On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 18:48:55 -0700 "Allen Roy" <allenroy@peoplepc.com>
writes:
> From: <PHSEELY@aol.com>
> <snip>
> Flood Catastrophists recognize that there is not enough water on
> earth to
> cover mountains to the depths of the Everest or any of the high
> mountain
> ranges or single mountains on the earth.
>
Good point, but does not apply to all those whose writings I have read.
> Point 1. Because of that, Flood Catastrophists propose that the
> pre-flood
> geography was much different than today. The high mountains that
> exist now
> result from CPT (Catastrophic Plate Tectonics) which shoved up the
> mountains
> (in general). Prior to the flood catastrophe it is proposed that
> the
> highest mountains were likely less than 2000 meters high and
> represented
> less than 4% of the earth's surface similar to today. Most of the
> surface
> topography would be low rolling hills and slightly sloping "flat
> lands."
>
It is interesting to me that in a matter of years (months? decades ?) the
land rose from rolling hills to high mountain ranges. What is the
mechanism behind the CPT to force these changes? How does this fit with
the magnetic striping on either side of the mid-ocean ridges and the slow
measured expansion rates?
> Point 2. The catastrophe likely did not result from an over all
> increase in
> sea level. It is recognized that a storm of asteroids impacted the
> earth
> cause hundreds to thousands of mega-tsunami that swept further and
> further
> inland over the top of preceding tsunami waters. The large number
> of
> mega-tsunami from all directions would keep the flood waters from
> quickly
> draining off the flooded continents. Asteroid Impact
> mega-earthquakes
> would also induce tsunami which would add to the mix.
>
Let me grant, for the sake of the argument, a large number of asteroid
impacts within a brief period as the cause of the Flood. First, where did
asteroids hit to provide the hundreds of feet of nearly pure sand
extending over hundreds of square miles of the stratum visible in the
Checkerboard Mesa next to Zion National Park? The expectation is that
what will be thrown up by an impact is breccia. Given a source of pure
sand, one may suggest that each of the "lumps" of the Checkerboard was
deposited by a wave. However, elsewhere there are massive limestone
deposits which show little structure except laminations. Where did this
material come from, and how was it deposited so gently? Why isn't it also
"lumpy" since deposited by the same mechanism? Also, each tsunami wave
produces a distinctive outflow pattern. Where are all these at the edges
of strata?
Second, since Noah's Ark was, on this assumption, tossed up onto a rising
rock by a tsunami, how did it land gently enough to do no damage to the
inhabitants? Also, how did the tsunami-generated deposits harden so
quickly?
> Point 3. The asteroids impact forces could be the trigger for CPT
> that
> would also induce large tsunami activity. And associated with CPT
> it is
> proposed that the new ocean beds would rise, decreasing the depth of
> the
> oceans and displacing more water onto the continents.
>
What was the pre-Flood topography? I get the impression from Point 1 that
the land area was smaller, which would lead to shallow "oceans." Of
course, if the land area were larger, then the "oceans" would have to be
deeper. But then an asteroid impact could be expected to throw up less
sand and rock.
> Point 4. I calculated that if water covered all land at 1000 feet
> (33 m)
> deep, conforming to surface topography similar to the way waves do
> after
> they have sweep ashore, it would take only 3% of the existing oceans
> to
> cover all land masses.
>
Oops! 33 m. is not 1000 ft.
> Now if your article takes these point into consideration, I'd like
> to look
> at it too.
>
> Allen Roy
>
What is the empirical evidence for the description of the pre-Flood
topology? It seems to me to be more blue sky imagination than solid
evidence. It further seems that you have not fully considered the
requirements of your approach. IMO, you have some work to do before
challenging Paul, who presents cogent linguistic arguments and depends on
the well established work of scientists for the rest.
By the way, if you adequately answer the problems I raise, there are more
difficulties with your position.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 19 2002 - 00:52:37 EST