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?

[McCulloch]

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.

How could they have missed that? Did you know that they looked at the layers nearer to the top which correspond to known historical changes in weather and climate? And that the pattern of thicker and thinner layers do match the pattern of colder and milder winters. So of course the only reason that they assume that this pattern would continue through to the layers older than our recorded climate history is, um, because they want to prove evolution. Right!

What else have you got? You did say that there were assumptions [plural] that they made because of their belief in evolution. You've specified only one and it does not seem to be a plausible example. Might we ask if your denial of the results of established science is driven by your own assumption that evolution is untrue?

[Bust Nak]

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

If I am understanding you correctly, you are suggesting ancient continent, referred to as pangea by geologists, was one whole, continous piece of land that actually broke into sepeate piece, as opposed to pangea "merely" seperating along pre-existing cracks during the flood?

[1213]

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 can accept that assumption that one day may not make much difference. However I dont believe that those layers are formed regularly depending on is it summer or winter. I think it is possible that those layers could just seem to be winter and summer layers, even if they are not. It is possible that there has in some years been more snow than others and it is possible that it has come so that it makes layers that seem to be different years.

I think things that affect on how the layers are formed are:
- the amount of snow / rain that comes on single days and on whole year
- the temperature during the rain or snow
- temperature after the snow or rain

I think those can change in a year so that it looks like there have been many years, even if there has been only 8 months. And I cant make that assumption that it is not possible. But I accept if other people make that assumption.

[1213]

How could they have missed that? Did you know that they looked at the layers nearer to the top which correspond to known historical changes in weather and climate? And that the pattern of thicker and thinner layers do match the pattern of colder and milder winters.

If that is true, it can be just coincidence.

What else have you got?

Assumptions from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html:
1. colder in the winter and warmer in the summer and that it leads to identifiable years (It may be today so, but it is possible that there is other reasons why layers are like years).
2. less irradience in winter and more in summer
3. This depletion is a temperature dependent process so in winter the precipitation is more enriched in H2(16O) than is the case in the summer. Is there really no other explanation?
4. Of the irradiation dependent markers the two most important are 10Be and 36Cl. Is there really no other explanation?

And bonus assumption: That all layers are really accurately measured without any mistakes and disorders by test method. And that the local test material can really be applied to all glaciers.

[1213]

If I am understanding you correctly, you are suggesting ancient continent, referred to as pangea by geologists, was one whole, continous piece of land that actually broke into sepeate piece, as opposed to pangea "merely" seperating along pre-existing cracks during the flood?

I think you understood correctly. And the one original continent was mainly on top of water. And when it was broken, the earth sunk in many parts and the water drowned many things. And on top of the water earth had bigger radius than when it sunk. And that is why when the earth sunk, its edges were compressed and formed mountains, because it was too large to fit to that new radius. (I think this could be compared to that you take for example soccer ball and try to fit its skin to tennis ball. There is too much material and it forms mountains). In my opinion this is only good explanation for why the continent was broken and how it could form mountains.

[Goat]

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 can accept that assumption that one day may not make much difference. However I dont believe that those layers are formed regularly depending on is it summer or winter. I think it is possible that those layers could just seem to be winter and summer layers, even if they are not. It is possible that there has in some years been more snow than others and it is possible that it has come so that it makes layers that seem to be different years.

I think things that affect on how the layers are formed are:
- the amount of snow / rain that comes on single days and on whole year
- the temperature during the rain or snow
- temperature after the snow or rain


I think those can change in a year so that it looks like there have been many years, even if there has been only 8 months. And I cant make that assumption that it is not possible. But I accept if other people make that assumption.

Yes , you 'think' those things. However, there is one difference between science and religion. In science, you have to SHOW something is true, not just think it.

How can you demonstrate what you 'think' matches reality? The people who study that (and disagree with you), show plenty of evidence that contradict your claims. They can show how the patterns of snow/rain effect glaciers NOW. They can point to layers of volcanic ash in the specific layers of glaciers, radiometric date it, and then use the layers of ice to see if the two completely independent dating methods give the same answer. Surprise, surprise, it does. This is know as 'convergence of evidence'. It doesn't matter what one THINKS about it.. it can be shown. It also shows that all these things you 'think' , without providing any evidence for it, is incorrect.

[micatala]

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.

As I have already pointed out, and as is documented in the sources, they have checked this by:

1) Observation of layers as they have been forming. This has been going on for some decades.
2) Cross-checking with other annual cycles. For example, the chemical composition of the atmosphere goes through annual cycles. The atmospheric particles that are frozen into the ice during the winter have a different chemical composition than those in summer.
3) The annual count can be checked against marker events like volcanic eruptions, which tend to disseminate volcanic ash very widely. Volcanic eruptions have unique chemical signatures as well, and can be dated independently. Thus, if we find traces of an eruption that occurred in 10,000 B.C., we can check if our annual layer count corresponds to a date close to that.

So, again, scientists are not blithely 'assuming' anything, other than the work they have already done (and continue to do on an ongoing basis) allows them to be reasonably confident that the ice core dating is within a few percent of the actual date. So, if the ice layers indicate an age of 100,000 years, they can be highly confident the actual year is say between 92,000 and 108,000.

[micatala]

How could they have missed that? Did you know that they looked at the layers nearer to the top which correspond to known historical changes in weather and climate? And that the pattern of thicker and thinner layers do match the pattern of colder and milder winters.

If that is true, it can be just coincidence.

What else have you got?

Assumptions from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html:
1. colder in the winter and warmer in the summer and that it leads to identifiable years (It may be today so, but it is possible that there is other reasons why layers are like years).

Again, this would clearly be true in general in Greenland and the Antarctic. It can also be checked over the past number of decades directly. What other possible explanation might you offer?

2. less irradience in winter and more in summer

How is this unreasonable? You do realize areas close to the poles experience months of darkness during the winter and months of continuous sun in the summer?

3. This depletion is a temperature dependent process so in winter the precipitation is more enriched in H2(16O) than is the case in the summer. Is there really no other explanation?

Perhaps there is. Do you have one? Is there any reason not to consider this a valid explanation, likely true beyond a reasonable doubt?

If I go outside and see that the entire street, sidewalk, driveway etc. are wet, and I have observed this to be the case in the past after a rain dozens of times, and have never observed another reason for this condition, why would I doubt that it had rained recently? Is there another explanation? Sure, but how likely is that explanation to be the true one? How likely is it that some other explanation would be repeatedly true for a significant number of 'wetness events' over a long period of time?

Because, really, that is the nature of your argument. We should discount the most logical explanation, one that has been repeatedly observed to be true, and we should do so on the basis that there may be some as yet unspecified alternative explanation, and we should assume without knowing what this explanation might be that it is the correct one often enough to throw off our dating significantly.

After all, even if occasionally some extraordinary event caused what we see (a water truck exploded on the street, for example), such occasional events will not throw the dating off by more than a few percent, unless "occasionally" actually means "fairly often."

4. Of the irradiation dependent markers the two most important are 10Be and 36Cl. Is there really no other explanation?

And bonus assumption: That all layers are really accurately measured without any mistakes and disorders by test method. And that the local test material can really be applied to all glaciers.

We are not saying no mistakes are made. We are saying that the dating has been checked by multiple methods so that we can be confident any mistakes do not amount to more than a few percent either way.

Secondly, your reference to 'local test material' seems to ignore that such testing has been done at numerous locations, and the double-checks have been applied at those numerous locations.

Why would these methods work at some glacial locations and not others? Well, that is a reasonable question, but again, one that has been considered. One issue would be somewhat different climates. Some glaciers form where above-freezing temperatures never or rarely occur. This would be true in Antarctica. On the other hand, it might not be true in many other glaciers.

Guess what?! Scientists can check for this too. Melting or water precipitation are generally detectable in ice layers.

[Bust Nak]

I think you understood correctly. And the one original continent was mainly on top of water. And when it was broken, the earth sunk in many parts and the water drowned many things. And on top of the water earth had bigger radius than when it sunk. And that is why when the earth sunk, its edges were compressed and formed mountains, because it was too large to fit to that new radius. (I think this could be compared to that you take for example soccer ball and try to fit its skin to tennis ball. There is too much material and it forms mountains). In my opinion this is only good explanation for why the continent was broken and how it could form mountains.

And if I point out how that is physically impossible, would that change your opinion or would you appeal to divine intervention to over come the laws of physics? I have the amount of energy such an event would release in mind.

[1213]

In science, you have to SHOW something is true, not just think it.

Really? It doesnt seem to be so. Often in science it is enough to provide explanation that seem to work and then it is believed, even though it is possible that there are other explanations that could even be better.

They can show how the patterns of snow/rain effect glaciers NOW.

At the moment all conditions are right for layers to form as we can see. However I think we cant be sure that every condition was so same in the past that we could assume that things have gone like now always.