Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Could Erratic Blocks give Flood Plausibility?
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 1 of 20 (489088)
11-23-2008 7:39 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 11-23-2008 8:08 AM Peg has replied
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 11-23-2008 8:19 PM Peg has replied
 Message 17 by roxrkool, posted 11-24-2008 1:22 PM Peg has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 20 (489089)
11-23-2008 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
11-23-2008 7:39 AM


Hi Peg, two requests:
  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.
Please post a note when you're done and I'll take another look.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 11-23-2008 7:39 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Peg, posted 11-23-2008 6:38 PM Admin has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 3 of 20 (489122)
11-23-2008 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
11-23-2008 8:08 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 11-23-2008 8:08 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by bluescat48, posted 11-23-2008 7:55 PM Peg has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 20 (489130)
11-23-2008 7:28 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 5 of 20 (489132)
11-23-2008 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Peg
11-23-2008 6:38 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Peg, posted 11-23-2008 6:38 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 11-23-2008 8:00 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 6 of 20 (489135)
11-23-2008 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by bluescat48
11-23-2008 7:55 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by bluescat48, posted 11-23-2008 7:55 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by bluescat48, posted 11-23-2008 8:23 PM Peg has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 7 of 20 (489137)
11-23-2008 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
11-23-2008 7:39 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 11-23-2008 7:39 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Peg, posted 11-23-2008 9:01 PM Percy has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 8 of 20 (489138)
11-23-2008 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
11-23-2008 8:00 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 11-23-2008 8:00 PM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 9 of 20 (489140)
11-23-2008 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
11-23-2008 8:19 PM


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??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 11-23-2008 8:19 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 11-23-2008 9:53 PM Peg has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 10 of 20 (489144)
11-23-2008 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Peg
11-23-2008 9:01 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Peg, posted 11-23-2008 9:01 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Peg, posted 11-23-2008 10:06 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 11 of 20 (489146)
11-23-2008 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coragyps
11-23-2008 9:53 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 11-23-2008 9:53 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 11-23-2008 10:17 PM Peg has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 12 of 20 (489147)
11-23-2008 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Peg
11-23-2008 10:06 PM


Erratics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Peg, posted 11-23-2008 10:06 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 11-23-2008 10:33 PM Coyote has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 13 of 20 (489148)
11-23-2008 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coyote
11-23-2008 10:17 PM


Re: Erratics
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 11-23-2008 10:17 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 11-23-2008 10:44 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2008 1:35 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 11-24-2008 9:15 AM Peg has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 14 of 20 (489149)
11-23-2008 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peg
11-23-2008 10:33 PM


Re: Erratics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 11-23-2008 10:33 PM Peg has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 15 of 20 (489154)
11-24-2008 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peg
11-23-2008 10:33 PM


Re: Erratics
quote:
marine life up high
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 11-23-2008 10:33 PM Peg 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