glacial movement unless at some point the glacier itself was submerged
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
marine life up high marine life = water presence how much water and the cause of the water remains to be seen... i really dont think that it can easily be explained away as a glacial movement unless at some point the glacier itself was submerged I'm really not sure what you're saying. If by "marine life up high; marine life = water presence" you are referring to marine fossils on mountain tops, there is an entire thread on just that subject that has been active up until this past week. You should be able to get the answers you need there, or to pose additional questions. Glaciers get their water from snowfall. It accumulates year after year and builds up vertically. The weight eventually pushes the resulting ice to the sides (downhill mostly). Glaciers will grow if there is more accumulation than there is melt at the terminal end. During the glacial episodes the ice accumulated in places to a depth of up to three miles. That, and the significantly colder temperatures--less melting at the edges--forced glaciers into many parts of the northern US. Many mountain ranges that are now free of glaciers still bear the distinctive marks showing where the glaciers scoured the landscape. But these glaciers resulted from snowfall, not from some contact with oceans. I hope this helps. If not, perhaps you could reframe the question? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It's not "marine life up high". It's boulders moved from the location where the rock was formed. Any fossils must date to long before the boulders were broken out of the original formation and moved to where they are now found. The glaciers are responsible for the movement, and the fossils in some erratics have absolutely no connection to that glaciation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024