Re: The post-flood ice age -- was: Re: Looking for a YEC chronology
- From: "jennybrien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <jennybrien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Mar 2006 07:05:57 -0800
Doug wrote:
As I understand it, the glacialation theory proposes that the strand
lines you refer to (at least in Ireland) are a result of the land
rising after the weight of the ice had been removed by melting. The
northern part was more depressed than the southern and so has risen
more. Isn't that pretty much what you have outlined, but with ice
instead of water?
Yes.
O.K. Then the task is to prove that either glaciation on the scale
normally suggested could not have happened, or that features such as
drumlins must have been formed by water currents on a scale that could
not have been generated by catasthrophic release of meltwater, or water
trapped under pressure beneath glaciers.
I think we are agreed that glaciation could not have had the observed
effects if it had take place after 2,500 B.C. Are you arguing that
date for the Flood or an older date, and if so, on what basis?
Imagine a waterbed filled with water; placing a book on one section of
the bed causes uplift somewhere else. The cause of crustal uplift in
continents could be subsidence in ocean basins. In the Atlantic ocean
there are guyots, which are submerged, flat-topped mountains, usually
volcanic mountains, and their summits are believed to have been eroded
by waves, when the ocean depth was less. That indicates considerable
subsidence of the ocean floor has occurred over time, which could
account for a lot of the uplift in Europe and N. America. The
mid-Atlantic ridge could have been caused by the build-up of horizontal
stress as the ocean basin sank. The lateral stress results from lateral
shortening when subsidence occurs over large areas. The crustal
movements probably occurred in a period of instability and similar
effects may have occurred simultaneously in those parts Europe and
North America adjacent to the Atlantic and Arctic oceans or at
relatively low elevation.
I'd hate to have to teach that to a bright class of Bible-believing 15
year olds! Surely the guyots illustrate that erosion is the result of
relatively gentle action over a protracted period, rather than being
flooded with tons of watter in one catastrophe? I'm no expert, but I'd
imagine that after the first hundred feet or so, the height of the wave
that hits you doesn't make much difference. But perhaps I'm being
unfair. By "over time" are you referring to one year or a hundred or a
thousand?
You have as yet given no indication of the scale or duration of the
event you are referring to, nor can I find one on your website. If you
are talking about anything close to 'geological time' then that removes
most of the objections to glaciation. In mainstream theory, the 'book'
is the weight of ice accumulated at the poles. The energy to build up
that weight is derived, over time, from the hydrological cycle. A
subsidence, on the other hand implies release of energy, so the sea
floor as a whole must sink much more than the continents rise. OTOH,
if you are talking about less than a year as in the Noah story, then
the only thing I cam compare it to is a super-large slow-motion version
of Krakatoa or Santorini. Wouldn't that have left a datable legacy?
So which are you talking about?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Looking for a YEC chronology
- From: jennybrien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- The post-flood ice age -- was: Re: Looking for a YEC chronology
- From: Doug
- Re: The post-flood ice age -- was: Re: Looking for a YEC chronology
- From: jennybrien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: The post-flood ice age -- was: Re: Looking for a YEC chronology
- From: Doug
- Looking for a YEC chronology
- Prev by Date: Re: A Wiki for ID
- Next by Date: Re: how many generations?
- Previous by thread: Re: The post-flood ice age -- was: Re: Looking for a YEC chronology
- Next by thread: Re: The post-flood ice age -- was: Re: Looking for a YEC chronology
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|