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?

[Goat]

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

And, can you be more specific? It seem, well, highly lacking in detail or coherency to make that claim.

[McCulloch]

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.

I agree, this is nowhere close to an 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.

On what basis do you disagree with the calculations?

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

Interestingly, the word flood does not occur even once in the referenced Wikipedia article.

[micatala]

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.

You are certainly free to disagree with factual reality, but whether that disagreement has any logical merit is another issue.

Perhaps you should read through the details and identify what you think is wrong with the methodology. Again, keep in mind those dates have been cross-checked by a variety of methods. It is like measuring someone's height with a number of different yard sticks, and even other types of measuring devices, and always coming up with heights that are fairly close to each other. Why would one doubt a measurement that has been repeated by so many different individual using such a variety of methods? Isn't that a bit unreasonable?

[1213]

On what basis do you disagree with the calculations?

They rely in my opinion too much to assumptions of how the layers were and are formed. And I think those assumptions are made so only to support evolution theory.

[McCulloch]

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.

On what basis do you disagree with the calculations?

They rely in my opinion too much to assumptions of how the layers were and are formed. And I think those assumptions are made so only to support evolution theory.

Which assumptions are those? Please be specific. I know that judging the age of an ice core is based on a number of factors, such as alternating periods of warm and cold (winter and summer), the fact that under pressure the layers get more compressed, but I am completely ignorant of any assumptions made by geologists which are derived from biology. Enlighten me. Please be as specific as you can.

[micatala]

On what basis do you disagree with the calculations?

They rely in my opinion too much to assumptions of how the layers were and are formed. And I think those assumptions are made so only to support evolution theory.

You are incorrect. The "assumptions" are actually based on current observations of ice formation, and you continue to ignore that the dates have been arrived at in a number of independent ways, and are thus cross-checked. Scientists are not, for example, simply assuming visual layers are annual, they are checking that they are annual in a number of ways.

Secondly, you infer a motive on the part of scientists without evidence.

What are these allegedly incorrect assumptions you have concerns about?

[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.

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

Those are formed by one side curling up and the other down, I expect to see both sides curl up, like when you push the sides of a cardboard box in, or when you suck the air out of a drink carton. Look at the picture you presented. In the last diagram, if the "earth" collapses, you would expect both sides of a cracks to curl up.

[1213]

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.

On what basis do you disagree with the calculations?

They rely in my opinion too much to assumptions of how the layers were and are formed. And I think those assumptions are made so only to support evolution theory.

Which assumptions are those? Please be specific. I know that judging the age of an ice core is based on a number of factors, such as alternating periods of warm and cold (winter and summer), the fact that under pressure the layers get more compressed, but I am completely ignorant of any assumptions made by geologists which are derived from biology. Enlighten me. Please be as specific as you can.

What are these allegedly incorrect assumptions you have concerns about?

I meant assumptions like: the winter and summer layers are formed only on winter or summer days, not just on cold or warm days. In my opinion the difference in layers could be in many cases just because of different temperature at that place, not because it is winter or summer.

[1213]

Those are formed by one side curling up and the other down, I expect to see both sides curl up, like when you push the sides of a cardboard box in, or when you suck the air out of a drink carton. Look at the picture you presented. In the last diagram, if the "earth" collapses, you would expect both sides of a cracks to curl up.

Ok. I think in the great flood theory they could curl on side up and one side down. However when I was on school I remember seen picture of curled earth that formed orogenic mountains like in this picture:

https://www.google.fi/search?q=orogenic ... B540%3B220

In first phase I think the crust was curled like in that picture. And at the end point it would seem like this situation that we now allegedly have:

https://www.google.fi/search?q=orogenic ... B400%3B527

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 28 by 1213]

I meant assumptions like: the winter and summer layers are formed only on winter or summer days, not just on cold or warm days. In my opinion the difference in layers could be in many cases just because of different temperature at that place, not because it is winter or summer.

I think the problem here might be your assumption that Ice layers found in the cores are formed by days. It takes at least a full season of snow to form 1 layer. So daily changes in temperature have little impact on the actual formation of the layer. It might change the size and composition of said layer but the layer will exist none the less. I will leave McCulloh to correct me here but the variations in temperature day to day should have little to no impact on the actual amount of layers by which time can be derived from.

However there is one critical fact you are missing here. If there was a global flood that covered all of the earth the Ice caps would have melted. So the Ice layers formed post flood should reflect the composition of the flood and cannot exceed the total annual layers post flood. The observation does not indicate this in the least.