Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by IceAgeCivilizations, Mar 24, 2007.
Wow, I have no idea.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I'm aware of that.
Cooling could make a given quantity of basalt more dense, but it would not make it heavier.
As the water slid off the continents, it pushed down upon the vertically shrinking horizontal slabs of cooling basalt, so more weight on the mantle, pushing down. And with the plate subduction and resultant magma emplacements under the continents, the continents were pushed up to further the runoff of Deluge water from the continents into the ocean basins, until equilibrium was established.
spidergoat, it's no use. We're arguing with someone who believes huge dinosaurs were holding their breath for days and living under water for days during a worldwide flood.
Just out of curiosity Ice, what day from the start of the rain marked the death of all land vertebrates?
Not Doing Science, why are you so desperate as to resort to distortion and obfuscation on such a grand scale, is it really that bad?
Remember, oceanic crust is about 5 miles thick, and the ocean is about 2 miles deep.
IAC, can you put the arrogance aside for a minute and answer my simple question: What day after the beginning of the water transgression marked the death of all the animals?
Day 40? Day 50?
The reason I ask is because the placement of Dino fossils and mammal fossils in the geologic column clearly disproves the Young Earth Theory.
Any other fairly tales?
It was day 197, hour 22.
How many days did it take for the entire geologic column to be built starting from day one of the rain?
Built up, or the final form?
The point where all the layers were pancaked and cementized, which you said happens instantly.
Also, do you believe that the Mesozoic Layers were formed from the regression of the waters as many YEC's believe?
If not, which layers of the Geo. Column were deposited and formed by the regression?
Assuming the Earth was covered to the tops of the mountains, the water would undergo no "sliding", it would be about the same level everywhere (discounting tidal forces).
Lots of sheet erosion at the end, and trapped surface waters which caused local surface formations.
Many of the layers were pretty well hardened in weeks or months, the rest within a few years.
Goat, I've been through that a million times, the mountains rose at the close of the Deluge.
Okay, so now tell me why the the first dino fossils (including a mother sitting on her eggs and protecting them) appear after 8,000 feet of sediment and are nowhere to be found below that point.
Hi there IceAgeCivilizations. Deliberately or by mistake, you seem to have overlooked some of the points I made earlier. I will repost them here, with some responses to points you have made.
This is not true. As has been previously stated, the response of a rock (or any material) to stress is determined not only by the rock's composition, but also by temperature, confining pressure and strain rate. Rocks which are deeply buried and which undergo strain at relatively slow rates (as in plate tectonics) can deform in a ductile manner. Fractures form in brittle regimes. By demanding fractures in the presence of folds, you are demanding evidence of the rock undergoing both brittle and ductile deformation simultaneously. While faults often are associated with folds, in fact, the tension on the outside of a fold is often expressed as boudinage structures.
On the subject of folds, I have a point to make myself. Chevron folds (there are plenty of pictures on Google images) have straight limbs and sharp hinges. This is because in a competent rock (competent means that it was lithified! ), the stress is partially resisted and the strain is concentrated at points of weakness (which thereby become weaker and accommodate yet more shortening). Saddle reef orebodies can form on the hinge line because of the resultant pressure shadow. I think that this refutes your claim that folds were formed in unlithified sediment.
On a related note, I am still interested to know about the slump deposits which would form if soft sediment was subjected to such deformation - you claimed previously that they were present in the foothills of the Himalayas, remember?
First of all, 80% of magma is not water. Second, when you say the water was "compressed within the mantle of the Earth and released during the Deluge," what form do you think the water was in, and why was it so catastrophically released?
The two quotes above are both related to another point I want to make, and a question which you left unanswered in a previous thread. You seem to be claiming that carbonate rocks are evidence of the deluge, and were deposited on historical timescales. The Cretaceous chalk alone in southern England is up to 500 m thick. As I imagine you know, it is not a simple chemical deposit, but is composed of the calcite plates of marine algae. So I ask you, if the flood waters erupted from the mantle, how did the ensuing ocean become so richly populated with microorganisms, why were they deposited so rapidly, and what do you think the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was before so much of the gas was locked up in carbonates? (I don't know the exact timescale you're proposing (a few weeks?), but bear in mind that calcareous ooze is currently being deposited in the Pacific Ocean at the rate of 1-3 cm per 1000 years.)
Still on the subject of carbonate minerals, please explain why some limestone is dolomitized and some is not. If all the flood water came from a few sources, why the variation in magnesium content, and why the lack of mixing? Also, how do you think the flood water had such an extraordinary mineral content, and why did so much come out of solution so suddenly (enough to 'flash-cement' all the sedimentary rock in the geological column)?
Why are some sedimentary deposits cemented with minerals other than carbonates, given their common origin?
Evaporite deposits present another line of argument against your theory. As I am sure you are aware, these form when minerals are precipitated out of an evaporating sea or lake. Cycles of evaporites and carbonates are due to repeated marine transgressions. This pdf (http://www.nps.gov/cany/planyourvisit/upload/geology.pdf) by the US National Parks Department shows that the Colorado river has cut through such formations, as well as other juxtaposed marine and terrestrial sediments. How does 'deluge geology' account for this?
If I recall correctly, it is fairly likely that the continents were originally formed in such a way - by the gradual accretion of igneous rock which was more felsic (and hence more buoyant) than the mafic/ultramafic oceanic material. Do you have a specific problem with this idea?
You are wrong here. There are.
What other minerals, and where? What form do you think all of this calcium was in? Have any samples of this mineral been preserved?
There are many examples in the geological record of unconformities and non-conformities, as well as paraconformities, where the depositional hiatus is not clearly apparent. These account for many cases in which vertically adjacent rocks show evidence of very different depositional environments. How does your framework account for them?
Laika, very good points. Suddenly IAC is exposed for the fool he is when confronted with someone who knows what they are talking about. Now he can't simply make up facts like he actually has a clue. Excellent post, Laika.
IAC, I repeat: Give your customers their hard earned money back.
Separate names with a comma.