DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FUNDAY
HTML https://funday.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: XX 1st Draft
*****************************************************
#Post#: 37--------------------------------------------------
X. IGNORE: Left-overs for a possible later project
By: Admin Date: January 22, 2017, 10:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[1-2a] The Great Flood
GARDENER'S GREAT FLOOD - GREAT FLOOD - GREAT FLOOD - DURING
GREAT FLOOD - GRAY'S GREAT FLOOD - ..BROWN'S GREAT FLOOD ..GREAT
FLOOD VS GLACIATION
_E) =========================Postby Lloyd » Tue Jan 26, 2016
9:52 am
__HUMAN MIGRATION
When I looked at that map, it looked to me like the origin could
have been Asia Minor as much as Africa. There are arrows
pointing in that direction, Asia Minor to Africa, as well as
Asia Minor to everywhere else. Besides, Egypt is in Africa and
it's at least as old as Sumer, I've read. Both places seem to be
origins.
--------------------Postby Grey Cloud » Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:41 pm
Indus Valley civilisation is as old as Egypt and Sumer.
Most of the peoples who invaded/entered the Middle East seem to
have originated somewhere in Eurasia. Where they hit the Middle
East depended on which way they moved around the Caspian and/or
the Black Sea. The various mountain ranges extending west from
Iran to the Aegean play a big part too - only so many places
they can be crossed.
--------------------Postby Brigit Bara » Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:59
am
The so-called 'dark age' is the result of the refusal by
academics to ever acknowledge the seafaring civilisation of the
Canaanites/Phoenicians.
The ancient world during 1700-722 BC was very well-connected
through extensive sea trade. The shipping lanes connected the
Baltic, British Isles, Africa and India with the Mediterranean.
This vibrant trade between nations, languages and tribes was
accomplished mainly by the Canaanites/Phoenicians--who also
developed the alphabet and the first books. This is the world of
the Old Testament. It was a highly interconnected world. For
example, there are faience beads and also necklaces which are of
the Mycenaean style in Wessex burial sites showing that trade
was already developed in the north in 1450 BC. Tyre and Sidon
were great seafaring cities and are some of the most mentioned
people in the Old Testament.
The enormous blind-spot exhibited towards the Phoenicians is
merely academic tradition.
That reminds me, I was delighted by Lloyd's mention of the
possibility of Canaanite trade in the New World.
--------------------Postby Brigit Bara » Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:35
pm
Claude Schaeffer...archaeologist whose excavation of the ancient
city of Ugarit at Ras Shamra Syria, disclosed a succession of
culture from about 1195 BC back to the 6th and 7th millenia BC.
...He found that Ugarit, a coastal city and port in ancient
times, was quite cosmopolitan; in various periods it showed
evidence of cultural influence from Egyptian, Mesopotamian,
Hittite and Mediterannean civilizations.
The tablets included texts of literary works of considerable
sophistication and originality that also helped to establish the
Canaanite origin of the stories of the Patriarchs in the Bible.
--------------------Postby Brigit Bara » Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:25
pm
Because of Schaeffer's work in more widely distributed areas, he
was able to see common stratigraphy between the locations.
The significance of this development for accurate dating is
astonishing to think about.
First, this may throw an enormous spanner in the academic dating
traditions, who -- due to their own biases -- relate all dates
to Classical Greek and Egyptian civilizations. That in itself is
an enormous problem because if they have Greek and Egyptian
dates wrong, the entire system falls.
Next, the disasters which befell these ancient cities left
layers in the record which can be harmonized over wide areas.
With today's electron microscope technologies, depositions can
be identified with confidence, because as we know every volcano
or high-temperature event leaves its own fingerprint, which is
unlike that of any other volcano or high-temperature event.
And Claude Schaeffer was firm in his conviction: he had
identified a precise year for the 1195 BC destruction of Ugarit.
_E) Geochronology, Part 5 (Continental Drift & Ice Age):
HTML http://newgeology.us
- The Geochronology Part 4 includes major events like carving
the Grand Canyon, the Floods in Washington and Idaho etc, the
flooding of the Mediterranean Sea, which was almost a dry basin
before flooding, and the flooding of the Black Sea. I suppose
these actually likely occurred after the Continental Drift event
some centuries after the Great Flood. The Mediterranean and
Black Seas floods must have been terrifying, since both were
pretty deep, probably a mile or so. Right?
_E) __GREAT FLOOD HUMAN FOSSILS
I do not believe there is any physical evidence for human
survival prior to the current era, but archaeology documents
migrational patterns [eg. "Clovis" group] from the middle
eastern sector to all other parts of the world.
Remember, fossil humans are a testament of death, not life.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Postby webolife» Mon Jan 25, 2016
12:00 pm
Perhaps I should have said "genographics" instead of
archaeology... I think the two disciplines are mutually
supportive, however. Have you read this:
The Genographics Project
HTML https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/
Also, who said humans all died by drowning, or that they died
simultaneously?
--------------------Postby Grey Cloud » Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:56 pm
Come on now Webolife, you are clutching at straws here. That
part of E Africa is about as far from Sumer as I am in the UK.
You agree with their migration map while dismissing their
timeframe. The history (and archaeology) of the Middle East is a
story of peoples entering the region not leaving it (unless they
get kicked out).
I thought that this 'out of Africa' theory had died long ago. It
is based on the premise that the oldest remains found to date
are in fact the remains of the oldest 'humans'. It aint
necessarily so - especially as they have not searched anywhere
near the majority of the planet's land area (and then there is
the lands that have become submerged and the remains which
didn't get fossilised or got fossilised but didn't survive to
the present).
DNA is interpreted through the lens of Darwin's theory which I
believe you do not subscribe to. I have no time for Darwin nor
do I have any for the DNA circus. They have been doing 'science
by press-release' for decades now, hardly a week goes by without
some headline grabbing fantasy.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Postby webolife» Mon Jan 25, 2016
4:25 pm
Perhaps it was careless of me to reference that National
Geographic site. My interest is primarily their unification of
the migrating people groups to a relatively small number of
"clans", and the general shape of their migration pattern.
I actually agree with you about the East Africa vs. Sumer
dichotomy; I see Sumer as the central distribution region. I
also agree with you that the rough and presumptive radiocarbon
and genetic drift timeframes are off. I have a "What if..."
attitude toward the use of the biblical record as a framework
for earth history, and have built my alternative modeling on
that premise. I see value in other cultural mythologies; but
that is your realm of expertise, not mine, so for now I am
content to read your intelligent synopses and critiques, and see
what new info I can glean from that.
My finding is that there are relatively few [perhaps dozens of]
good examples of fossilized pre-Flood humans [or from another
approach, few of them got fossilized], and how they died would
be largely a historical tradition, rather than a certainty based
on geologic evidence beyond that their fossils are generally
found in sedimentary deposits. You have undoubtedly found from
my previous posts that I view the flood as a complex of highly
hazardous happenings, not the least of which may have been death
by drowning.
_E) __- 7. ASTEROID BOMBARDMENT
LK: Do you think it's possible that the apparent Asteroid
Bombardment (matar) during the Great Flood was due to Earth
crossing the Asteroid Belt? What would preclude that?
- Don't you think the Bombardment would have caused the flood
and continental drift?
GW: I think the flood and drift event [singular] was directly
connected with earth interacting with planetoidal bodies. A
glimpse at the the earth's placement with respect to the present
known asteroids shows that no exotic explanation about the
earth's transposition is necessary [like Earth crossing the
Asteroid Belt? - LK]. Several possibilities here:
a. A planet swung by Earth (perhaps Venus, which is currently in
a tidally phased rotation pattern with Earth), knocking Earth's
rotation into a wobble
b. A planet swept through the asteroids, disrupting whatever was
there and sending bits streaming by Earth
c. A comet collided with the earth breaking up as it neared,
causing the preponderance of the "matar" to fall over the 5
month time
LK: Wouldn't the same event have been the cause of the
bombardment on the Moon and possibly on Mars and many other
bodies? So, if so, that suggests that they all went through the
Asteroid belt to me. Not you?
GW: Why not? My studies have mainly been terrestrial, but the
evidence abounds elsewhere in the solar system! But again, the
asteroids are really all around us, and a major disruption in
the belt could have affected earth as I suggested, but that's
just one of many possible scenarios.
CC: I'm not sure I agree that the flood was caused by ET events,
but I agree that something came through and upset a lot of apple
carts. Recently I've been studying the similarity between the
mares on the Moon and on Mars. I rather think that both of them
got re-melted by something, instead of the mares filling up with
lava flows. But the chance of two different bodies undergoing
the exact same process, at exactly the same time (i.e., toward
the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment) is relatively slight. So
I think that something triggered them both. It could have been
the thermalization of the impacts of the Bombardment, or
gravitational deformation from a large body passing by.
- By "Late Heavy Bombardment", I'm just referring to all of the
impact craters on the Moon and on Mars, and the fact that there
are many of them in the highlands, but only a few in the
lowlands. This means that the lowlands on both the Moon and on
Mars were both molten at the same time.
LK: What's the evidence for melting on the mares and on Mars?
CC: It's just the flatness of the mares, and the absence of
source volcanoes.
LK: Do you know of evidence of melting in the Moon rocks?
CC: Ummm... I don't know. What would be the difference between
my "melting" and the volcanism in the standard model?
LK: Conventional vulcanism comes through volcanoes, except for
flood basalts.
CC: So in megaflow eruptions, there isn't going to be an extinct
volcano left afterwards, is that correct?
GW: The highly fluid nature of flood basalt is such that no
cones were formed and the originating vents are left submerged
and invisible to the investigator.
CC: Gordon, what would be the make/break telltale signs that the
mares on the Moon and on Mars would definitely be megaflows, and
not just general re-melting of the bodies due to some other
energy source (such as tidal deformation)?
GW: An astronaut geologist needs to observe the basalt flows to
see columnar jointing below and vesicular pattern above, then I
would know the maria are mega flows; until then I'm open to any
good explanations, such as yours:-)
CC: Is the columnar jointing a result of crystalization, or is
it something else?
GW: Cooling of the flow is approximately uniform over the entire
surface of the flow, causing a shrinkage pattern that produces
the roughly hexagonal columns. The sides of the columns are
conchoidal, but the tops are relatively flat where the top part
of the flow [vesicular basalt] gets eroded away. Since there is
no erosion on the Moon, this structure would have to be exposed
in profile somewhere for the astro-geologist to see.
LK: Aren't there closeup images of any of the mares, or aren't
there even Apollo landing sites there, which would be clear
enough to tell what caused the flat surface?
CC: It sounds like the make/break evidence that I'm looking for
would then be just the vesicular pattern. Is basalt too low in
viscosity for this? In other words, I can understand air bubbles
being trapped in felsic magma, and still being in the ejecta,
leaving such characteristics after cooling. But what if the lava
had plenty of time to out-gas -- would it still be vesicular?10
GW: Right, no it would not be vesicular, but the rapidly cooling
top surface of each flow is more brittle than the columnar
"underbelly"... The analogy I use for students is like pouring
coke into a glass, then rapidly freezing the glass...the
crystals would be characteristic in the bottom of the glass, but
full of airpockets above. This is a different picture than what
you are describing I think?
CC: Well, I was just trying to see if there was any way of
ruling out any of the various possibilities. BTW, as you know,
without much of an atmosphere on either the Moon or Mars, the
lava wouldn't have cooled quickly, because there wouldn't have
been much thermal conduction, nor much convection to transport
the heat away. So it sounds like the lava (if that's what it
was) would have had plenty of time to out-gas.
GW: I agree with you on the convection point. Regardless, the
columnar pattern should show up if it's basalt.
LK: Charles said the Moon is made of granite, like the Earth's
continents.
CC: Actually, they have found both granite and basalt on the
Moon, is that correct?
- BTW, I'm currently reconsidering whether or not I actually
believe that the Moon impacted the Earth. The reason is because
of the remelting that occurred at the same time as Mars (if
that's what it was). This would mean that the Moon couldn't have
been involved in such a catastrophic collision, or it would have
been totally remelted, and there wouldn't be any highlands left.
LK: Charles, you said in your papers that Earth's and the Moon's
granites are a lot alike, more than any other planets. Didn't
you? What would account for that?
CC: Yes, but I'm just no longer sure that it's necessarily quite
that simple. If there are basalts on the Moon, especially in the
mares, then it isn't that the Moon is made entirely of the same
stuff as the Earth's continents.
LK: Maybe Earth's basalt and granite ALL came from the
protoMoon.
CC: Yes, that's possible.
GW: I'm on the side of Charles' mind change; I don't accept the
collision theory of Moon and Earth, nor for that matter the
ejected Moon theory.
LK: I linked to some lunar images. Check them out a few lines
below. See the links?
- Charles, do you have a very clear idea how a close approach
between "planets" would cause melting of the surfaces?
CC: I don't know what you mean by "very clear", but I was
thinking that the thermalization of tidal deformation might do
it. This is generally considered to be elastic deformation,
which doesn't produce heat, but in my model, it is driving
telluric currents, which could remelt the crust.
LK: Okay, that makes plenty of sense.
- And could Mars have approached closely to the Moon, as EU
theorists sometimes speculate, and could that produce melted
surfaces?
GW: Due to the tidally syncopated rotations of Earth and Venus,
I suspect this was the near approach involved, which could have
thrown Mars into its highly elliptical orbit as well as
disrupting both the surfaces of Mars and the Moon.
LK: Gordon, can you tell anything about melting from this lunar
mare image?
HTML http://cseligman.com/text/moons/humorum.jpg
Or this one?
HTML http://cseligman.com/text/moons/rille.jpg
GW: Not really...
_E) EARTH ORIGIN
An excellent amateur scientist friend, Charles Chandler, with
detailed analysis determined that the Sun and planets must have
originated about 380 million years ago. He found that the star
formation process is primarily electrical, as explained in his
Astrophysics and Geophysics papers at
HTML http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031
. However, it's also possible
that Earth originated elsewhere and was captured by the Sun
later. In his model a planet can form either as a smaller bead
of plasma next to a larger bead or two of stars, or it can form
from the decay of a star. So, if the Earth and other planets
were formed as planets with the Sun, they'd all be about 380
million years old. If they formed as stars and decayed and were
captured by the Sun, they could be much older than the Sun. Many
Bible students think the Earth and the entire universe were made
by God about 6,000 years ago. But some think it was only the
biosphere that originated at that time, based on certain
translations. The surface features of the Earth appear to have
formed between 4 and 5 thousand years ago. The evidence will be
discussed in section [1-2c]. Section [1-5] will cover Earth's
Origin.
xxx>
_E) ====================postby Lloyd » Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:29 pm
____________________Postby webolife » Mon Jun 06, 2016 4:51 pm
__FLOOD RUNOFF
- Drift is more the result of a drainage process than of a
deluvial one. By which I mean [and claim] that the underlying
sedimentary formations were eroded by waters draining off in the
last stages of the flood event[s].
The materials largely derive from the underlying formations,
unlike the case of erratics which are carried by [probably]
continental glaciation from a more distant formation, eg.
granite from the Canadian Cascades landed in the Willamette
Valley in Oregon. So in the case of drift found on facing sides
of separated continents, I suggest that the various agents of
the flood [not only the tsunami action which you have taken to
focusing on] laid the underlying sediments in a similar fashion
on the lowlands of the [two] spreading continental masses, then
the later drainage action left the drift as a superficial
feature, after the majority of the spreading was done.
- I have little reason to doubt that major continental
glaciation happened across the young continents in the later
stage[s] of the flood and afterwards, and that other drainage
related phenomena also occurred at this time, ie. at the end of
and after the flooding. Glacial advance seems a good mechanism
for the creation of drumlins, striations and such, while glacial
retreat seems a suitable [and observable] mechanism for the
deposit of kames and eskers and other types of mounds, as well
as the very common and relatively superficial outwash deposits
[till]. Drumlins are not dunes. Windblown deposits are a result
of the global wind development that happened after [as a result
of] the flood dynamics, while the potholes and coulees of the
Pacific Northwest [Eastern Washington] happened during the later
retreat of the glaciation, with the breakage of an ice dam at
glacial Lake Missoula. I place the retreat of the glaciation
largely in the few centuries after the flood, and after the
continental drift surge.
**LK NOTE: See Carlson re ice dam theory is wrong.
_E) __GREAT FLOOD VS GLACIATION
- "NOT GLACIAL DRIFT, BUT GREAT FLOOD DRIFT"
Problems in the Glacial Theory
Creation Research Society Quarterly, 13(1):25-34, June 1976
[Note: I'm not a creationist, but they published a lot of good
science. I suspect that the great majority of glacial evidence
is actually great flood evidence as this article explains.]
- DRIFT
... A layer of unconsolidated material [called drift] ... covers
the solid sedimentary and igneous rocks in the temperate zones
of Europe and North America. ... A ... similar [layer] occurs in
parts of India, in South Africa, the tropical zones of South
America, and in many mountainous areas of the world.
<<__Question 1 for Gordon: Do you agree that the drift in India,
S Africa & S America suggests that the drift layer was deposited
before the supercontinent split, because those 3 areas were
adjacent on the supercontinent? Europe & N America were also
adjacent. I wonder if the other mountainous areas containing
drift are adjacent to both of those two north & south
locations.>>
<<__Question 2 for Gordon: Why did the drift not lithify during
the flood? Is there any other significant amount of drift that
wasn't deposited by the Great Flood? And why are there locations
with no drift?>
- The material consists of gravel, sand and clay, with many
large boulders of variable composition, and innumerable rounded
stones and pebbles of all sizes. Often it is hundreds of feet
thick. Frequently stratification exists, and it is usually
present in the sand in the pattern of cross stratification.
- Cross stratification:
HTML http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/individ/brad/baraboo/geology/pics/crossstrat.gif
- Usually referred to as "drift", the material is also known as
boulder-clay, diluvium, outwash deposits, glacial moraine, and
till. ... In general, the landforms composed of drift have a
remarkably fresh appearance. Although they contain loose
material, the effects of erosion have been minimal, showing they
could not be of great age but must have been formed recently.
<Glacial Theory> Geologists believe that the last of the ice
disappeared only a few thousand years ago.
- The [layer] of drift is shaped into a wide variety of
structures, [kames, eskers, rimmed plateaus, drumlins, flutings,
striations, potholes & erratics, as follows below]....
<<__Question 3 for Gordon: Can you explain how a megatsunami
could produce each of the drift types discussed below, i.e.
kames, eskers, rimmed plateaus, drumlins, flutings, striations,
potholes & erratics? Or can you give a source that explains them
all?>
- Images of kames, eskers, rimmed plateaus, drumlins, flutings,
striations, potholes & erratics:
- Kame:
HTML https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/ndnotes/Veblens/Images/Diagram-a-1%20copy.jpg
- Esker:
HTML http://8c4625.medialib.glogster.com/media/b1c37420af793bb953a2b933c638f1dc0fc6756daff86b6338c9dd65cdcd4599/esker-with-permission.jpg
- Drumlin:
HTML http://www.geo-logic.org/Glacial%20Geology/cd33022%20drumlin%20example001,%20www.royalalbertmuseum.ca.gif
- Fluting:
HTML http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_7CSUyHA0I8/T_8GPcCqaVI/AAAAAAAAAdA/xIt2PSh4Y5E/s1600/GlacialFluting.jpg
- Striations:
HTML https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6174/6139928577_aca529683e_b.jpg
- Potholes:
HTML https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-geo-images/ae04a988-67fd-4e09-89ef-314ad88f5b75.jpg
- Erratics:
HTML http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/32/x150832-004-CFC3FEC0.jpg.pagespeed.ic.I5bgaOeS82.jpg
- KAMES
- Kames are conical mounds usually composed of sandy material.
<Glacial Theory> [Kames] are thought to have been caused by the
dumping of glacial debris when the great ice sheets of the
glacial age melted.
- ESKERS
- Eskers are long, winding ridges of gravel and sand....
Sometimes branching eskers occur. The eskers are known to
stretch for great distances, go up and down hills, and disappear
and occur again further on.
<Glacial Theory> [Eskers] are explained in the glacial theory as
the debris of rivers formed in or on the glaciers, that was let
down when the ice melted.
- RIMMED PLATEAUS
In the prairie regions of Canada and in the northern states of
the United States there are various kinds of rimmed plateau[s],
composed of drift. Often these have central depressions
containing clay sediments. The rims are often composed of stony
material and contorted drift layers. Some of the rimmed
plateau[s] or prairie mounds are of large size, with areas of
several square miles, and may reach as much as 150 feet above
the surrounding hummocky and pitted regions.
Hummocky:
HTML http://www.seddepseq.co.uk/SEDIMENTOLOGY/Sedimentology_Features/Strat_Bedforms/Hummock1.jpg
<Glacial Theory> The rimmed plateau[s] and prairie mounds are
explained in the glacial theory as landforms created during the
melting of the great ice-sheets. The glaciers, it is believed,
sometimes melted in such a way that isolated blocks of ice were
formed, that wasted away and deposited their debris in various
kinds of rimmed structures and plateau[s].
- DRUMLINS, FLUTINGS
- Drumlins are hills shaped like the inverted bowl of a
spoon.... Glacial flutings are similar, elongated parallel
ridges and troughs. Individual flutings may stretch for several
miles in the prairies of Canada and parts of North Dakota and
Montana.
Drumlins and flutings are ... streamlined landforms ... often
composed of drift, but many are bedrock or partly bedrock. Some
have a mass of bedrock at their upstream ends. ... In drumlin
swarms the drumlins all have locally parallel orientation ...
sometimes covering thousands of square miles.
<Glacial Theory> Drumlins and flutings are explained as the
effects of the movement of the ice in the glacial theory. The
ice-sheet flowing across the countryside shaped and moulded the
rocks and previously deposited layers of glacial debris into
these remarkable ... landforms....
<<__Question 4 for Gordon: Could the parallel Nebraska dunes be
drumlins or flutings? Is there any way an ice sheet could move
significantly and streamline any of these drift types?>
- STRIATIONS
- Striations are frequently present on the surface of the
bedrock underlying the layer of drift. In some areas the bare
rocks uncovered by drift are also scratched and grooved, as if
by movement of stones across them.... Within the layers of
gravel in the drift there are many rocks and boulders that are
striated.
<Glacial Theory> These are thought to have been transported by
ice and abraded in the process. ... [Bedrock surface striations
are] attributed to the ice-sheets in the glacial theory [with]
large numbers of stones being carried along in its base, that
gouged the bedrock as the ice-sheet went along.
<<__Question 5 for Gordon: How could megatsunamis make
striations on bedrock and on the rocks that they push around?>
- POTHOLES
- In the bedrock underneath the drift, and at many places where
the bedrock is exposed, there are deep vertical potholes, ...
usually filled up with the drift material, sand and gravel and
large boulders.
<Glacial Theory> [Potholes] are often explained by reference to
the glacial theory. These are attributed to glacial "moulins" or
waterfalls tumbling down crevasses in the ice, that eroded the
bedrock and caused these deep holes.
<<__Question 6 for Gordon: The Washington scablands that formed
from the Missoula flood have potholes that formed by vortex
cavitation during the flood, apparently, so were potholes in
bedrock under the drift more likely form from flood than from
glaciation? Are the scabland potholes ever filled with drift?
Maybe this image answers the question:
HTML http://www.paddling.net/sameboat/Images/riverpotholes10.jpg
>
- ERRATICS
- Large boulders, ... known as "erratics" ..., are found in some
regions with a composition quite different from that of the
bedrock [and other drift] in the vicinity. These may sometimes
be as large as houses, and are usually rounded, though some are
of irregular shape. In the drift there are stones and pebbles of
varying composition and appearance, but most of the rocks
reflect the composition of the bedrock underneath.
<Glacial Theory> The large boulders ... are considered to have
been transported from regions afar by the moving ice-sheets. ...
<<__Question 7 for Gordon: Why is most drift of the same rock
type as the bedrock under it? If the flood transported large
erratic boulders, shouldn't smaller kinds of drift material also
be erratic?>
... ... Flint provides a table of some examples of ... erratics
... [here modified & supplemented]:
- Erratics
Moved .. Uplifted
distance: height: .. From:
> 18 km; 1000 m; Mount Katahdin, Maine
> 100 km; 900 m; Adirondack Mountains, New York
160 km; 500 m; Allegheny Plateau, central New York
80 km; .. 900 m; Killington Peak, Green Mountains, Vermont
1,300 km; 1,300 m; Rocky Mountains of Alberta
-----------------------------
Moved dist: .. To: .... From:
100-1250 km; UK-Russia; Scandinavia & Finland
1000 km; .... Missouri; Ontario
... km; ..............; Alberta
... km; ..............; Manitoba
... km; ..............; Northwest Territories
... km; ..............; [Ireland &] Wales
... km; ..............; Northern Germany
- These erratics, [many] perched higher than their sources, if
they are to be attributed to ice, would require that the
direction of the flow of the ice was opposite to the slope of
the land. Flint suggested that the stones were carried in the
base of the ice, which flowed uphill, rather than that they
somehow migrated upwards through the ice. ... How Could the Ice
Move Uphill?... Howorth accused the glacialists of departing
from the principles of physics and appealing to "transcendental
causes". ... Howorth believed that the motivation of geologists
who favored the glacial theory was their reluctance to accept a
catastrophic alternative. ... In his book Ice or Water he
[said:] ... Their real inspiration has been the fervent hope
embodied in the words with which Sir R. Ball concludes his
ill-fated book on the Glacial Age. "The appeal to ice removed
the glacial period from the position of a 'catastrophic'
phenomenon. It placed the ice-sheet as an implement at the
disposal of the geological uniformitarian."
*****************************************************