rapid continental plate collision: Flood Geology

[McCulloch]

You should do some research into the various Flood models. I favor Baumgardner's "catastrophic plate tectonics"; you can google it.

Mt. Everest was caused by the cataclysmic upheavals and rapid continental plate collision, rifting, and subduction that produced the Flood -- as well as the release of the "Fountains of the Deep", and the 40 days and nights of rain (the rain didn't cause the Flood; it was produced by it).

As you're obviously uninformed as to what really happened in Earth's history, I envy your voyage of discovery!

Is there any valid geological evidence to support these claims?

[1213]

So, your dome is running say half-way around, or at least a significant fraction of the way around the earth? And you have a few pillar supports in between.



You are still creating a picture that can exist only in fantasy.

Before you can get to your non-planar domes, you have to show that pillars can be spaced far enough apart so that the curvature makes a difference. If the widest domes of a nearly spherical nature that can be made are a few hundred feet in diameter, and those are only supporting a thickness of rock of only a few feet, how are you going to have pillars potentially miles apart, supporting hundreds of times as much rock per square foot, at a shape that is much less than spherical in curvature?

Water is really quite good support, if it does not have way to escape, same way as air also can lift car, if the air is compressed in car tires. Or do you believe that four tires full of air can lift several tons of steel, even though air is even lighter than water?

[micatala]

So, your dome is running say half-way around, or at least a significant fraction of the way around the earth? And you have a few pillar supports in between.



You are still creating a picture that can exist only in fantasy.

Before you can get to your non-planar domes, you have to show that pillars can be spaced far enough apart so that the curvature makes a difference. If the widest domes of a nearly spherical nature that can be made are a few hundred feet in diameter, and those are only supporting a thickness of rock of only a few feet, how are you going to have pillars potentially miles apart, supporting hundreds of times as much rock per square foot, at a shape that is much less than spherical in curvature?

Water is really quite good support, if it does not have way to escape, same way as air also can lift car, if the air is compressed in car tires. Or do you believe that four tires full of air can lift several tons of steel, even though air is even lighter than water?

In a constrained, sealed space, sure. I will even grant some rocks are relatively impermeable to water. I believer chalk, for example, is impermeable and that is why the Chunnel goes primarily through a chalk marl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel#Geology

But you are talking about a huge expanse the size of a continent. You would need the entire expanse to be impermeable.


Secondly, and correct me if I am wrong in your position, you are saying there is something like a mile of rock over this water. If you are saying the water is holding this up, you have some very major problems besides the impermeability issue.

Water (or any matter) under pressure will heat up. Under the amount of rock you are talking about, I suspect a calculation would show the pressure would create temperatures well in excess of the boiling point of water. The pressure may hold the water in a liquid state if contained (again, that means no leaks!), but once you have the collapse you speak of, that water will all erupt quite violently and in a very hot gaseous state. It will end up cooking the planet.

[1213]

Water (or any matter) under pressure will heat up. Under the amount of rock you are talking about, I suspect a calculation would show the pressure would create temperatures well in excess of the boiling point of water.

Probably it would heat up the water, and it would explain why there was so much raining when the great flood came. It would be interesting to calculate how much the water would heat up, if there was for example 4500 feet water and 1500 earth on top of it.

[micatala]

Water (or any matter) under pressure will heat up. Under the amount of rock you are talking about, I suspect a calculation would show the pressure would create temperatures well in excess of the boiling point of water.

Probably it would heat up the water, and it would explain why there was so much raining when the great flood came. It would be interesting to calculate how much the water would heat up, if there was for example 4500 feet water and 1500 earth on top of it.

See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... html#flood

This is based on a smilar model to yours, although the depth of rock, etc. is different.

Hydroplate. Walt Brown's model proposes that the Flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain.
How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter.
Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

Again, you have not even addressed the leakage issue. Keep in mind a huge issue in mining, including in the 19th century, was water leaking into the mine through rock. Even in making the chunnel, there were cracks in the chalk requiring engineering solutions.

You have not alluded to Noah per se, but the super-heated water would have basically steamed the earth. This would have meant all life except for perhaps extremophiles would have died.


Also, the mixing of fresh and salt water would have killed probably all of the fish.


See also http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... l#survival

How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:
the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

Here is another source which calculates the temperature under Brown's model.

http://www.oldearth.org/walter_brown_hy ... theory.htm

Granted you have only 1500 feet of earth in your model and 4500 feet of water. So, you would not have super-heated steam, but you would have water well over 100 degrees F. This would, I think, annihilate fish life all by itself, never mind the salt versus fresh water issue.

[1213]

See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... html#flood

This is based on a smilar model to yours, although the depth of rock, etc. is different.

Thanks. I think Walt Browns model is little simpler, but nice to see that someone else has come up with similar idea.

Again, you have not even addressed the leakage issue.

At the moment I dont know was there really any leakage issue and I dont know why it was not a problem.

Sorry that I dont have all the answers. But I believe to my theory and I believe if studied enough it becomes obvious truth.

Also, the mixing of fresh and salt water would have killed probably all of the fish.

I dont think it was a problem. It is really possible that there remained suitable areas for different species. But it is possible that many fishes were killed during that event. (Water tends to form different layers by its salinity. If there is nothing that mixes them, it is possible that there remain areas for many demands).

See also http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... l#survival

How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:
the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

- Elephants may have lived in different region and therefore their remnants are not found in same places.
- Algae from Late Precambrian sediments is found in different layer perhaps because it lived in different region. Also if we consider that the great flood carried lot of dirt when it came, it is possible that not modern algae was more easily first trapped and therefore in earlier geological column. In most of these case I think the reason is the qualities of the species that determines when something was drowned and buried to sediments.
- Small organism were more easily buried by sediments that were carried by the flooding water, because they are not as able to run away and because it takes less effort to bury small animal than large, which can have better abilities to for example float. For example humans dont easily drown, because they can swim, or float and use things to float.
- Different plants in different strata can be because they have different manners and conditions and they also float differently.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 55 by 1213]

But I believe to my theory and I believe if studied enough it becomes obvious truth.

I have no doubts that if you study it enough it will become more "obvious truth" to you. This is confirmation bias. Unfortunately what you call an obvious truth is not obvious enough to the vast majority of humans on this earth. Therefore I don't think we can conclude that it is obvious in the first place.

I also have issue that none of your arguments are based on concrete evidence but just mere conjecture ifs and maybes. If unicorns existed they could have stopped the flood. Maybe if the tooth fairy was good enough no one would have died. These are all equally valid statements. Truthfully all the models you presented either have all life boiling to death except for microorganisms or are just plain impossible.

Frankly I remain unconvinced by these pseudo-scientific claims and am curious as to why you think they are more viable compared to claims that have vast quantities of hard data to confirm them. It appears you don't want to believe so you are doing everything in your power to prevent said belief. The "obvious truth" here is not that the earth was young as you have not presented any data that supports this . I can only conclude that the obvious truth is not in YEC.

[micatala]

See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... html#flood

This is based on a smilar model to yours, although the depth of rock, etc. is different.

Thanks. I think Walt Browns model is little simpler, but nice to see that someone else has come up with similar idea.

Again, you have not even addressed the leakage issue.

At the moment I dont know was there really any leakage issue and I dont know why it was not a problem.

???? So, you make up a model without having any actual empirical evidence that supports the model, you refuse to even consider or address a very obvious problem with the model, and you still believe in the model?

Leakage is a currently observed phenomenon. We can also observe evidence of past leakages with the strata. Intrusive rocks, for example, are the results of liquid rock seeping into cracks. In most circumstances, water, being less viscous, would seep through cracks even more easily.

For you to simply assume that leakage did not occur over such a massive area is, in short, completely unreasonable and irrational.




I understand that even science does not have an answer for every question. On the other hand, those situations happen in situations where there is a paucity of data.


We do not have a paucity of data regarding the hydrological behavior of rocks. We have massive amounts of experience from mining, not to mention scientific studies going back multiple centuries.




If you are not going to even address this issue, then why are you debating in this forum?

Sorry that I dont have all the answers. But I believe to my theory and I believe if studied enough it becomes obvious truth.

You believe your theory is obviously true even though it means completely disregarding very obvious scientific facts? How on earth can your theory be considered "obvious" under such circumstances?

Also, the mixing of fresh and salt water would have killed probably all of the fish.

I dont think it was a problem. It is really possible that there remained suitable areas for different species. But it is possible that many fishes were killed during that event. (Water tends to form different layers by its salinity. If there is nothing that mixes them, it is possible that there remain areas for many demands).

Basic diffusion would lead to mixing of salt and fresh. You might get some differentiation due to temperature and currents, but there would clearly be a lot of mixing and a great many dead fish, both saltwater and freshwater fish.

See also http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... l#survival

How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:
the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

- Elephants may have lived in different region and therefore their remnants are not found in same places.
- Algae from Late Precambrian sediments is found in different layer perhaps because it lived in different region. Also if we consider that the great flood carried lot of dirt when it came, it is possible that not modern algae was more easily first trapped and therefore in earlier geological column. In most of these case I think the reason is the qualities of the species that determines when something was drowned and buried to sediments.
- Small organism were more easily buried by sediments that were carried by the flooding water, because they are not as able to run away and because it takes less effort to bury small animal than large, which can have better abilities to for example float. For example humans dont easily drown, because they can swim, or float and use things to float.
- Different plants in different strata can be because they have different manners and conditions and they also float differently.

Sorry, this is entirely inadequate.

First, your response in your second item would seem to indicate you did not understand that those algae are only found in the lowest layers. The point is that they are NOT mixed in with organisms from other areas.

Algae would remain within the water, settling out only very, very slowly. How on earth did such algae NEVER end up on top of plants which would have been rooted to the ground? How did they not end up on top of coral?

Your statement in item three directly contradicts hydrology and the facts. Small organisms would tend to float more easily, and settle to the bottom more slowly than larger ones.


You also did not address numerous other points very problematic for you model.


What about the coral? How did this end up intact on top of other fossils, even other animal fossils?





Again, if you are not willing to address the details of the actual data, why are you debating in the science forum? You are simply dismissing or ignoring the facts.

[DanieltheDragon]

The coral to me seems to kill any argument about flotation etc. Because of the amount of time it takes for coral to form a sudden violent flood would rip apart most coral structures and disperse them amongst the debris. You wouldnt have the type of coral fossils we have today which appear as if sediment buildup simply buried them in a non-violent manner.

There is also the great barrier reef keep in mind the conditions for coral to grow

Reefs can increase in diameter by 1 to 3 centimetres (0.39 to 1.18 in) per year, and grow vertically anywhere from 1 to 25 cm (0.39 to 9.84 in) per year. At a depth of no more than 150 meters due to the need for sunlight to grow.

the great barrier reef is about 344,400 square kilometres making it impossible for it to have grown in less than 10,000 years.

The earliest reef structures are about 600,000 years old according to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.