DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FUNDAY
HTML https://funday.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: XX 1st Draft
*****************************************************
#Post#: 17--------------------------------------------------
4 = [1-3] The Supercontinent Breakup & Orogenesis
By: Admin Date: January 7, 2017, 7:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[1-3] The Supercontinent Breakup & Orogenesis
__IMPACT: GULF OF MEXICO
- Would you like to discuss the opening of the Gulf of Mexico
more? I took a train ride from California to San Antonio, TX and
from there north a couple weeks ago. I mostly noticed that
mountain ranges were somewhat parallel to the Rio Grande at
least from New Mexico through southern Texas.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Postby webolife» Sat Nov 07, 2015
4:55 pm
I visualize the Gulf of Mexico as an astrobleme, although it is
not a requirement of my earth history. By relation the Chicxulub
event must have happened subsequently, since it overlaps the rim
of the Gulf "crater". Putting the continents back together as
Pangea, the gulf area is near in the central rift area of the
opening of the fountains of the deep. I've heard the sky as deep
or ocean theme but disagree with it. The fact of the "matar" or
meteors/asteroids/planetoids or whatever is that we find them
[their astroblemes] associated with every major stratum, so it
is natural to expect they occurred the whole time of the
flooding depositional sequence
__YOUNGER DRYAS
--------------------Postby Grey Cloud » Sat Dec 12, 2015 5:56 pm
... Just been watching this:
HTML http://cosmictusk.com/an-extraordinary-podcast-on-the-ydb-event-hancock-and-carlson-on-joe-rogan
- The cosmictusk site which I've only recently come across
majors on the Younger Dryas. Lot of interesting geological stuff
in the video. Well worth the watch IMO even if it's only to
disagree with.
__WORLD CONFLAGRATION
- C.Smith, I took a very short peek at the Kloosterman paper so
far, and it's intriguing. It looks like a conflagration was
world-wide, instead of just mostly in North America and Europe.
Rick Firestone and others have been finding there was an impact
that likely caused that conflagration, but they haven't
mentioned it being worldwide, that I know of. But this paper
talks about the same soot layer and the same time period of
about 12,000 years ago. I think those datings are way off; they
should be about 4,000 years ago, I guess.
__IMPACT
- Something Hit the Earth (See
HTML http://newgeology.us
)
AXIS RECOVERY (4,355 YEARS): summer solstices at Stonehenge,
Amen Ra, Eodoxus show an exponential curve of recovery of the
earth’s axis after a sudden change. The earth’s axis had once
been almost upright, but it had suddenly changed to a 26½
degrees tilt, from which it had been wobbling back to its
present mean tilt of 23½ degrees (Science Magazine, May 15,
1970). Dodwell concluded that something "struck" the earth at
that time, 2345 BC.
=========================Postby Lloyd » Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:51 pm
__IMPACT
... Jonathan Gray ... mentioned that the Earth appeared to have
gotten hit by something some 4,000 years ago, which moved its
axis from 90 degrees, the vertical axis position, to 26 1/2
degrees less than 90 and which has more gradually come back to
its present position of 23 1/2 degrees less than 90. I don't
think Gray mentioned what might have hit the Earth at that time,
but that's where Mike Fisher comes in with his newgeology.us
site. He determined what did hit us and where and how big it was
and that it broke up the supercontinent, producing rapid
continental drift. Webb has said that rapid continental drift
took some months to move the continents to near their present
positions, but Fisher says it took only 26 hours [&] occurred
about 10,000 years ago ...
__IMPACT
Lloyd, Think i've read where you were proposing a cataclysmic
impact east of Madagascar ?
Here is a "recently published" gravity map of the Indian Ocean
from new satellite data. Obviously their time frames and
tectonic dynamics are center -mainstream, but the image detail
is impressive.
HTML http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87276/triplejunction_gis_2014_lrg.png
article-
HTML http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=87276&src=eoa-iotd
--------------------Postby Grey Cloud » Wed Jan 20, 2016 7:40 pm
Grey Cloud has read many native American stories, N,S and
Central; many of them flood stories, many of them sunken
(is)land stories; many of them etiological; none had dates. Grey
Cloud also recalls that very many of these peoples did not
originate anywhere near where they resided in historical times
or the present. e.g (off the top of my head) the Apache are said
to have originated somewhere near the 46th(?) parallel. Way up
north anyway. Grey Cloud has much respect for Gitche Manitou,
Tirawa, Wakan Tanka and all the rest. Grey Cloud's nickname is
not entirely frivolous.
And lest we forget, the Americas form a large part of the
world's surface but they are not all of it so even if all the N
American stories related to the same event it would still not
prove a global deluge.
Lovely story from the Lenape there. Creation myth with
destruction myth tagged on the end, similar to the Sumerian.
Lots of motifs common to creation myths generally, e.g. 4
pillars (grandfathers, four elements and their associations (so
much for Empedocles inventing them according to the experts),
world carried on the back of a turtle as per India (and Terry
Pratchett).
P.S. The Skidi/Pawnee are a personal favourite.
--------------------Postby Roshi » Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:39 am
China even has a date for the great flood:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_%28China%29
The Great Flood of Gun-Yu, also known as the Gun-Yu myth
(traditional Chinese: 洪水),[1] was a major flood
event that continued for at least two generations, which
resulted in great population displacements among other
disasters, such as storms and famine. People left their homes to
live on the high hills and mounts, or nest on the trees.[2]
According to mythological and historical sources, it is
traditionally dated to the third millennium BCE, during the
reign of Emperor Yao.
It was during the reign of Emperor Yao that the Great Flood
began, a flood so vast that no part of Yao's territory was
spared, and both the Yellow River and the Yangtze valleys
flooded.[7] The alleged nature of the flood is shown in the
following quote:
“ Like endless boiling water, the flood is pouring forth
destruction. Boundless and overwhelming, it overtops hills and
mountains. Rising and ever rising, it threatens the very
heavens. How the people must be groaning and suffering!
Even a map:
A depiction of the system of the zhou, or "islands" (now
reinterpreted as "provinces"), a system which Shun is credited
with developing as a tool to allow political administration of a
territory with ongoing flooding making normal communications
impossible, although the number and locations of zhou have
varied over time
And an interesting painting of Nuwa and Fuxi:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anonymous-Fuxi_and_N%C3%BCwa.jpg
--------------------Postby Grey Cloud » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:58 pm
__IMPACT
- From
HTML http://cosmictusk.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2016-01-26-20.51.45.png
- Molleson, Theya. “The Ordinary Neolithic People of Abu
Hureyra.” Fresh Fields and Pastures New: Papers Presented in
Honor of Andrew MT Moore (2016): 187:
HTML https://www.scribd.com/doc/295110080/16/The-Ordinary-Neolithic-People-of-Abu-Hureyra
- It's about an asteroid or comet impact.
__DATING CRATERS
2. I just read that the rim of Wolfe Creek Crater in Australia,
I think, and the rim of Mare Imbrium on the Moon both have high
thorium content. I assume the thorium was transmuted from a more
common element during thermonuclear explosion during impacts.
... I don't know if thorium is common in many, most, or all
impact crater rims.
=========================Postby Lloyd » Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:01
pm
__PRE-FLOOD YEAR
The Corpse Came Back: Secrets of that Forgotten World after the
Great Disaster, by Jonathan Gray
HTML https://books.google.com/books?id=vvjcyeEzyG8C
p. 84 PYRAMID AND STONEHENGE MYSTERIES SOLVED
The ancient world surveyors had more on their minds than the
earth's energy grid. - The calendar had to be re-calculated. The
ancient calendars, you see, had the year at 360 days long. - It
is from this number that is obtained the division of a circle,
and the earth being divided into 360 degrees. - The ancient
Chinese calendar was a 12-month year of 30 days each. -
Babylonian records likewise show a year of 12 months of 30 days
each. The old star maps had the sun moving through a path
divided into 36 sections, each 10 days long. - The earliest
Romans also had a year of 360 days. Plutarch, in his life of
Numa, declared that in the time of Romulus the year was composed
of twelve 30 day months. - The Mayan year (called a "tun") was
of 360 days. - The Aryabhaitya, an ancient Indian work on
mathematics and astronomy, says: "A year consists of 12 months.
A month consists of 30 days. A day consists of 60 nadis. A nadi
consists of 60 vinadikas." - The original Egyptian year was
likewise 360 days long, according to the Ebers Papyrus.
=========================Postby Lloyd » Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:58 pm
__POST-FLOOD YEAR
post-Flood 365¼ day year, and NOT the pre-Flood 360 day year.
The ancient Chinese, Babylonian, Roman, Mayan, Indian and
Egyptian calendars were 360 days long. But later, every nation
changed its calendar.
This website seems to be a good source for those as well as for
related Bible passages:
HTML http://360dayyear.com/
--------------------Postby Grey Cloud » Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:23 pm
__EARTH'S TILT
A point I meant to pick up on from one of your earlier posts -
the Earth's tilt. I agree that the Earth gained its tilt due to
one of these incidents. (This seems to be taken as a given in
Hermetic Philosophy). I think we may disagree as when this was.
I can't find your comment but I recall it as referring or
alluding to something biblical(?). Anyway, I'm thinking of the
alignments of various ancient constructions to particular points
in the sky or on the horizon. Would not these alignments be off
if the tilt had occurred after they were built/erected?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Postby webolife» Mon Dec 21, 2015
9:10 pm
__EARTH'S TILT
I generally agree with your points here. I definitely believe
that the tilting event occurred before the monuments were built,
and relate this to the biblical record of the flood event. As a
starting point, prior to the flood seasons were marked
specifically by reference to the stars and moon; but after the
flood seasons were declared to be climate/weather related,
suggestive that the tilting event was in conjunction with the
events of the flood year.
--------------------Postby Grey Cloud » Wed Dec 23, 2015 9:24 am
__KT BOUNDARY
essay by geologist Han Kloosterman:
HTML http://cosmictusk.com/wp-content/uploads/Kloosterman-Usselo-Article.pdf
--------------------Postby seasmith » Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:26 pm
Grey Cloud, Good find indeed. Sir Hoyle's timeline, backed up by
his pedigree in astronomy, has always seemed a very reasonable
perspective to me; and your cited paper by Hans Kloosterman
certainly reaffirms the impression.
HTML http://cosmictusk.com/wp-content/uploads/Kloosterman-Usselo-Article.pdf
thank you Rens too...
__SUPERCONTINENT BREAKUP
- SHOCK DYNAMICS
=========================Postby Lloyd » Tue Dec 08, 2015 8:47 pm
__SUPERCONTINENT BREAKUP
- High Speed Continents. Gordon said: I have difficulty
accepting the friction-free mechanism of the SD. Gordon, have
you read up on long runout underwater landslides that Mike
referenced? Why would that not apply to sliding continents? Mike
said a similar long runout landslide was seen on Mars. And why
could not the continents have slid on the Moho layer? Charles
says that layer is plasma about one meter thick. Wouldn't plasma
be nearly frictionless? Charles says racetrack playa rocks also
slide due to electrical levitation of the rocks during windy
episodes. Those are very low friction events. In my last reply
to Mike I asked what it is, if anything, that might make it
impossible that the continents could have moved apart in more
than 26 hours. So I hope to find out if he has a strong argument
for that or not.
__CONTINENTAL DRIFT
[the drift episode], which I take to be 5 months based on the
record. It is funny to hear you describe the 5 months as too
slow!! And besides, the biblical record directly states that the
period of the "matar" ended at the 150 day mark. I don't think
you can be so confident about the lack of friction in the Moho,
and sheer inertia considerations stretch the imagination to
accept your speeds. The slowing of the drift toward the end, due
to the friction that also produced the Andes and Rockies, etc.
is consistent with the formation of the volcanic chains after
the uplift. The hot spot under the Hawaiian chain is also
consistent with the Pacific being squeezed from both sides
during the drift event.
__- 6. CONTINENTAL DRIFT
LK: Do you agree with Walter Brown's Hydroplate theory as the
explanation for rapid continental drift?
I don't see much plausibility for the underground chambers of
water. Do you?
GW: I taught from a standard text written back in the late 70s
that made the claim that enough water is outgassed in volcanic
eruptions to account for all of the world's oceans. I've been
influenced by that statement, and can go with chambers or levels
or layers or fissures/vents from the mantle or any other means
by which water may have erupted out. But in my flood view, the
water that already existed in the early seas is practically
sufficient to have done the flood work via tsunami-type action.
LK: I don't think it would be possible for underground chambers
of water to exist 10 miles down, because the rock is plastic,
according to the Kola borehole findings. It became too plastic
to drill through at 7 miles. I guess things could've been
different before the flood.
Brown's Hydroplate theory explains continental drift as
underground water chambers ten miles deep caving in and the
pressure blowing out at the ocean ridges, which were previously
part of the supercontinent.
CC: I don't see the evidence of large amounts of water coming
out of the mid-ocean ridges.
LK: Gordon, have you done or seen calculations that support the
Hydroplate theory?
- Do you agree with Brown's idea about underground chambers
filled with water that caved in and sprayed water and rock
through the spreading centers?
- What's wrong with Fisher's theory that continental drift
occurred within a 26 hour period?
- If continental drift took 5 months, the continents would have
moved at only 1 mph or less. Where would the force be applied to
the continents for that lengh of time?
GW: I'm intrigued by it [Hydroplate theory?]. It would fit my
model well if further confirmed. I'm not requiring the cave-ins
but it's a good idea. I go with inertia after the initial
drift-ignition event, Friction and inertia in some mix after
that.
CC: I go with Fischer's theory of an impact that generated the
momentum. I also favor rapid mountain building, instead of
gradualism, just because one cannot say that the crust is oh so
plastic, and then say that mountains could have been gradually
built up -- if the crust was that plastic, the leveling process
would have kept up with the mountain building, so clearly, the
moutain building was on a faster pace.
GW: Good point, it is also for this reason I don't believe
subduction is required to explain boundary mountains and
trenches.
CC: I have a totally different idea of subduction. I don't think
(like the mainstream) that the oceanic crust is falling because
it is cooler -- it's actually warmer than the mid-ocean ridges.
But I don't go with the "all over in an instant" model of
Fischer's. Rather, I think that the impact event got things
moving, but then I think that each earthquake in the subduction
zone causes the next one. The energy sources that heat up the
crust result in expansion. When traction is re-established after
the rupture, the cooling then exerts a tensile force on the
crust, pulling it toward the fault. This is why the rifts form
in the back arcs.
LK: CC, have you written anything yet about earthquakes during
the continental drift event?
CC: Do you mean in the initial event (i.e., Fischer's "bad day
in Madagascar" event)?
LK: I mean during the entire episode of continental drift,
mostly the Americas moving from Africa and Europe to about 3,000
miles west.
CC: No, I haven't treated that at all -- I think that Fischer
has the right bacic idea, and until/if/when I've done a great
deal more studying, I couldn't expect to improve on his work. I
just don't think that it was all over in 26 hours -- I think
that the initial impact got things going, but then the
heating/cooling process at the faults helped keep things going.
LK: So the earthquakes you were talking about above are the
current ones that do very minor continental drifting.
CC: Yes -- it's just a couple of centimeters at a time for a
"normal" earthquake, is that right, Gordon?
GW: Yes, Charles, with some noteable exceptions: the
quake/tsunami in Japan, the quake tsunami in Indonesia, the 1964
Anchorage quake/tsunami, et.al.
CC: OK, so I can see how the momentum, which when averaged out
is just millimeters per year, could have been initiated by an
impact event. But I don't believe that the event could have
accelerated the continents to the speed that Fischer says, nor
do I see what could have brought them to such an abrupt stop.
LK: I like Mike's explanation of fluidization as being involved.
He said it's like landslides along continental slopes, where the
rock slides horizontally for long distances [on the seafloor].
GW: I'm dubious on fluidization as the mechanism... heat
increases friction and vice-versa. Am I just plain wrong about
heat and friction?
Regardless, I believe that friction between the cont plate and
ocean plates of the Pacific caused the slowdown and the
mountain/trench building orogenies.
LK: Heat reduces friction and there may be ionization too.
- Gordon, that's what Mike says too, that friction is what
caused the continents to slow down and heat up, causing mountain
building.
CC: In my model, the lithosphere slides on a frictionless Moho,
which is a thin (1 meter) layer of supercritical fluid, which is
compressible, and frictionless. So tectonic motion doesn't
require mantle plumes, nor the energy sufficient to fight
friction at the crust/mantle boundary.
[LK: Mike referred to the Moho too.]
**CC: But this doesn't mean that the continents could have
shifted thousands of kilometers in a day in my model. Mountains
have roots, and moving the continents rapidly WOULD have forced
friction. So in my model, electric currents in the Moho keep it
molten (or rather, supercritical), but when mountain roots start
pressing against the mantle, the tectonic motion has to wait for
the electric currents to melt the rock. (I'll elaborate on that
if you want.)
GW: Mountain roots are originating at the same time as the
buildup, due to isostasy.
CC: Yes, but what I'm saying is that irregularities in the
underside of the crust match up with complementary
irregularities in the mantle. Then, for plate shifting to occur,
one and/or the other has to undergo deformation. My problem with
that is that it would take more energy than seems available. So
I'm saying that the Moho is 1 meter thick, and hot enough to be
supercritical. And it has an electric current in it. If plate
shifting occurs, the irregularities don't match up quite so
well, and that 1-meter gap gets reduced. The bad news is that
the crust starts to run the risk of "running aground" as it
shifts on the mantle.
[LK: You mean running aground during the major continental drift
event?
CC: No -- I'm talking about the minor events, as we see today.]
The good news is that the reduced gap forces more electric
current through a smaller area, which produces more heat. So
suppose there used to be a consistent 1-meter gap between the
crust and the mantle. But then the crust shifted. Now the
irregularities (e.g., mountain roots) result in there being only
a 1/2 meter gap between the crust and the mantle. But then that
heats up, and melts the rock, re-establishing the gap, and
preventing the [ship-wise] "grounding".
LK: Charles, wouldn't the supercontinent have had a root in the
mantle with the Moho between them there too?
GW: ??why?
CC: Yes.
LK: So if a water chamber were down there, it wouldn't blow out
at the thicker part of the supercontinent, would it? Or wasn't
it so thick? Did there have to be a weakness in the
supercontinent for the Americas to split off?
GW: But due to the aplasticity of the crust the mountainforming
"front" end is also more brittle, with many fissures and faults,
thus we see the subsequent formation of the volcanic chains at
those locations. Thicker but weaker, that's why I noted above
that the roots are of the same nature as the mountains, with the
notable difference that due to the same forces you are referring
to much melting is occuring there, producing magmas and the like
which extrude into the weak upper crust.
CC: Hang on right there...
I also have a totally different idea on volcanoes. I don't think
that high pressure magma can get forced up through cracks in the
crust. Rather, I think that cracks in the crust, which are
common around faults due to the inelastic deformation, enable
electric currents. A microfracture just 1 nano-meter wide can
drop the electrical resistance of granite, from over 2
mega-ohms, down to about 300 olms. The result is an electric
current, and then can melt the rock, due to ohmic heating. And
I'm convinced that such electric currents, between the surface
and the Moho (or at least between the ground table and the Moho)
are what open up magma tubes. If it were not for that, there
wouldn't be the concentration of heat into a tubelike structure
that could create such a vent, since heat propagates outward
radially. And high-pressure rock is a fair thermal conductor.
(Cooler rock is a poor conductor.) But what we're seeing is a
vertical shaft, from the Moho to the surface. This is not a
characteristic of thermodynamics, but it IS a characteristic of
electric currents.
- The significance of this is huge. Take the worst case scenario
-- Yellowstone. There is no known way to prevent volcanic
eruptions, much less at supervolcanoes. But what if it is an
electric current that is generating the heat to pressurize the
magma chamber? All we have to do is go about 100 km away, and
drill a bore hole about 5 km deep, which will attract all of the
telluric currents in the area, because it will fill up with
highly conductive ground water. With no electric currents
flowing through the magma chamber at Yellowstone, it will cool
down, and eventually freeze over -- problem solved. A bore hole
5 km deep would cost about 20 million dollars to drill, which is
within reach for humankind. So there's a practical way to
prevent a mass extinction event.
GW: I'm not concerned so much with the mechanism; what you are
saying is plausible. But the geography shows that generally
volcanoes form not in the heights of the mount ranges [some
exceptions] but on the lowland adjacent to the ranges
CC: Volcanoes occur where there is crustal deformation. I'm
saying that the deformation creates the microfractures that
enable the flow of electric currents. So under a given stress,
it would make sense that the mountains do not undergo
deformation, since they're thicker. A rigid material will always
fail where it is thinnest. So the crust next to the mountains
gets the deformation.
GW: I'm ok with that explanation.
CC: BTW, I'm saying that this is the same mechanism that causes
earthquakes -- tectonic pressure causes crustal buckling, and
then currents can flow through the microfractures. The current
heats the crust, which causes more tectonic pressure, which
increases the buckling. Thus it's a positive feedback loop,
resulting in a rapid increase in pressure, which causes the
rupture. The surface heating prior to the rupture cannot be
explained as deformation, since it's elastic.
====================postby Lloyd » Sat Apr 02, 2016 9:37 pm
__CONTINENTAL DRIFT CENTURIES AFTER THE GREAT FLOOD
- Continental Drift During Or Long After the Flood?
- Gordon, I think you stated earlier on this thread that an
unusually large impact off east Africa caused months-long rapid
continental drift, which caused the Great Flood and mountain
uplift during the latter phase of the Flood. Is this correct?
- But weren't there a lot of plants and animals, including
mammoths, suddenly frozen in the Arctic after the Flood? How
could they have survived in the Arctic during and shortly after
the Flood? Why would the Flood not have drowned all of them and
buried them under sediment? And would it not have taken a few
centuries for life to return to the Arctic after the Flood?
- Do you agree that the Flood had to occur on the
supercontinent, before it split up, because the rock and fossil
types on opposite shores of the Atlantic Ocean match up well? If
the Flood had occurred after continental drift ended, the rock
and fossil types on opposite shores would not line up well at
all. Right? If continental drift took several months to get the
continents to near their present locations, they would have been
moving under 2 miles per hour. Long runout underwater landslides
move much faster than that when they move horizontally on the
seafloor. Don't they? If they moved too slowly, friction would
quickly stop them. Right? Same with continents. Moving too
slowly, the friction would not allow them to move so far.
- So, for those reasons, Mike Fischer's and Baumgardner's
suggestions for the sequence of catastrophes seems most
reasonable to me. Baumgardner implied that a large body orbited
the Earth 5 or 6 times during the Flood on a long ellipse, which
raised very high tsunamis once a month laying down sediment
deposits each month with unconformities between them. Fischer
puts the impact, continental drift and mountain uplift a few
centuries after the Flood, when plants and animals have had time
to repopulate the Arctic and then drift movement toward the pole
resulted in the sudden freezing. If drift had taken a few months
time, animals would have had time to leave the Arctic before the
continents moved into the bitter cold region. Am I overlooking
something important?
- By the way, Gordon, your info about climate being universally
warm from the Cambrian down to the early Pleiocene, after which
seasons set in, seems very significant. I'm glad to know about
that.
____________________Postby webolife » Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:33 am
- From Cambrian UP to the Pleistocene.
- I'm ok with the Madagascar impact suggestion, but I wasn't the
one who made it. The months long drift episode works for me,
although I'm friendly toward additional small "spurts" of drift
after the main flood events; the other timelines don't fit well
in my model.
- The friction issue is problematic, but speed doesn't help the
problem, rather exacerbates it I think. There are too many
unknowns to feasibly evaluated the various theories, even for
standard continental drift timelines... we have a
fingernail-growth slow rate today, due most reasonably to
"braking" friction. How things happened before that [and how
fast] is conjectural... I'm happy with the several months.
__SEAFLOOR MAGNETIC STRIPING
Webpage: Fossil Magnetism Reveals Rapid Reversals of the Earth's
Magnetic Field:
HTML https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/fossil-magnetism-reveals-rapid-reversals-of-earth-magnetic-field/.<br
/>Since Continental Drift occurred during the Great Flood and
largely caused it, the magnetic reversals on the seafloors must
have occurred rapidly too ...
__OROGENY & VULCANISM
- The idea that vulcanism occurred after the flood subsided, 5
months after the impact, is interesting. I suppose with all the
heat built up from the continental sliding, vulcanism and
mountain uplift and subsidence would have been natural. ...
====================postby Lloyd » Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:47 pm
__OROGENY CENTURIES AFTER THE FLOOD
- The Great Flood
In the thread, Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology
at
HTML http://www.thunderbolts.inf
o/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16219&p=112560#p112559
- Gordon, Oard says there are 3 Creationist theories about the
endpoint of the Great Flood:
1. Permian/Precambrian; 2. Cretaceous/Tertiary; 3. End of
Cenozoic. Do you agree with #3?
- I'd like to have a handier way to represent all of the "time
periods" in the geological column. So, starting at the top, I'd
like to refer to the Cenozoic as 1, Mesozoic: 2, Paleozoic: 3,
Proterozoic: 4, Archean: 5, Hadean: 6. The divisions I then
number as 1a Quatenary, 1b Tertiary, 2a Cretacious, 2b Jurassic,
2c Triassic, 3a Permian, 3b Carboniferous, 3c Devonian, 3d
Silurian, 3e Ordovician, 3f Cambrian, 4a Precambrian.
Conventional dates are:
1: 0-2Myr; 66M; 2: 144M; 208M; 245M; 3: 286M; 320M; 360M; 408M;
438M; 505M; 4: 570M etc.
- Oard says the 2nd school of thought thinks "Cenozoic strata
would be post-Flood" and it accepts the "dam-breach hypothesis
for the origin of the Grand Canyon" in the late Cenozoic. "Great
tectonic uplift occurred during the Cenozoic ... the post-Flood
period". He adds that it provides no evidence for uplift being
post-Flood, but I think there's great evidence for that, which
I'll get to below.
- But first I have another question. I think you said you don't
think Noah's ark necessarily landed on Mt. Ararat, but may have
landed near it. In that case the mountains could have uplifted
later. Could they not?
- Here's my thinking on why mountains must have uplifted a few
centuries after the flood, which I partly discussed earlier in
this thread. Mammoths and other mammals froze very abruptly in
the Arctic and the likeliest cause was rapid continental drift,
which moved the northern continents northward into the Arctic.
Many mammoths and other animals and trees seem to have been
washed into the Arctic Ocean by a flood that swept over Siberia,
probably due to the continental drift. The drift was most likely
caused by a huge impact off east Africa, which provided the
horizontal compressive forces necessary to uplift mountains.
Grand Lake and Hopi Lake formed during the continental drift
event during mountain uplift and they drained catastrophically
sometime later, forming the Grand Canyon.
____________________Postby webolife » Sat Apr 02, 2016 1:09 am
- Agreements... Most of Oard.
- Cenozoic sometime around the Pliocene/Pleistocene. Remember
that a stratum is not directly indicative of an exact time
relationship, but of event. Prior to sometime in the Pliocene
all fossils down to the Cambrian indicate a tropical or
subtropical clime, afterward, we see diverse climate divisions,
indicative of a line of demarcation between evidence of a
pre-flood world and the world which followed, due to what I dare
to presume was a geologically rapid change in both the
atmosphere and the topography. The arctic was not climatically
identifiable prior to this time as indicated by the warm weather
fossils found in the upper latitudes. It developed later.
Continents drifting northward, which is likely, encountered
colder climes than in its original position. This may very well
have initiated the rapid cooling that started the glaciation and
froze some of the mammoths.
"Harar" used after the flood description probably indicates
mountain ranges, and Ararat is derived from that term. That
being said, the mountain ranges arose in connection with the
drift, but it is virtually certain that volcanoes rose up after
the mountain ranges.
- Flaws...
- Using terms like "most likely" for something which is pure
speculation.
Assuming that drift [and therefore orogeny] occurred sometime
after the flood, rather than during or in the end times of the
flood. This, if presumed to have happened in a relatively short
time-frame, would have resulted in more cataclysmic deformation
and transformation of the earth than the flood it was alleged to
have followed.
__TIAHUANACO. [During Supercontinent Breakup] Titicaca, at
12,000 feet altitude, is the highest navigable lake in the
world. 4,000 years ago Titicaca was on sea level. At 11,500
feet, a whitish streak runs along the side of the mountain range
for over 300 miles, composed of the calcified remains of marine
plants, formerly on the seashore. In fact, many lakes up in the
Andes region are completely salt. A watermark of salt along the
Titicaca lake shore now runs at an angle to the water level. On
the beach of this lake high in the mountains, there are
seashells as well as traces of seaweed. Even today, various sea
creatures (including sea horses) survive in the lake. Only a few
intermediate surf lines can be detected, so the elevation could
not have proceeded gradually.
-Traces of a sizeable city lie at the southern side of the lake.
Of 400 acres of ruins, only about ten percent have been
excavated. endless agricultural terraces, now abandoned, rise as
high as 18,400 feet above sea level, and continue up under the
snow. Such an abundance of cornfields must have supported a huge
population. After the disaster, the populace lay buried in
gullies that had become mass graves, covered by silt.
-The remains of an ocean quay is known as the Puma Punka, near
the stadium of Tiahuanaco. One of the construction blocks from
which the pier was fashioned weighs an estimated 440 tons. One
wharf is big enough to take hundreds of ships.
-The Subterranean Temple, the Kalasasaya [and] the Akapana are
precisely oriented to the cardinal directions of the PRESENT
DAY. Tiahuanaco’s buildings are not oriented to the pre-Flood
axis, but are exactly oriented to the compass points of today’s
post-2345 BC world, with its new axial tilt. The depictions
among the ruins of Tiahuanaco of numerous now extinct animals
are readily explainable.
-The construction and use of reed boats on Lake Titicaca are
identical to the reed boats of ancient Egypt. Many of the
building blocks in Tiahuanaco are held together by large copper
clamps shaped like an I. Others (now dismantled) were held
together by silver rivets, similar to the Egyptian ruins on
Elephantine Island on the Nile. Copper trepanning instruments of
Tiahuanaco (for opening the cranium) were identical to those
used by the Egyptians – as were the methods used! They point to
direct contact between Tiahuanaco and ancient Egypt, as
contemporary civilizations. A French engineer came upon an
ancient carved rock hidden by dense jungle close to a river,
which recorded the journey of an early Egyptian priest to what
is now Bolivia (the land of Tiahuanaco). The inscription gave
directions to silver and gold mines.
-Mountain Forming Witnessed. Various tribes of the Americas
witnessed new mountains being raised and others flattened (Karl
Brugger, The Chronicle of Akakor. 1977). A recent example was
during an earthquake off the northern tip of Sumatra on December
26, 2004, the sea bottom in the Straits of Malacca uplifted
almost 4,000 feet in only about 3 minutes. The depth was cut
from 4,060 feet to 105 feet (Star newspaper, Kuala Lumpur,
January. 13, 2005, quoting a report in the shipping journal
Portsworld). Sonar images from British navy ship HMS Scott
showed the massive uplift of a large area 10 kilometres wide and
up to 1.5 kilometres high (4,800 feet plus).
=========================Postby Lloyd » Sat Oct 31, 2015 1:22 pm
__CATACLYSM DATING
- Cataclysm Occurred 4,300 Years Ago
These Geological Features Yield Ages of About 4,000 Years
HTML http://beforeus.com
-INLAND LAKES: lakes of the Great Basin; Albert and Summer lakes
in Oregon; Owen Lake in California; Lake Agassiz, the largest
glacial lake in North America
-RIVER DELTAS: The deltas of the Nile, the Volga, the
Mississippi and Bear River on the Alaska-British Columbia border
-WATERFALLS: Niagara Falls, Horseshoe Falls, Upper Great Gorge,
Niagara River bed
-CORAL REEFS: Great Barrier Reef in Queensland, Australia,
Pandora Reef
-TREES: Sequoia; New Zealand’s Coromandel Peninsula, giant
kauri; Bristlecone pine
-OLDEST DESERT: Sahara Desert
{In 1999, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research, in Germany
said the Sahara Desert is only about 4,000 years old
(originating around 2000 BC) (July 15, 1999. Geophysical
Research Letters).}
-OTHER NATURAL FEATURES: Magnetic reversals, varves, coal,
canyons, dense jungles, rock strata, fossils and so on
(
HTML http://www.beforeus.com/shopcart_ebooks.html).
-DATING OF CHINA
-DATING OF ROYAL GENEALOGIES [of several European Nations]
- EGYPT: Egypt’s monuments themselves do not begin their records
before the 19th dynasty. The Byzantine chronicler Constantinus
Manasses wrote that the State of Egypt had already lasted 1663
years, [since] 2188 BC. Egypt was anciently known as the land of
Khem (i.e. Ham [son of Noah]). Menes and Hermes were two of
Ham’s sons. HERMES (CUSH) WAS FOUNDER OF EGYPT’S RELIGION.
Chaldean was a diplomatic language in Egypt. “Her”, in Chaldee,
is “Ham”, or “Khem”, “the burnt one”. The Egyptian god HOR-us
(the sun) is “Her” (“the hot or burning one”). Her-mes means the
son of Her (Ham).
- DATING OF ATLANTIS: An ancient history book, the Oera Linda
Boek, dating primarily from AD 803, but added to for 500 years,
bears this postscript: “written in Liuwert (Ljuwert) in the
3,499th year after Atland (Atlantis) sank, or 1256, the year of
the Christian reckoning.” This historian placed the sinking of
Atlantis in 2244 BC (Alec Maclellan, The Lost World of Agharti.
1982, p. 186).
- WHAT THE TOLTECS REMEMBERED ABOUT HISTORY: In the sixteenth
century, the native Mexican chronicler, Ixtilxochitl in his
Relaciones penned a history based on all available pre-Conquest
records and legends. ... The Flood came “after the world had
existed for 1,716 years” (Francis Hitching, World Atlas of
Mysteries. 1978, p.165). This is only a 60 year variation from
the figure given in the King James Bible. (Genesis chapter 5)
- FLOOD DATE ALSO DEFINED: The Flood ended in 2344 BC. The Great
Pyramid independently confirms this date (Stewart, The Mystery
of the Great Pyramid, pp 17-19). The star group Aquarius is
featured in the astronomy of the Pyramid. Ancient peoples
associated AQUARIUS with the waters of the GREAT FLOOD. The
pyramid measurements incorporate the length of the new,
post-Flood 365¼ day year, and NOT the pre-Flood 360 day year.
-The ancient Chinese, Babylonian, Roman, Mayan, Indian and
Egyptian calendars were 360 days long. But later, every nation
changed its calendar.
- DATE OF THE FLOOD - ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE RECORD: We start
from a known date in history, the destruction of Jerusalem by
the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. [Make that 399 BC
per Dating2 file.] add the years of the kings of Judah after
Solomon which totalled 345. 586 + 345 = 931 BC. Solomon reigned
for 40 years, his first year was 970 BC. In the fourth year of
Solomon’s reign he began to build the house of the Lord (1 Kings
6:1) = 967 BC, the 480th year from the Exodus. 967 + 480 = 1446.
From Abraham’s call to sacrifice Isaac until the Exodus was 430
years. The portion of this sojourning spent in Egypt was only
260 years, from 1706 to 1446 BC. The beginning and ending dates
of the Great Flood was around 2345 to 2344 BC. 2345 = 1446 + 970
+ 931 + 586.
====================postby Lloyd » Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:19 am
__CATACLYSM DATING
- Dating the Main Cataclysm
- Grey Cloud, since you've said you're interested in Bronze Age
cataclysms, would you like to comment on the following material
from a catastrophism conference? I suppose it occurred in the
1990s, but that's just a guess. I got this free from the same
site I mentioned last time. If you copy 2 or 3 words toward the
beginning or end of a paragraph from a prior search, you can
often find more from the same source. It took me about 6 such
searches to get the following. This intrigued me because it
sounds very much like what Mike Fischer's Shock Dynamics theory
of continental drift says, at least regarding the huge impact
site, just north of Madagascar. Fischer is saying this occurred
nearly 12,000 years ago, but this paper said 4,300 years ago,
which is what I and Gordon conclude. If Gordon's reading this, I
hope you may comment too.
- I'm also including in green type another of the conference
topics on how cataclysms led to religions etc.
-
HTML http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/search.cgi?zoom_query=
- The Cambridge Conference [SIS C&C Workshop]
- [The conference covered] three papers dealing with the
historical evidence for catastrophes. Steven Robinson ...
suggested that fossil evidence actually indicates rapid events
and that the vast geological time scale depends upon radiometric
dating which is probably suspect in its assumptions. World wide
accounts of a catastrophic flood, if considered as actual
historical accounts, could explain much of the geological
evidence. A catastrophic model of causation suggests a massive
impact north of Madagascar. Accounts in the Bible would seem to
indicate this and ancient maps confirm that continental
movements have taken place within historical times. Considering
the evidence of the ice-ages, climatic change and the evidence
for violent earthquake activity in the Early Bronze Age, Steven
concluded that the early Cambrian period should be considered to
be only thousands, not millions, of years ago, at the time of
the Flood, the Cretaceous/Tertiary event marked the division of
continents and that the end of the ice-ages occurred around
2,300 BC, caused by an increased tilt of the Earth.
- John Bimson considered the biblical evidence for catastrophes.
Velikovsky's scenario had been founded on the idea of the Exodus
taking place at the time of a great catastrophe in the middle of
the second millennium BC. Did biblical traditions support this?
The implication of the astronomical use of megalithic monuments
would indicate that these were built after any major Earth
shifting catastrophe and radiocarbon dating led to the
conclusion that any such catastrophe took place at the end of
the Egyptian Old Kingdom, in line with Mandelkehr's 2,300 BC
event. The destructions in the Middle Bronze Age were not so
widespread as those of the Early period and could have been
caused by man. All the events of the Exodus could be explained
by normal, though exaggerated, happenings, except for the pillar
of fire, which could be considered a metaphor for God's
presence. The area is on the north end of the Great Rift Valley
which cuts down through Africa, and all could be explained by
this being in a state of seismic upheaval. Even the sun standing
still could be a misunderstanding. In conclusion then, although
the events described were catastrophic there was no evidence
that they were other than terrestrial. Later references,
however, in the time of Tuthmosis III and the Hittites, to
showers of stones, suggested that destructive meteorite falls
were common at that period and it is therefore possible that the
terrestrial events of the Exodus were triggered by
extraterrestrial causes.
- Bob Porter considered the archaeological evidence of the Near
East. There appeared to be three widespread destruction events
during the Bronze Age, the first coinciding with the end of the
Egyptian Old Kingdom at around 2300 BC at a time of climatic
change. Evidence of new peoples could be taken as invaders or
simply people taking advantage of destroyed areas. Deforestation
may have helped change the climate. However, it was admitted
that no ordinary earthquake could destroy so large an area and
therefore something larger needed to be considered. The hiati
supposed to be at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, and the
second intermediate period in Egypt are a result of a
catastrophic mistake in chronology as a result of using Sothic
dating. Sites such as Ugarit and Qadesh show little sign of such
hiati although there is a destruction at the end of the MB,
probably as the result of an earthquake. Although earthquakes
today are usually localised, they appear to have been widespread
throughout Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia at this period. A
final wave of destruction took place at the end of the Late
Bronze Age, associated with famine, war, the Sea Peoples, the
end of the Scottish Bronze Age and the rise and fall of the
Shang dynasty in China. Twenty narrow tree rings found by
Baillie in his samples for this period indicate a long drought,
so there was no need to posit a cosmic catastrophe directly.
Questions from the floor clearly indicated that many felt that
the degree of the destructions could not be explained by natural
seismic or climatic events.
__EVIDENCE SOURCES
=========================Postby Lloyd » Fri Oct 30, 2015 11:41
am
Evidence Sources
Some of the best sources I know of offhand are:
- Mike Fisher's Shock Dynamics at
HTML http://newgeology.us
- Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory at
HTML http://www.creationscience.com
- The Hydroplate theory seems largely unrealistic, but these
sections are very impressive evidence for catastrophism:
= Liquefaction: The Origin of Strata and Layered Fossils
HTML http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction.html
= The Origin of the Grand Canyon
HTML http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon.html
= The Origin of Limestone
HTML http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Limestone.html
= Frozen Mammoths
HTML http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FrozenMammoths.html
= The Origin of Earth's Radioactivity
HTML http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity.html
- Faulty Dating Methods
HTML https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/
HTML http://creationtoday.org/radiometric-dating-is-it-accurate/
HTML http://cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
HTML http://www.icr.org/creation-radiometric/
HTML http://beforeus.com/questions_answers.html
- Catastrophism
HTML http://creationwiki.org/Catastrophism
HTML https://answersingenesis.org/geology/catastrophism
- Faulty Dating Methods
HTML https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions
HTML http://creationtoday.org/radiometric-dating-is-it-accurate
HTML http://cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
HTML http://www.icr.org/creation-radiometric
HTML http://beforeus.com
*****************************************************