Ice Age?

[Asimov]

Tell me a definition of pitch from a 4500 y/o dictionary
Thank you Mr Black for confirming that fossil fuels are not required to make pitch

They didn't have dictionaries back then, buddy-boy. I'm assuming the Hebrews know their own language, and what bitumen is.

 

[Jet Black]

Gen 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

bi·tu·men
n.
Any of various flammable mixtures of hydrocarbons and other substances, occurring naturally or obtained by distillation from coal or petroleum, that are a component of asphalt and tar and are used for surfacing roads and for waterproofing.

see we have two different words here, pitch and bitumen. bitumen itself has a number of definitions and can include manufactured hydrocarbons. they can be used interchangeably with the name tar, which as the lungs of any heavy smoker will demonstrate, is not a fossil fuel. The whole argument relies on the bitumen being specifically that which is derived from fossil fuels, and I don not personally think that is such a strong argument.

 

[A4C]

They didn't have dictionaries back then, buddy-boy. I'm assuming the Hebrews know their own language, and what bitumen is.

Are you familiar when fossil fuels were first used?

 

[Asimov]

see we have two different words here, pitch and bitumen. bitumen itself has a number of definitions and can include manufactured hydrocarbons. they can be used interchangeably with the name tar, which as the lungs of any heavy smoker will demonstrate, is not a fossil fuel. The whole argument relies on the bitumen being specifically that which is derived from fossil fuels, and I don not personally think that is such a strong argument.

I think it's a strong argument. Just because the translation uses pitch doesn't mean it's pitch. The point is that the Hebrew word used here is bitumen.

 

[A4C]

I think it's a strong argument. Just because the translation uses pitch doesn't mean it's pitch. The point is that the Hebrew word used here is bitumen.

You are going to take a lot of convincing aren't you?
Do you have evidence of how they used to obtain the fossil fuels from the deposits 4500 years ago? Did they use the same type of oil rigs they use today?

 

[Grey Eminence]

In the discussion up to this point there has been much mentioned about the movement of soils. What I would like to bring up is the nature of soils, a point which has been neglected.

What is soil?

Soil is created by the physical and chemical decomposition of in-situ rocks. Near the surface soil typically includes a certain proportion of biomass. In areas with retarted decomposition rates 'organic soils' such as muskeg can form.

If one considers the equatorial regions of the earth residual soils are common. If a borehole is run from the surface to within the underlying bedrock the soil can be examined and its chemical similarity with the underlying bedrock confirmed. More importantly the decomposition of the bedrock into the overlying soil can be observed.

However, residual soils are not found over extensive regions of the world. They have something else.

Till... Glaciations little dumping ground.

What is till?

Take a can of mixed nuts and dump it on the ground. Now put your foot on the pile and grind it back and forth until you reduce the nuts to a powder. Congraduations you just made peanut till.

Imagine yourself 1000m tall and with a foot the size of large countries and you too can be a glacier.

Till is a mixture of boulders, sands, silts and clay. It has no internal strata, it has no aligniment, it has no overall orginisation, and every so often you find large pockets of water charged sand.

Now what does till prove?

Consolidation theory provides a means to determine the maximum historical stress experienced by a soil mass. This technique when applied to glacial tills shows over consolidation ratios that can only be due a surcharge of material measured in the hundreds of meters range.

And simply putting more water on top will never change the over consolidation ratio. Soils deposited in water will have an over consolidation ratio of 1. The historical maximum effective stress is at the state they are in at this moment.

I will go back to the point I made about surchages.

Could the overyling soil have simply been eroded by "the flood".

No, because another annoying little characteristic of tills is that they tend to directly overlie the bedrock in the region with no decompositional layer. They are not native to the location they are found at.

This is also confimed by the presance of erratics within the till, and on the surface in some locations, boulders deposited but not native to the region. (And by not native I am refering to distances in the order of 800km.)

Also attributing the OCR to an overlying soil strata does not explain the formation of the till.

Could the till have been deposited by "the flood".

No. The random distribution of particle sizes in the material shows that it was not deposited in water.

** ** **

If you chose to rebut this please provide a plausable formation process for till.

 

[Grey Eminence]

For naval purposes pitch can be, and was largely obtained from cooking down tree saps. In Europe the Baltic states provided much of the naval stores requierd for Europe with regards to masts, spars, pitch, cordage, etc.

(How this has anything to do with glaciation is beyond me.)

 

[A4C]

Could the till have been deposited by "the flood".

No. The random distribution of particle sizes in the material shows that it was not deposited in water.

I think the recent tsusami proves exactly what catastrophic water movements can do

 

[Grey Eminence]

I think the recent tsusami proves exactly what catastrophic water movements can do

Geologically the tsunami did nothing. I literally mean that. It did nothing. It smeared around the most surficial of deposits.

It most certainly did not erode the land down to the bedrock.

That being said, since the structure of till precludes its deposition in water please explain how a tsunami would create till with an overconsolidation ratio requiering several hundred meters of overburden when water pressure does not change effective stress?

 

[Jet Black]

I think the recent tsusami proves exactly what catastrophic water movements can do

The random distribution of particle sizes in the material shows that it was not deposited in water.

 

[Asimov]

You are going to take a lot of convincing aren't you?
Do you have evidence of how they used to obtain the fossil fuels from the deposits 4500 years ago? Did they use the same type of oil rigs they use today?

Obviously not. Oil and petrol can be obtained through other means than oil rigs.

 

[A4C]

Obviously not. Oil and petrol can be obtained through other means than oil rigs.

Could you elaborate - (perhaps you might have watched too many Beverly Hillbilly intros)

 

[Asimov]

Could you elaborate - (perhaps you might have watched too many Beverly Hillbilly intros)

I haven't seen that show.

http://seeps.wr.usgs.gov/seeps/history.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/extremeoil/science/exploration.html

[size=+1]and for more utilitarian ones, such as waterproofing boats[/size]

[size=+1] and baskets[/size][size=+1].

[/size]

 

[A4C]

Geologically the tsunami did nothing. I literally mean that. It did nothing. It smeared around the most surficial of deposits.

It most certainly did not erode the land down to the bedrock.

That being said, since the structure of till precludes its deposition in water please explain how a tsunami would create till with an overconsolidation ratio requiering several hundred meters of overburden when water pressure does not change effective stress?

The tsusami demonstrates the enormous power behind mass of water.
I think what has to be appreciated is the fact that the earths geological structure was infinately different than it is today. IMO there would have been only bedrock and soil (different types) The after flood geology would have been shaped by the flood as I have previously eluded to. The two major events of the flood would have been the rising water and its sediment deposit and secondly the receeding of the water and its disruption of the previously laid down sediment (and fossils). Understanding the geology of the flood needs to take into consideration both of these aspects.

 

[Jet Black]

I think it's a strong argument. Just because the translation uses pitch doesn't mean it's pitch. The point is that the Hebrew word used here is bitumen.

well if you are absolutely certain that it is bitumen as in the product of fossil fuels, then I agree with you. my only objection has been the basis that it could have meant a manufactured resin (as outlined by Grey Eminence), which do exist, and have existed for a long time. if however you are correct and it is certainly not a manufactured resin, then it follows that my objection is wrong.

 

[Jet Black]

You are going to take a lot of convincing aren't you?
Do you have evidence of how they used to obtain the fossil fuels from the deposits 4500 years ago? Did they use the same type of oil rigs they use today?

Tar from the La Brea tar pits was used for thousands of years by local native Americans, as a glue and as waterproof caulking for baskets and canoes. After the arrival of Westerners, the tar from these pits was mined and used for roofing by the inhabitants of the nearby town of Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de Los Angeles.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/quaternary/labrea.html

 

[Grey Eminence]

I think what has to be appreciated is the fact that the earths geological structure was infinately different than it is today. IMO there would have been only bedrock and soil (different types)

How is this any different from today? We have bedrock, we have soils dervied from the bedrock.

Are you next going to say that the flood destroyed the bedrock from before and that the new bedrock is "infinately different" from that currently present. But wait... that would requier the destruction of the crustal plates of this planet, and even then it would not "infinately change" the crustal make-up.

The after flood geology would have been shaped by the flood as I have previously eluded to. The two major events of the flood would have been the rising water and its sediment deposit and secondly the receeding of the water and its disruption of the previously laid down sediment (and fossils). Understanding the geology of the flood needs to take into consideration both of these aspects.

Since you present yourself as being well versed in matters of flood geology I find it most difficult to understand why you are unable to answer my question. If you are concerned that I will not be able to understand what you say, I assure you I have an very reasonable background in soil mechanics and geology, be specific.

 

[Grey Eminence]

my only objection has been the basis that it could have meant a manufactured resin (as outlined by Grey Eminence), which do exist, and have existed for a long time.

http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Shipbuilding/Sutherland(1717b)_p185.html

This link details a paper called, "Of Pitch and Tar" and is dated 1717.

Could the pitch have been bitumen based, yes, that is a possiblity.

At the same time it is far more probable that the pitch refered to was a refined tree resin. Lebanon, being a major timber center at the time would have had the climate and resources necesary to support a commerical pitch industry. Also since it was a necessity for any major naval enterprise it would have been commercially avaliable to some degree almost anywhere one could find ships or boats.

** ** **
TAR and Pitch in Ship-building being generally used by the Calkers, I shall therefore put in what I have to say on shuch Materials, subjoining it to their Branch of Duty.

Tar is produced from the Knots of Fir-Trees, by a sort of Distillation, and of Tar Pitch is made by boyling the Tar, whereby it becomes stiffer and drier.

...

Mr. Evelyn in his Sylva tells us, that one Mr. Winthorp presented the Royal Society with a Process of making Tar and Pitch in New England, which he thus abreviates. Tar is made out of a sort of Pine Trees, from which naturally Turpentine extilleth, and which at its first flowing out is Liquid and Clear; but being hardned by the Air, either on the Top of the Tree, or wherever it falls, is not much unlike the Burgundy Pitch...

 

[A4C]

I think you will also find that there were surface "tar" deposits in the middle east post flood (which was subject of Soddom and Gomorrah riches and downfall ) however the point is that pitch can be otherwise obtained making the argument that Noah used it possible.

 

[A4C]

How is this any different from today? We have bedrock, we have soils dervied from the bedrock.

Are you next going to say that the flood destroyed the bedrock from before and that the new bedrock is "infinately different" from that currently present. But wait... that would requier the destruction of the crustal plates of this planet, and even then it would not "infinately change" the crustal make-up.



Since you present yourself as being well versed in matters of flood geology I find it most difficult to understand why you are unable to answer my question. If you are concerned that I will not be able to understand what you say, I assure you I have an very reasonable background in soil mechanics and geology, be specific.

I am not as versed in geology as you might think (just ask one of our TE friends ) The main difference between us it seem is that you believe that our soil come from rock (I presume you are talking the sandstone varieties that actually contain the "fossil record" whereas I believe that the soil formed the rock (sandstone containing the fossils from the flood) during the time of the Flood. Any formation that the waters of the Flood did to this "rock" it did so when it was semi solidified sediment so it did not require either an "explosive" force nor millions of years.