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?

[micatala]

The major problem with the idea of that much water under the ground and supporting continents is that it would seem to defy the laws of physics.

Rock does not float on water.

Plate tectonics works because liquid rock is very dense and viscous. Rock will move slowly, carried by compacted and liquefied rock.

I think the idea that a flood could push around massive plates, a la tectonics, is fantasy.


Secondly, if you take the Bible as a reliable guide to science in general, and the flood in particular, you run into major problems. For just one issue, as documented extensively in the Deluge thread, there are ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica that collectively span several hundred thousand years. These cores show no trace of salt water incursion, thereby conclusively refuting a global flood in that time span, which goes back tens of thousands of years before human history.



Now, you could have a lot of water underground in aquifers. However, these consist of permeable rock that maintains its own structure, or perhaps underground streams existing in small cavities. Nothing like the drawings in your link would, I think, be able to exist. You might be able to get sinkholes to form, but not whole continents collapsing in on themselves.

[1213]

The major problem with the idea of that much water under the ground and supporting continents is that it would seem to defy the laws of physics.

Rock does not float on water.

Even steel floats on water, if it is properly formed. And it is more dense than rock.

Bible claims also that there were pillars of earth. If it is true, the earth could have been on top of water, supported by pillars and then it could easily have made it possible that the earth floated over water.

[micatala]

The major problem with the idea of that much water under the ground and supporting continents is that it would seem to defy the laws of physics.

Rock does not float on water.

Even steel floats on water, if it is properly formed. And it is more dense than rock.

Bible claims also that there were pillars of earth. If it is true, the earth could have been on top of water, supported by pillars and then it could easily have made it possible that the earth floated over water.

This is your argument? That pre-flood the rocks were specially fashioned into the shape of boats?

Again, you have not addressed the fact that ice cores show no flood within human history. If you are basing this on the Bible, you are claiming the flood happened within human history, right?


And your pillars of earth would still not satisfy the laws of physics, unless they were very carefully designed, along the lines of cathedrals.

[Goat]

The major problem with the idea of that much water under the ground and supporting continents is that it would seem to defy the laws of physics.

Rock does not float on water.

Even steel floats on water, if it is properly formed. And it is more dense than rock.

Bible claims also that there were pillars of earth. If it is true, the earth could have been on top of water, supported by pillars and then it could easily have made it possible that the earth floated over water.

And, other than the unsupported claims from the bible, what is the evidence for this? Or, is it just making things up as you go along?

[1213]

This is your argument? That pre-flood the rocks were specially fashioned into the shape of boats?

My argument was what I wrote in previous post. I dont claim that rocks were fashioned into the shape of boats. I am saying that it seems to me that earth (dry land or crust of earth) was formed like dome that was on top of water and it was supported by pillars (edges). The pillars were not necessary needed to keep the earth from sinking, put to hold it steady so that the earth would not move sideways. The water could easily keep earth on top of it, if the water had no way to escape from under the earth dome.

Again, you have not addressed the fact that ice cores show no flood within human history. If you are basing this on the Bible, you are claiming the flood happened within human history, right?

I think the flood happened before the ice cores were formed. I think those were formed after the flood, when water begun to settle.

I think the flood happened relatively short time ago and certainly within human history.

[1213]

And, other than the unsupported claims from the bible, what is the evidence for this? Or, is it just making things up as you go along?

I have not made this up by myself. I dont have this good imagination. I think I just speak what the Bible suggests.

In my opinion I told some things that I think are evidence for this in post 10.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=25903

[micatala]

This is your argument? That pre-flood the rocks were specially fashioned into the shape of boats?

My argument was what I wrote in previous post. I dont claim that rocks were fashioned into the shape of boats. I am saying that it seems to me that earth (dry land or crust of earth) was formed like dome that was on top of water and it was supported by pillars (edges). The pillars were not necessary needed to keep the earth from sinking, put to hold it steady so that the earth would not move sideways. The water could easily keep earth on top of it, if the water had no way to escape from under the earth dome.

Well, you alluded to steel being able to float, which would in general not happen without putting it into a shape that displaces more water than the weight of the steel, as in a boat.


You mean one huge, continent-sized dome with pillars at the outside?

Are you claiming the entire earth (or at least the large domes) was covered with a layer of rock impermeable to water?


Once we are clear on your claims, we can perhaps analyze them from an engineering standpoint.

Again, you have not addressed the fact that ice cores show no flood within human history. If you are basing this on the Bible, you are claiming the flood happened within human history, right?

I think the flood happened before the ice cores were formed. I think those were formed after the flood, when water begun to settle.

I think the flood happened relatively short time ago and certainly within human history.

Again, consult this information on ice cores from the Deluge thread. This post will take you to other links with the details, and there is several pages of posts on the ice cores within that thread.

The ice sheets in Greenland are well over 40,000 years old. In Antarctica, they are over 500,000 years old. The dating on these is very conservative (the best information has them much older) and is very secure, and is verified by visual layers, annual chemical variations, and is consistent with marker events like volcanic eruptions which can be independently dated.

Thus, there has been no world-wide flood within human history, just on the basis of this one line of evidence.

[Bust Nak]

I think the first thing that people should do, if they really want to consider that option, is to think, what would be the evidence for those claims and what it would really mean...

3. The edges of the continents are compressed, because when they were on surface of the water, they had greater surface area than after the collapse.

I would expect the edges to curl upwards in that case, we don't see that anywhere on Earth.

[1213]

You mean one huge, continent-sized dome with pillars at the outside?

I meant something like in this picture:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Kuvat/Earth.jpg

That picture is only principled, not necessary accurate representation.

The ice sheets in Greenland are well over 40,000 years old. In Antarctica, they are over 500,000 years old.

I dont believe those ages. I think they are wrongly calculated.

[1213]

I think the first thing that people should do, if they really want to consider that option, is to think, what would be the evidence for those claims and what it would really mean...

3. The edges of the continents are compressed, because when they were on surface of the water, they had greater surface area than after the collapse.

I would expect the edges to curl upwards in that case, we don't see that anywhere on Earth.

I think orogenic mountains are one result of the great flood and evidence for that the edges have curled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orogeny