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, 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.

But do they even consider the effects that happen when the snow has not yet landed. Snow is formed in atmosphere, there water is frozen first. How does that effect to the end result? The conditions in atmosphere influence to the amount of radiation that the freezing water gets. I have not seen any study about that. Did you have anything about that? Sorry if I didnt notice. And also how is the amount of ozone in upper atmosphere and its effect examined?

Clouds, magnetic field, ozone layer are few things that also influence to how much radiation hits the ground. How are those taken into account? What radiation you are actually speaking of?

[1213]

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 would change my opinion about that it happened as I have tried to explain, if your explanation is better.

[Goat]

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.

Yes, really. However, if someone refuses to look at the evidence or listen, then , well they can't understand the evidence. One thing science can do is quite often show multiple lines of evidence that point to the same conclusion, and it describes the mechanism for it's conclusions. That last is missing in the claims of theists.

I don't think coming up with bizarre and unreasonable objections is sane.

[Bust Nak]

I would change my opinion about that it happened as I have tried to explain, if your explanation is better.

Ok, here goes:

The Earth's crust is mostly made of density granitic rock, the density of the earth's crust is around 2700kg/m3 to 3000kg/m3. And density of water is 1000kg/m3.

Can you give me an estimate as to what the thickness of the original continent, as well as how much it fell during the flood? If not I can offer some guesses, say the current thickness of the Earth crust at around 40km, falling for the same height, for the sake of this exercise.

Assuming the original continent have to be at least as large as the sum the total area of the modern continents (148,940,000 km^2,) we can work out its volume and hence the lower bound of the original continent's mass. And hence the amount of gravitational potential energy converted as it pushes the equivalent volume waters below out. Then let say that this energy is released over 40 days, I think you can see where this is going as far as feasibility goes if a fraction of that energy is converted to heat, assuming no futher divine intervention?

[1213]

The Earth's crust is mostly made of density granitic rock, the density of the earth's crust is around 2700kg/m3 to 3000kg/m3. And density of water is 1000kg/m3.

Can you give me an estimate as to what the thickness of the original continent, as well as how much it fell during the flood? If not I can offer some guesses, say the current thickness of the Earth crust at around 40km, falling for the same height, for the sake of this exercise.

On basis that some oil fields are in about depth of 5000 feet I would say that the original continent was at least partially about 5000 feet thick on those places where it was on top of water layer. At the moment I think that below the water there was the planets crust. So when the continent collapsed, it fell on the crust and today the crust is thicker, because the continent mostly lies on top of it.

If I understood correctly what you mean with water pushing out, I think there was not really enough force, if the earth dome (continent was properly formed and there was enough friction to prevent its edges to slide and release the water at least if there were also the pillars that the Bible tells.

[micatala]

...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.

But do they even consider the effects that happen when the snow has not yet landed. Snow is formed in atmosphere, there water is frozen first. How does that effect to the end result? The conditions in atmosphere influence to the amount of radiation that the freezing water gets. I have not seen any study about that. Did you have anything about that? Sorry if I didnt notice. And also how is the amount of ozone in upper atmosphere and its effect examined?

Clouds, magnetic field, ozone layer are few things that also influence to how much radiation hits the ground. How are those taken into account? What radiation you are actually speaking of?

Uhhh, yes, they take into account that snow forms in the sky. That is how the atmospheric particles get into the snow in the first place.

Secondly, none of what you say here addresses or refutes the evidence already provided. Yes, there are a number of factors that affect how much radiation hits the ground, what ends up in the precipitation etc.

So what? How do those questions address the many different types of data that support the reliability of ice-core dating?


Your argument is like saying that since there numerous factors that might influence the formation of hurricanes, we should somehow doubt that there is an annual cycle of hurricanes, and that they almost always form (in the Atlantic) from July through November, and that we should consider counts of hurricanes unreliable, because we may not be able to answer all questions about all factors contributing to hurricanes.

[Bust Nak]

On basis that some oil fields are in about depth of 5000 feet I would say that the original continent was at least partially about 5000 feet thick on those places where it was on top of water layer. At the moment I think that below the water there was the planets crust. So when the continent collapsed, it fell on the crust and today the crust is thicker, because the continent mostly lies on top of it.

5000ft is only a tad over 1.5km, how exactly would you imagine such a thin layer could curl up (looking the orogenic mountains diagram earlier) would form mountains 5 times that high?

If I understood correctly what you mean with water pushing out, I think there was not really enough force, if the earth dome (continent was properly formed and there was enough friction to prevent its edges to slide and release the water at least if there were also the pillars that the Bible tells.

It's just gravity at work, with three times the density, you wouldn't need extra force to force the rock down and the water out. So how much water (depth wise) do you think the earth dome sunk through?

[micatala]

On basis that some oil fields are in about depth of 5000 feet I would say that the original continent was at least partially about 5000 feet thick on those places where it was on top of water layer. At the moment I think that below the water there was the planets crust. So when the continent collapsed, it fell on the crust and today the crust is thicker, because the continent mostly lies on top of it.

5000ft is only a tad over 1.5km, how exactly would you imagine such a thin layer could curl up (looking the orogenic mountains diagram earlier) would form mountains 5 times that high?

If I understood correctly what you mean with water pushing out, I think there was not really enough force, if the earth dome (continent was properly formed and there was enough friction to prevent its edges to slide and release the water at least if there were also the pillars that the Bible tells.

It's just gravity at work, with three times the density, you wouldn't need extra force to force the rock down and the water out. So how much water (depth wise) do you think the earth dome sunk through?

Yes, gravity is going to pull the rock down through the water, unless there is some structural integrity to hold the rock up.

I challenged 1213 to address this earlier, but so far, no response.

I confess I am no engineer, but I think the idea that a mile of rock over a large expanse of water can be held up somehow by the water or a few pillars around the edges is sheer fantasy.


Here is a list of the largest geodesic domes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_d ... structures

Keep in mind there is not a mile of rock on top of these.

Largest domed stadiums.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... y_capacity

These roofs support nothing except the roof itself.


Cathedral domes are at least supporting rock as part of the structure. Here are some examples.
http://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/getp ... oddenE2-22
My favorite is St. Peter's in Rome.

e of St. Peter's. Associated with the name of Michelangelo, though considerably altered from his original design. Completed in 1590, the dome is 138 ft. in diameter, and its apex is 400 ft above floor level. The external ribs can be seen. The lantern was a later addition. (For Piazza, see GoddenF5) (Rome, Italy)

Note that all these domes are nearly spherical in shape. The height of the actual cupola (not counting the vertical base supports) will be relatively close to the diameter.

If this were true for 1213's continental domes, it would seem the height of the domed shape would be in the hundreds or thousands of miles. The idea that a very shallow dome of the kind he is proposing would have enough structural integrity to hold up a mile of rock is really just preposterous.

[1213]

On basis that some oil fields are in about depth of 5000 feet I would say that the original continent was at least partially about 5000 feet thick on those places where it was on top of water layer. At the moment I think that below the water there was the planets crust. So when the continent collapsed, it fell on the crust and today the crust is thicker, because the continent mostly lies on top of it.

5000ft is only a tad over 1.5km, how exactly would you imagine such a thin layer could curl up (looking the orogenic mountains diagram earlier) would form mountains 5 times that high?

If I understood correctly what you mean with water pushing out, I think there was not really enough force, if the earth dome (continent was properly formed and there was enough friction to prevent its edges to slide and release the water at least if there were also the pillars that the Bible tells.

It's just gravity at work, with three times the density, you wouldn't need extra force to force the rock down and the water out. So how much water (depth wise) do you think the earth dome sunk through?

Yes, gravity is going to pull the rock down through the water, unless there is some structural integrity to hold the rock up.

I challenged 1213 to address this earlier, but so far, no response.

I confess I am no engineer, but I think the idea that a mile of rock over a large expanse of water can be held up somehow by the water or a few pillars around the edges is sheer fantasy.

Firstly I want to say, I think the earth dome was not on a plane, it was on round surface, like in this picture:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Kuvat/Earth.jpg

In that case the pressure is not acting like on plane.

And secondly, if you design wall that should withstand the water pressure, the load is calculated not by the whole volume, but by certain amount of water that is near the wall. (Maybe you should speak to some engineer that has designed for example walls for pools). And if there is water on both sides of the wall, the loads usually annul each other. However in this case there could have been more water inside the dome. If correctly made, the dome could have withstood that. If I someday have more time, maybe I make calculations for you.

[micatala]

On basis that some oil fields are in about depth of 5000 feet I would say that the original continent was at least partially about 5000 feet thick on those places where it was on top of water layer. At the moment I think that below the water there was the planets crust. So when the continent collapsed, it fell on the crust and today the crust is thicker, because the continent mostly lies on top of it.

5000ft is only a tad over 1.5km, how exactly would you imagine such a thin layer could curl up (looking the orogenic mountains diagram earlier) would form mountains 5 times that high?

If I understood correctly what you mean with water pushing out, I think there was not really enough force, if the earth dome (continent was properly formed and there was enough friction to prevent its edges to slide and release the water at least if there were also the pillars that the Bible tells.

It's just gravity at work, with three times the density, you wouldn't need extra force to force the rock down and the water out. So how much water (depth wise) do you think the earth dome sunk through?

Yes, gravity is going to pull the rock down through the water, unless there is some structural integrity to hold the rock up.

I challenged 1213 to address this earlier, but so far, no response.

I confess I am no engineer, but I think the idea that a mile of rock over a large expanse of water can be held up somehow by the water or a few pillars around the edges is sheer fantasy.

Firstly I want to say, I think the earth dome was not on a plane, it was on round surface, like in this picture:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Kuvat/Earth.jpg

In that case the pressure is not acting like on plane.

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?

And secondly, if you design wall that should withstand the water pressure, the load is calculated not by the whole volume, but by certain amount of water that is near the wall. (Maybe you should speak to some engineer that has designed for example walls for pools). And if there is water on both sides of the wall, the loads usually annul each other. However in this case there could have been more water inside the dome. If correctly made, the dome could have withstood that. If I someday have more time, maybe I make calculations for you.

I am actually less concerned about the water pressure on the side walls than the rock pressure on the dome. Even if the walls remain stable, your 'dome' is in fact very nearly flat (just like the surface of the earth) on scales even up to dozens of miles.

Secondly, water pressure is not going to help unless you have completely impermeable rock over the whole span. Unless you can somehow show, not with fantasy proclamations, that water pressure has an actual effect, I think you should assume the water is not even there. The rock is going to have to support itself. At the scale you are talking about, I think that is pure fantasy. Again, consider what has to be done to support a dome that is nowhere near flat.



I suppose if you covered a portion the earth with adjoining domes and had miles of solid rock at the edges, this might work for domes that are a few feet thick, but a whole mile? And how long are you thinking the pillars are going?

And what evidence is there the earth was ever in this configuration, or had a uniform enough rock consistency to pull this off?