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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When the flood waters receded, where did they go ?
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 131 (13613)
07-16-2002 1:09 AM


Just a few general questions for TB or TC...
You've claimed that the Flood waters rose and fell hundreds or thousands of times to account for the cyclothems and all the other marine transgressions in the gelogic record.
You've also claimed that the mechanisms for this is the same as in conventional science - just accelerated by half a billion times.
Well then, let's list those mechanisms, and invite TB or TC to explain exactly how this all works.
Pennsylvanian cyclothems:
Midwestern North American cyclothems are thought to be controlled dominantly by eustatic sea-level changes caused by variations in ice volumes at the South pole. Evidence for this glaciation is abundant and well correlated with the cyclothems.
How do glaciations exist in a Flood? And how do they change in volume by the required amounts in a matter of hours or days? The thickness of the ice cover needs to change by a LOT - very quickly.
Eastern U.S. cyclothems are more tectonically controlled - subsidence, delta-switching, etc. In the normal scientific paradigm, the weight of the sediment accumulating isostaticlly depresses the crust. Mountain building buckles the crust into basins and uplands, which erode into the basins. Rivers change course.
If we speed things up by half a billion times, how can these sedimentary basins move up and down so quickly? Do we need rainfall to increase by half a billion times to allow rivers to do their thing so quickly? How can erosion reduce granites and other highly resistant rocks into clay, sand, and silt in a matter of days? Anyone who studies erosion soon learns that water alone does almost nothing to break down rocks into clays. It's a chemical reaction driven by soil acids. Can we calculate the required acidity of the soil and/or rainwater to accomplish the required erosion in only a few days?
The larger trends in eustatic sea-level change are thought to be caused by changes in sea-floor spreading rates, which lead to changes in average oceanic crustal temperatures -> crustal bouyancy -> ocean basin depth.
How can oceanic crust temperatures change significantly in a matter of weeks? Do we need to postulate thermal conductivity rates that are higher by half a billion times?

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 131 (13614)
07-16-2002 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by John
07-16-2002 12:56 AM


"Yes. squashed pounded twisted crushed powdered broken warped mashed
--We then find more than enough of this.
"and like the big bang, it should leave a trail"
--It did, were looking at it now.
"ummmm..... mass times (velocity squared)"
--Which was driven by mantle convection at somewhere within the proximity of .0004 m/s.
"No, TC. I meant mud. I believe this was a comment on the layering of sediments."
--Whatever material, metamorphism applies. And I gave the example of Himalayan orogenesis.
"This is not a weird as you seem to think. If the mantle were hot enough this is exactly what would happen. Of course, no one has yet to risk giving an actual postulated temperature for the mantle during this time.
Interesting, but that doesn't seem the mesh with this very well. Also reference this link for the continental crust melting argument above."
--I found nothing of challenging merit included in the article. What did you find?
"I am not making the iconoclastic claims."
--Sorry, I have not made iconoclastic claims in this forum. Also, see Edge's posts, he does exactly what I have written with TB, you aren't exempt.
"ad hominem thanks... "
--Sorry, I don't make ad hominem attacks until they are fired at me with ignorant intention. You haven't done this and I have not done it back toward you. It is essential that you understand your argument before it is argued. Evo's grow tedious of Creationist parroting, it is the other way around as well in my experience.
"It doesn't matter if I fully understand it. What matters is that it is a problem for this theory."
--Whether you understand it or not plays a founding role in whether assertions in the realm of 'something is a problemy' has any merit. I have used Hovind as an example because his lack of understanding gives his reasoning no credibility. If you wish to be technical, rather than 'full' understanding, sufficient understanding is needed.
"Sounds like a formula for acid rain."
--While there would be little explosive volcanism, yup this is a great formula for acid rain.
".... from the problem of having alternating fresh and salt water deposits in rapid succession."
--IC, then what do you mean by 'The sheer volume of the ocean should wash [or mix] out the freshwater contributions'.
"hmmm...... This was a response to the idea that the mantle convected its extra heat into the atmosphere as it cooled. So, the mantle is very hot and very large-- orders of magnitude larger than the atmosphere. It stands to reason that the atmosphere under this scenario would have to absorb a lot of heat. Ergo, the it gets really really hot.
--Sorta, though heat escapes from the atmosphere, I believe the polar regions are where some would attribute the heat loss. Haven't done too much study in this arena though regarding the atmosphere and heat transfer through it. Vardiman did some precipitation modeling you may want to take a look at though:
http://www.icr.org/research/lv/lv-r04.htm
"Am I right in thinking that there is never a 100% global flood? Seems like we always have a bit of dry land somewhere.
--Just about, though I don't have a problem with there being a short period of complete global inundation.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by John, posted 07-16-2002 12:56 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by John, posted 07-16-2002 10:54 AM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 126 by edge, posted 07-16-2002 10:59 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 131 (13626)
07-16-2002 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by TrueCreation
07-16-2002 2:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Yes. squashed pounded twisted crushed powdered broken warped mashed
--We then find more than enough of this.

I think you are missing or avoiding the point I am trying to make. Perhaps this is due to my highly technical language.
I don't see the continents remaining intact under these stresses. It seems they would have been destroyed. Is this an argument from incredulity? Well, sort-of. But it is less of an argument than it is a challenge. Explain to me why this would not happen.
I also don't see the oceanic crusts sinking quietly into the deep. Shouldn't this crust buckle and break from the movements? Pile up in some areas and rip open in others? Do we have any oceanic crust mountains?
quote:
"ummmm..... mass times (velocity squared)"
--Which was driven by mantle convection at somewhere within the proximity of .0004 m/s.

How about filling in some details? I am guessing at most of your logic.
quote:
I found nothing of challenging merit included in the article. What did you find?
The article primarily concerns the formation of the Earth's crust. Seems to have not been so simplistic as you implied. Perhaps you were talking down to me. If you notice, in the early days of the planet the crust was unstable as the TEMPERATURE WAS TOO HIGH. Recall: the crust wouldn't melt. The crust solidified later, as things cooled. Recall: the crust floats because it solidified when the mantle was very hot.
quote:
Sorry, I have not made iconoclastic claims in this forum.
You think creationism and flood geology isn't iconoclastic?
quote:
Whether you understand it or not plays a founding role in whether assertions in the realm of 'something is a problemy' has any merit.
Oh come on, TC. Do you fully understand anything? Your best subject, do you fully understand it? If someone asked me this question, I'd say no. There is no other answer. Hiding behind your assessment of another's understanding is an ad hominem tactic. The person doesn't matter. The argument does. If I don't know what I'm talking about, it should be easy enough to demonstrate that.
quote:
"Sounds like a formula for acid rain."
--While there would be little explosive volcanism, yup this is a great formula for acid rain.

So doesn't this have negative effects on the ecology and hence on the flood survivors (who, I suppose would pretty much be the ecology)
quote:
".... from the problem of having alternating fresh and salt water deposits in rapid succession."
--IC, then what do you mean by 'The sheer volume of the ocean should wash [or mix] out the freshwater contributions'.

This perhaps stems from a difficulty understanding, or misunderstandign of how this flood model works. We have the oceans surging inland and then receeding. Then surging. It is raining all the while. While the ocean has receeded, this rain results in freshwater deposits of sediment. The problem I see is that the surges and the freshwater deposits will have to be so close together in time that they should be practically indistinguishable--- blurred.
quote:
Sorta, though heat escapes from the atmosphere, I believe the polar regions are where some would attribute the heat loss.
Ok, but much of this model creates conditions that would trap heat in the atmosphere-- volcanic dust, large amounts of water vapor....
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by TrueCreation, posted 07-16-2002 2:23 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 07-16-2002 12:48 PM John has not replied
 Message 129 by TrueCreation, posted 07-17-2002 1:10 PM John has replied

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


Message 124 of 131 (13631)
07-16-2002 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by John
07-16-2002 10:54 AM


Some editorial comment...
John writes:

I don't see the continents remaining intact under these stresses. It seems they would have been destroyed. Is this an argument from incredulity? Well, sort-of.
We've dismissed Creationist arguments from incredulity so many times that we may have come to believe they're automatically false, but they're only false when used inappropriately. If a Creationist begins a discussion with the statement, "I just can't believe that small changes over long time periods can account for molecule-to-man evolution," then this is a valid argument, and we answer with the evidence supporting evolution. But if after seeing the evidence the Creationist *still* says he just can't believe it, as opposed to offering contrary evidence, then it becomes an invalid argument from incredulity.
If someone were to say to you, "Here's a hammer, I bet you can't break this window," you would probably answer "I can't believe this window won't break when I hit it with this hammer." If the answer provides no evidence supporting the claim that the window cannot be broken, then the argument is not one of incredulity but simply common sense. However, if the answer is to point to the little label in the corner that announces the glass is bullet-proof and we were still to express doubt that the window could withstand a hammer blow, only then does it become an invalid argument from incredulity.
So it is perfectly valid to state "I can't believe you could push tera-tons of continent around like so many pinballs without destroying them" until some kind of evidence is provided. Certainly no effort has been spared pointing out the reasons why this seems impossible.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by John, posted 07-16-2002 10:54 AM John has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 125 of 131 (13686)
07-16-2002 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Tranquility Base
07-16-2002 12:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge
You are just doing the usual Edge - 'there is no evidence for a global flood' even though we use the same evidence that you use to pronounce marine innundations! You have misunderstood a fitted framework as data itself.

Well, if asking questions that you cannot or will not answer is 'the usual,' then I agree. However, your statement suggests that you will continue to avoid any issue that is inconvenient for you and ignore explanations that do not adhere to a biblical myth. How about giving us some data that actually support your scenario and elimiate the others? I don't mean your hunches or gut feelings, I mean hard data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-16-2002 12:04 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 126 of 131 (13687)
07-16-2002 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by TrueCreation
07-16-2002 2:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
John: "Am I right in thinking that there is never a 100% global flood? Seems like we always have a bit of dry land somewhere.
--Just about, though I don't have a problem with there being a short period of complete global inundation.
"You don't have a problem with complete innudation?" Pardon me, but isn't this central to your whole thesis? You make it sound like you are simply a proponent of incomplete, shallow, epeiric seas!
I seems we are redefining 'global flood' here. Care to explain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by TrueCreation, posted 07-16-2002 2:23 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by John, posted 07-16-2002 11:13 PM edge has replied
 Message 130 by TrueCreation, posted 07-17-2002 1:13 PM edge has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 131 (13688)
07-16-2002 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by edge
07-16-2002 10:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
"You don't have a problem with complete innudation?" Pardon me, but isn't this central to your whole thesis? You make it sound like you are simply a proponent of incomplete, shallow, epeiric seas!
I seems we are redefining 'global flood' here. Care to explain?

I had this thought too actually. It does make the flood scenario easier to swallow, but also makes it substantially less Biblical.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by edge, posted 07-16-2002 10:59 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by edge, posted 07-16-2002 11:35 PM John has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 128 of 131 (13692)
07-16-2002 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by John
07-16-2002 11:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:

I had this thought too actually. It does make the flood scenario easier to swallow, but also makes it substantially less Biblical.

Yeah. In a few years, the flood will have been an afternoon thunderstorm.
Watch out for the slippery slope TC/TB....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by John, posted 07-16-2002 11:13 PM John has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 131 (13714)
07-17-2002 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by John
07-16-2002 10:54 AM


"I think you are missing or avoiding the point I am trying to make. Perhaps this is due to my highly technical language. "
--It surely must be
"I don't see the continents remaining intact under these stresses. It seems they would have been destroyed. Is this an argument from incredulity? Well, sort-of. But it is less of an argument than it is a challenge. Explain to me why this would not happen."
--Well the fact of the matter is, that the continents didn't remain intact per se, enormous orogenic constructions resulted form the Flexure stresses and strains on the continental crusts.
"I also don't see the oceanic crusts sinking quietly into the deep. Shouldn't this crust buckle and break from the movements? Pile up in some areas and rip open in others? Do we have any oceanic crust mountains?"
--This did happen in Himalayan orogenesis, this is why we find this massive folded mountain range which includes a large folded slab of the ancient tethy's sea. There is also detailed discussion on both this and the above topics in a geophysical sense. Elasticity and Flexure, stresses and strains in solids, Geothermal heat flow, flux transfer and cooling, etc. I had taken a couple hours of these readings and pondering on the information until I realized that it were not necessarily needed for this particular dispute
. Geodynamics - Second Edition; Donald L. Turcotte & Gerald Schubert. I reference this book frequently, it is highly recommended for its level of depth in this subject.
"How about filling in some details? I am guessing at most of your logic."
--I was making my point that at such a velocity, just the friction of this huge mass simply isn't going to keep budging after its underlying mechanism of mantle convection has slowed.
"The article primarily concerns the formation of the Earth's crust. Seems to have not been so simplistic as you implied. Perhaps you were talking down to me. If you notice, in the early days of the planet the crust was unstable as the TEMPERATURE WAS TOO HIGH. Recall: the crust wouldn't melt."
--Right, the 'forming crust' would not melt. So there is no contradiction here.
"The crust solidified later, as things cooled. Recall: the crust floats because it solidified when the mantle was very hot."
--Your quotes are not in context and do not qualify as being 'quotes'. This is not what I had said. The crust does not float because it 'solidified when the mantle was very hot'. It floats because it is composed of incompatible elements which were differentiated out of the mantle through partial melting. The article also has a very brief reference toward partial melting.
"You think creationism and flood geology isn't iconoclastic?"
--Creationism most certainly is not iconoclastic, as there are wide variations in belief associated with the word, it is not direct enough to make this type of attribute. And really, iconoclastic would not be a very appropriate word to use for flood geology. Flood Geology does not attack or seek to overthrow traditional or popular ideas. Maybe the person, but not Flood Geology in itself. Flood Geology is simply Geology within a different framework.
"Oh come on, TC. Do you fully understand anything? Your best subject, do you fully understand it? If someone asked me this question, I'd say no. There is no other answer. Hiding behind your assessment of another's understanding is an ad hominem tactic. The person doesn't matter. The argument does. If I don't know what I'm talking about, it should be easy enough to demonstrate that."
--This is why I clarified by imputing that 'If you wish to be technical, rather than 'full' understanding, sufficient understanding is needed.'. If someone doesn't know what they are talking about when phrasing an argument or give their opinion on something which they do not understand, the credibility of their ability to interpret the merit of what they are giving their opinion on is then under great doubt. If you give the average 16 year old a Graduate level geophysics paper and they read it and he/she tells you that they agree with the conclusions of the paper, knowing that 16 year olds experience in physics (and of course the absence of its application toward geodynamics) is no higher than High School Physics 101 your not going to give that decision very much merit. Again I gave Hovind as an example. If this is an ad hominem tactic, it is a necessary one which is reasonable to follow rather than to discriminate its usage. Either that or it was just getting late last night when I had written this.
"So doesn't this have negative effects on the ecology and hence on the flood survivors (who, I suppose would pretty much be the ecology)"
--This has an effect in controlling per se the extinction level events which contributed toward the survivability of existing animals at the time on the earth. Of course this is only one cause of mass deaths on the earth and may be relatively minute in most cases. We don't have a problem with killing off the majority of the earths population when that is what is desired.
"This perhaps stems from a difficulty understanding, or misunderstandign of how this flood model works. We have the oceans surging inland and then receeding. Then surging. It is raining all the while. While the ocean has receeded, this rain results in freshwater deposits of sediment. The problem I see is that the surges and the freshwater deposits will have to be so close together in time that they should be practically indistinguishable--- blurred.
--Not exactly, though such deposits in most cases are going to be quite thin. These surges may have rushed in various areas considerably afar in distance inland to considerable depths. And I don't think that your assertion that 'rain results in freshwater deposits of sediment' is all that correct for the most part. It is possible that this could happen, but may be extremely rare. Requiring that condensation nuclei be included in significant quantities in precipitation with relatively long durations of time. These deposits may also likely not be attributed as non-eolian because of the possibilities for constituent inclusions in precipitation. I do not see any reason to believe that such deposits would be so thinly deposited that they may represent homologous sediments.
"Ok, but much of this model creates conditions that would trap heat in the atmosphere-- volcanic dust, large amounts of water vapor...."
--I once argued that this impact dust could either not make it into the high atmospheric vicinity, or that precipitation could make it up there to clean it out within the year or very shortly after the catastrophe. I researched into this specific topic in meteorology over a couple weeks provoked by discussion with Gene90 and was disappointed that this simply would not have happened. Later pondering revealed the fact that actually, there is the very appealing effect of meteoric impacts which I have cited here:
Originally located - http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=19&t=17&p=13
quote:
"What do you mean by 'volcanic and meteoric impact particle nuclei shielded the earth from becoming a global pressure cooker as water vapor is a greenhouse gas'. Did these particles trigger nucleation and condensation?"
--Yes they did, these particles acted as cloud condensation nuclei in the surrounding lower atmosphere though the 'cleaning' ability by this mechanism wouldn't have occurred with as much rigour in the higher atmosphere. This is appealing because we not only have a latter ice age, but we also do not have a global pressure cooker, as it blocked many cosmogenic rays which would have been absorbed by the water vapor below, making an ice age and a nuclear winter a bit of a problem.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by John, posted 07-16-2002 10:54 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by John, posted 07-17-2002 6:31 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 131 (13715)
07-17-2002 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by edge
07-16-2002 10:59 PM


""You don't have a problem with complete innudation?" Pardon me, but isn't this central to your whole thesis? You make it sound like you are simply a proponent of incomplete, shallow, epeiric seas!
I seems we are redefining 'global flood' here. Care to explain?"
--I personally think it is surprising that as long as when compiling a model that works, it is still quite coherent with the description written in scripture. Though the point is somewhere along the line that complete inundation may have taken place, but it was not an event which spanned any greatly significant length of time.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by edge, posted 07-16-2002 10:59 PM edge has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 131 (13728)
07-17-2002 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by TrueCreation
07-17-2002 1:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Well the fact of the matter is, that the continents didn't remain intact per se, enormous orogenic constructions resulted form the Flexure stresses and strains on the continental crusts.
All of which are well explained by the formulas of plate tectonics using values for plate speed that are a fraction of the speeds necessary in your theory. Insert larger values and you should get different results.
quote:
This did happen in Himalayan orogenesis, this is why we find this massive folded mountain range which includes a large folded slab of the ancient tethy's sea. There is also detailed discussion on both this and the above topics in a geophysical sense. Elasticity and Flexure, stresses and strains in solids, Geothermal heat flow, flux transfer and cooling, etc. I had taken a couple hours of these readings and pondering on the information until I realized that it were not necessarily needed for this particular dispute
. Geodynamics - Second Edition; Donald L. Turcotte & Gerald Schubert. I reference this book frequently, it is highly recommended for its level of depth in this subject.

Again, all explained by formulas using much smaller values for speed.
quote:
I was making my point that at such a velocity, just the friction of this huge mass simply isn't going to keep budging after its underlying mechanism of mantle convection has slowed.
Sure it would. This is called momentum, and a mass this size would have a lot of momentum.
First, you haven't how the mantle could cool quickly.
If you could cool it quickly, the friction you speak of would be where the continental crust touches the mantle. The lower bits would slow, the upper bits would slow more slowly. You should sheer the continents in half, among other effects.
[QUOTE][b]Right, the 'forming crust' would not melt. So there is no contradiction here.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
The point is that the forming crust did melt, several times. Remember that you are proposing that the mantle temperature goes up. If it goes up high enough, the plates would melt just like in the early Earth. Do you propose that the temperature goes up this high? I don't know. You haven't given me a mantle temperature.
quote:
John: "The crust solidified later, as things cooled. Recall: the crust floats because it solidified when the mantle was very hot."
--Your quotes are not in context and do not qualify as being 'quotes'. This is not what I had said. The crust does not float because it 'solidified when the mantle was very hot'.

This is a quote:
quote:
Forming crust didn't sink into the mantle because it cooled while the mantle was still extremely hot.
Maybe you can understand how I could make this mistake?
quote:
And I don't think that your assertion that 'rain results in freshwater deposits of sediment' is all that correct for the most part. It is possible that this could happen, but may be extremely rare. Requiring that condensation nuclei be included in significant quantities in precipitation with relatively long durations of time.
I didn't mean that the sediments rain down, but that rainwater is the source of the freshwater that deposits the sediment- presumably washed off of the highlands.
quote:
These deposits may also likely not be attributed as non-eolian
So they are attributed as eolian?
quote:
because of the possibilities for constituent inclusions in precipitation.
As they would be if the sediments were airborne?
There seems to be a contradiction here. Care to clear that up?
quote:
I do not see any reason to believe that such deposits would be so thinly deposited that they may represent homologous sediments.
How many surges are you postulating?
quote:
Later pondering revealed the fact that actually, there is the very appealing effect of meteoric impacts which I have cited here:

Do you mean that the particles of dust seeded clouds and protected Earth?
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by TrueCreation, posted 07-17-2002 1:10 PM TrueCreation 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