Old Earth Flood Geology

not a problem. draw a line graph, might help you.your problem is that by the conditions you gave, the flood could not occur between 8,000 BCE and 4,000 BCE.conditions:
flood is before 8,000 BCE
flood is after 4,000 BCE<========|---------------------------------------------------|=======>
......8,000 BCE..........................................4,000 BCE....
the = sign is the line drawn in the directions specified. Before 8,000 BCE is 9,000 BCE, 10,000 BCE, you get the picture. After 4,000 BCE is 3,000 BCE, 2000 BCE, again, you get the picture.we have a suspicion that Neanderthals were capable of speech, but this is still a hypothesis. I'd say its safe to assume that Cro-magnon's were capable of speech--they are us, except for living during the ice age and maybe a few minor differences.ABE: quick question--how are you using "latest" and "earliest"? I was reading it as "latest" being last, not most recent. if the other way around, then looks exactly the same, and its still not a problem, in the way you think. The earlist possible (the youngest possible, in relation to age of earth) is by nature going to be earlier than the oldest (agian, same relation) date.okay, so maybe rephrase what you're after. I think I've confused myself.

where to begin, where to begin.first off--we're all living on the surface of the earth. Nothing lives within the surface with few exceptions.. The tectonic plates are anywhere from a few kilometers to 150 or more thick. That is your surface. The only thing above the surface of the earth is air.Next, there are hooved animals in Australia. Only, we brought them there.Third, South America and Australia both show signs of glaciation. Granted, you have to either except the earth is quite old and/or that Australia, South America, and Antartica were once one continent. check user the heading "Permo-Carboniferous" in Continental drift - Wikipedia. Sadly, no picture.
Oh, and we've gone through several times of extreme glaciation, aka ice ages. The earliest, and by far most extreme I've heard of occurred 600 million years ago.Sea mounts are not created by a sinking ocean floor or a rising sea level. they are volcanoes underwater. The reason the sea floor is much lower than the continents is due to density. The continental crust is less dense than the upper mantle material. Ocean floor, however, is more dense than the mantle, thus it sinks.As to the water canopy, unless I'm mistaken, that's a bogus argument. why? the heat alone from an atmosphere with that much water would have killed Noah, nevermind most of multicellular life. H2O is, afterall, one of the most effective greenhouse gasses--it can store a lot of heat. There is no geological evidence that I'm aware of that even supports a fountain of the deep. Do you know what's under the crust? superheated rock--magma. Any water that's down there is steam, incredibly hot steam. correct. the formation of the solar system created the heavy elements. incorrect. superheating these elements resets the radioactive clock. A lot of the radioactive testing is done on elements that have had their clocks reset since the formation of the earth. One that isn't, is C14 dating. The oldest dates we have obtained by these methods (not by C14, which can only measure organic materials), is a little under 4 billion years. We have even more rocks dated in the 2-3 billion year old range.For further info on the age of the earth, look here. http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)As to the final section, an argument from incredulity (but how can you tell? i don't know, so it ain't true!) is not a valid argument. I don't know how calculus works. If I walk into a room full of calc students and tell them that calculus is wrong because its unbelievable, or becuase I don't understand it, they will laugh me out of the room, and rightfully so. You are about to be laughed out of the message board.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Australia has native animals--the marsupials being the most famous. I was just making a fun objection to your "no hooved animals in Australia" comment.As to glaciation, as I said, I wish I had a picture. I've managed to find one, but the one in my geo book is much better
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com:8100/.../le05_25.jpgyou'll also note that these glaciers were on India and Africa, places that are quite warm today in the regions with glacial evidence.The flood waters pressing down the crust? No. parts of yellowstone park are rising due to a magma chamber. There is no water pushing the crust down, or the removal of water letting it go up. Furthermore, you still don't understand the sea mounts. They are volcanoes, and the only difference is they are underwater. The amount of water present has no bearing on their height--they grow by the same mechanisms that volcanoes on land do--some enough so that they become islands like Hawaii or Krakatoa (which blew itself apart).The reason you have an ocean floor several miles lower in elevation than continental floor is that oceanic crust is denser than continental crust, so it sinks in more. If you put a marble on a piece of plastic floating in water, what happens to the area you put the marble on? It sinks in relation to the rest of the plastic. The oceans, if they have an effect, are negligible--water is less dense than either mantle or crust. Do you see oil pushing water down into soil? No. same basic concept applies.As to your additions on the water vapor. It won't work. why? Space is a near vaccuum. You put water into space, it will not come back into the earth unless you act on it--such as pushing it in that direction? gravity, at that point, is too weak to pull it in. This is why the majority of gasses in our atmoshpere are found within the first five miles. Also, pressure is not responsible for heat transfer. Heat follows the rules of diffusion--where there is none, it goes until both are equal. The reason ice is cold is because it draws heat away from you, until you and the ice have the same temp. the result? water and a colder you. The earth's rotation is not responsible for heating or cooling. I'll let someone with a firmer grasp on thermodynamics and weather explain why you're wrong.And again, you've used on argument of incredulity: "The problem in part is that the scale paleontologists is so great and so many assumptions that its not believable."
also, paleontologists would be the wrong people to ask about your zircon problem--they dig up fossils, and study fossils, not radioactive decay. That is the domain of a branch of physcists and chemists. Those two areas are also outside my grasp of science. I again refer you to people more knowledgeable in that area.My suggestion for now, is to go read up on real science. get an introductory textbook in geology, since age and floods seem to be an area of interest to you (I don't know you're age, but you seem kind of young--like a highschooler). read up on this stuff. Find out how science works (which is not, briefly, finding evidence in agreement with specific passages from the bible, but rather, drawing conclusions from data gathered, as in, we have x and y, now what do they mean?)Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

quick comment--if I implied Australia experience glaciation 600mya (approx), that's not what I meant. I was referring to the global ice age, with hypothetically covered the entire world in a layer of ice. Australia has experienced glaciation much more recently than that date. In the picture I gave a link to, the date is the permian--250 mya.

well, it seems you know some basic science--such as why things cool slowly in space--because its incredibly difficult for conduction to work. space, however, is not a total vaccuum. this works against your water canopy. It won't cool effectively until you get to the darkside if the whole canopy is above the atmoshpere (which is space). THe part facing the sun will reach temps over 200 degrees F, and almost the same but negative on the dark side. Plus, it will still act as a greenhouse gas, effectively increasing the temp of the earth to unbearable (for human life) levels.Your second paragraph is pure babbling, incomprehensible babbling. water does not increase the longevity of life. there is no evidence of a water canopy, for that matter. finally, the earth's gravitational strength had no bearing on the the creation of the asteroid belt. it is a failed planet--it either failed to coalesce into one massive body, or if it did, it met a very unsavory end from an asteroid collision.As to the mid-oceanic ridges and trenches:
trenches are not sucked down so that water has more room. Rather, a trench is where two tectonic plates are running into each other--the most famous being the mariana trench. A classic example is the trench found in the ocean of the coast of South America from where the Pacific plate and the South American plate are colliding. The denser plate (oceanic crust) sinks below the lighter continental crust. The oceanic ridges are made of material that is less dense than the ocean crust--because it takes about 80 million years for the magma coming out to completely cool and achieve the same density.none of these formed to room for water--that is assigning a purpose to something without one.as to Australian fauna and flora:
I might remind you olive branches are not native to Australia. Tell me, who's famous for olive oil? The mediterranean. Finally, why did just the Southern hemisphere animals use floating mats? Also, where is your evidence for them? see, funny thing about explaining how stuff happens, is that you have to have evidence of your explanation happening. See, I can propose that pink elephants live in my toilet, and that they cause it to get plugged. But where's my evidence? I have no pink elephants that I can find, never mind a plugged toilet with any kind of elephant being the cause.I'm now going to give you a list of ice ages the Earth has experienced--because in a earlier post, you were conflating the glaciation of Australia with the most recent ice age. That glaciation occurred 250 million or so years ago (the australia one) [list]Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

are we getting anywhere? I'm thinking not.The water canopy is not responsible for larger insects. You are right that insects in the past have been larger. The largest one on record is a scorpion that lived in water--don't remember name or time, just that it was in the earliest days of large multicellular organisms.Insects get bigger with more oxygen. During the carboniferous period, the oxygen content of the atmoshpere was at around 40%, not todays 25ish%. the only way this statement can be true is if you had more photosynthesis occurring. Fortunately, this period is warm--tropical in many places (more so than today), allowing for greater plant growth. However, the organism most responsible for photosynthesis is not a land plant, rather, it is algea. Most oxygen comes from algae.
Size is not dependent upon pressure. if it did affect size, we would see a decrease in size. Why? At sea level, every living thing today experiences 14.7 lbs. per square inch of pressure. What happens when you apply pressure to a sleeping bag? You force it into a smaller volume. Not a larger volume. Ironically, the biome with the largest known single animal--the ocean and the blue whale (which can weigh in at over 200 tons)--has the highest pressure. This whale, by definition, lives in a place with greater pressure than you will find anywhere on earth today. umm, actually, lightning is one of the natural processes for making ozone, which is O3. the amount of CO2 really has nothing to do with the amount of oxygen or ozone. Why? Think about it--the atmoshpere today contains less than 1% CO2, and over 20% oxygen. If you have more CO2, it will not greatly affect the amount of O2. Also, you never explained how a water canopy creates more CO2.Also, leave out global warming in this thread--it's not the topic. Or at least, your conspiracy theories about global warming. both statements here are false. First off, a density lessen with rocks. As rocks cool, they get more dense. why? they contract. A hot rock takes up more space than a cool rock. If object A has the same mass as object B, but has less volume, it will be more dense than B. This is what is happening with oceanic crust. Basalt is quite dense, but when heated to the extremes it is when it comes out in the oceanic ridges, it is much less dense than cooled basalt, becuase it has greater volume. The oceanic ridges also rise for the same reason that volcanic islands appear--each release of magma increases the height of the ridge. If not for the fact that ridges are pulled apart, they would appear above sea level.As to the trenches, perhaps a picture is best to explain. They are not the result of the boundary between two plates being sucked in. Rather, they are the result of the boundary being pushed down. take a look at the pictures in the left column.
http://www.extremescience.com/PlateTectonicsmap.htm
you are only right in the sense that trenches are the logical conlcusion of spreading zones. The earth ain't getting any bigger, so if there's new crust being made, what's happening? Old crust is being pushed into the earth. I might add that this would happen regardless of the existence of water or the amount of water.one last note--there is no suction force in the mantle.

first problem: to get down to earth, this water now has to travel from the furthest reaches of the universe--and their is a lot of shit inbetween the outermost edge and the earth for the water to get stuck in. Never mind that the earth doesn't have a great enough gravitational attraction to get this water back from the edge of the universe.second problem: then why didn't the earth rise? try this--gaseous mass rises when heated. I can heat my desk all I want, but it ain't gonna rise until its so hot that the elements making it up take on the properties of gas.third problem: gases mix evenly. Also, at the height you would need, the water molecules would be freezing--and thus, sink. why do you think rain happens? water molecules freeze in the atmosphere at a specific height, due to lower temp of air. remember, most of the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen. when it finds a piece of dust, it coalesces with others and is to heavy to remain in the air. you'd have a very similar effect. As this canopy is rising, it will get cold. it will begin to sink to begin with, and assuming their is dust in the air (it never says when wind is created, but obvioulsy there was) it will eventually rain. this is also assuming that this canopy is actually over the earth and not the whole universe. you're going to get rain, but a hell of a lot earlier than when the flood supposedly took place.fourth problem: I'm assuming that we have the sun or shortly will. If so, the amount of sunlight each region recieves will determine warmth. the Poles will still be colder than the equatorial regions. period. no ifs, ands, or buts. regardless of any greenhouse gases in the atmoshpere.fifth problem: we wouldn't observe a higher atmosphere. Why? Because it is the temp of the individual gases (each atom that is in gaseous state) that determines whether it rises or sinks. The warmth of the earth is the warmth of the atmoshpere. If you raise it above the earth, you're going to get quite cold underneath--soil ain't exactly the greatest at retaining warmth, especially when you have stuff growing on it. Another thing, you're now conflating the canopy with the atmoshpere. you want the canopy to be higher, not the atmoshpere. Otherwise, how else will we get oxygen, so critical to our life? Finally, even at, say, 212 degrees F you won't cause any gas in the atmosphere to rise much higher than the current limits of the atmosphere.(one last thing--the earth has been quite a lot warmer before, such as when the ocean was at 40 degrees celcius (i want to say mesezoic, but . . .). I'm confident in saying that the atmosphere still touched the ground, because there were a bunch of microscopic and micro macroscopic organisms that still lived. Also, for those animals depending on gills or blowholes, you have to have the atmosphere touching the water. why? there's this law, forgot the name, that states that the amount of dissolved gas is proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in the atmosphere. You remove the atmosphere, you remove partial pressure, you remove dissolved gases. gills no longer function. As to the blowholes, they don't have a way of getting to the oxygen at its higher level effectively to survive for long.)sixth problem: wow. just wow. okay. first off you will still have an atmosphere touching the earth. you'll still experience the same pressure at seal level. while at Virginia Beach, I'll experience 14.7 lbs per sq. inch. In Denver, its slightly less. reason? The pressure is the cumulative effect of all the gas atoms in that square inch from where I'm standing to the outermost reaches of the atmosphere. so there won't be less pressure (unless you remove the total amount of atmosphere, which I don't think you are aiming for, here).
second off, the amount of gas present has little to do with initial warmth on earth. We get our heat from radiation transfer of heat--that light from the sun is transferring heat by radiation (not the same type of radiation as from nuclear powerplants, though similar). The heat is reflected of the surface, and trapped by greenhouse gases, for the most part. so pressure doesn't affect heat, at least, in a direct manner. The heat trapped by these gases is transferred by the other methods of heat transfer--convection and conduction. You move that atmosphere from the surface, you end up making the surface quite cold.biggest two problems: universe canopy, when you want an earth canopy, and conflating the canopy with atmosphere.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I'll deal with this shortly. First, dinner. then its time for the slaughter house. I never claimed this. Nor does anyone who has taken an intro to geology or has a passing interest. here's a pic of the tectonic plates on earth.
http://www.uwsp.edu/...ulty/ozsvath/images/plates%20copy.jpg
you can clearly see the continents in this picture. Where you have continents, you have continental crust. where you have ocean, you have oceanic crust. Both types make up tectonic plates. spreading of the plates can only be explained when you have a mechanism, and the evidence for this mechanism, for the spreading of a plate. We know that Europe and the US are getting further apart. This spreading is explained by the mid-atlantic ridge, which is continuously adding to the crust.Question? If you spread the plates on a sphere, won't some collide?
Answer? Yes. Reason? the Earth isn't increasing in diameter. It stays the same. That means, while the Atlantic Ocean is growing, somewhere else must be shrinking. How does the shrink happen? the Collision between two plates. If the leading edge of the colliding plates are made of continental crust, you can make some pretty impressive mountains, ala Everest. Everest is growing in size everyear, because india is shrinking. If you look at the picture
(PHSchool.com Retirement—Prentice Hall—Savvas Learning Company)
, you'll notice that the India plate is running into the Eurasian plate. Granted, Everest ain't getting much taller due to erosion.Where you have an oceanic crust meating with continental crust, such as with the Nazca plate (oceanic crust on leading edge) and the South American plate (continental crust on leading edge), the oceanic crust is pushed down.Why? Density. What floats higher, less or more dense objects? Naturally, less dense objects. Continental crust has a cumulative density lower than that of oceanic crust. This means its sitting higher to begin with. When the two meet, which will slide on top of the other? Continental. This process creates mountains and volcanoes on the side of plate floating above the sunken plate. Hence, you have the impressive Andes mountains and many volcanoes.These collisions are called convergent boundaries, because they are "coming together". The topogrpahical feature of such a boundary is a trench. Some very steep, like the Marianas, and some shallow (in terms of angle), like the one of the west coast of South America.It is important to note that convergent boundaries are responsible for spreading, often causing the oceanic ridges. this is pure baloney. not to be confused with the sandwich meat, which itself is a fake meat, if you ask me. where are the herds of bologne? now to the serious stuff.how can the ballooning of something release pressure inward? that statement there destroys your argument. the formation of trenches has been explained above--caused by convergent boundaries. The oceanic ridges really didn't balloon outward. They rest higher naturally than cooled oceanic crust, thanks to a lower density. However, the ridge itself is basically a volcanoe chain. It builds up just like volcanoes. The only difference, is that it does this not as a single mountain, but as a chain. That is why it actually they are as high as they are.
here's a good diagram:
http://maps.unomaha.edu/Maher/geo117/part3/ridge.jpeg
notice that they don't really sit that much higher. definitely not enough to cause any suction force. nevermind that your idea as to the formation of trenches is actually the opposite of what happens. this is at least the third argument from incredulity you've used. Just because you can't believe this is what actually happens is no reason for it being wrong or false. um . . .yeah. You do realize that we experience 14.7 lbs per sq. inch at sea level, as far as atmoshperic pressure is concerned. I don't see it squashing people. second, you've misused subduction. It is used when describing plate boundaries where the oceanic crust is being subducted under the continental crust. It's not a plate-wide description. Water pressure would be your key, not air pressure, and even water pressure has no effect on this process. Like I said in an earlier message (to you or buzsaw, not sure), these processes would occure regardless of water.you're vaguely right with your last comment. some water (a very tiny amount, mind you) is pulled in, and actually helps with the creation of volcanoes by subduction zones. naturally, this water is eventually expelled in volcanic eruptions.like i said earlier, get an intro to geology textbook, and learn something instead of espousing this psuedo-science.
and again, I ask you for physical evidence of a canopy. we have physical evidence of massive glaciation in Australia, even though they are not there. have you none fo the canopy?Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

got it boss. now then, I'm wondering if equinox will return to his thread or not?

not only that, but that water that does get sucked down there, a little over 200 km deep or so (figure from memory, so . . .) is aiding tectonic processes, by allowing the rocks to be partially melted at a lower temp. without that water, it would be a touch more difficult for subduction and the creation of volcano arcs.