you say the rock layers are water markings? like rings in a bathtub? oi vey! they are oviously not, you should go check out the canyon and see it up close.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Scientific proof of flood.
- Thread starter duordi
- Start date
- Status
duordi said:
?!
I suppose that igneous rocks are proof that magma covers most of the planet's surface? After all, there are igneous rocks far above sea level.
Just because something is elevated today does not mean it always was; and there's quite a bit of water on Earth that sits above sea level, or is forced to a high elevation by various forces (you know those rivers that run from the tops of mountains -- are they evidence that there's water still sitting up there from a 4000-year-old Flood?)
Upvote
0
This question deals with how you describe the formation of the Earths surface after the flood.Loudmouth said:
If the Earth was relatively flat allowing the flood to cover all land.
Land is lighter then water.
The areas which have greater water depths must sink due to the greater weight and the areas which had less water depth must rise until a balance of force was reach.
Water will ran off rising land areas.
Because the land surface was once lower the raised areas would be formed in keeping with the elevation at the time it was formed, and life existed before the flood.
The relative size of the risen areas depended on how far the water could move during the process as wood the stiffness of the Earths surface.
The commonly accepted idea that the continents drifted apart from one big content is suggested because the continents appear to fit together relatively well.
This fitting of the continents is explained slightly different as part of the post flood surface correction.
In this theory the stiffness of the earth surface would form a relatively consistent curvature as it distorted from the differential ocean depth weights.
The relatively continuous surface curvature would cause the ocean and continent distances to be about the same width giving the appearance that the continents fit together.
Because the rising area of a content is so large small areas containing all types of terrain could be elevated including areas which were originally lakes.
Duane
Upvote
0
Herman Hedning
Hiking is fun
duordi said:
Yeah, right. So, if I drop a big rock in the sea, it will float? This doesn't seem right to me. But, perhaps it has something to do with the argon contents of rocks that made them float?
Upvote
0
Ledifni said:
Do you really want me to answer that?
Water will run to any low point in a relatively short time.
Ledifni said:
Agreed
See this post.
duordi Good question. Today, 04:24 PM.
Ledifni said:
After 4000 years no but a large shrinking lake would be.
If the water could not escape except for evaporation then the geological records would show a large lake slowly evaporating until it was gone or reached some sort of equilibrium.
The lake would of course have a high salt content due to the process and so would be named something like the great salt lake or something close.
Duane
Upvote
0
duordi said:
*sigh*
Ok, let me rephrase my question. What do you think happens when snow falls on a mountaintop and then melts? Did you know that snow is made of water?
Or to put it more simply, you BADLY need an education.
EDIT: And you obviously don't even know what igneous rocks are, given that you responded to a point about them with a statement that water flows to a low level in a short time. Water don't have nothing to do with igneous rocks -- lava flow is what you should be talking about.
Upvote
0
At this sitethe density and equilibrium of land and oceans are discussed.duordi said:
I hope this helps.
Duane
http://college.hmco.com/physicalscience/shipman/physsci/9e/students/studygoals/ch22/
Section 22.2 Plate Tectonics
The theory of plate tectonics is an extension of the ideas of seafloor spreading and continental drift. About 20 surface plates have been identified as making up the lithospheric surface of Earth. These plates are driven about by convection cells in the asthenosphere. Some are pulling apart, forming divergent boundaries, whereas other are pushed together at convergent boundaries. A third type of relative motion is also possible where plates slide past one another, creating transform boundaries. Plates are considered to be passive parts of the lithosphere that are driven across Earth's surface by deep thermal convection processes in the dynamic asthenosphere.
If objects of various densities are placed in an even denser liquid, the densest objects will float lowest in the liquid. This means that more of their volume will be submerged and less will protrude above the liquid's surface. Low-density objects will float higher, like a cork on the surface of water. The mantle of Earth is not actually liquid, but the asthenosphere is relatively plastic and so can make structural adjustments. The pliable nature of the asthenosphere allows segments of the lithosphere to "float" on this plastic sublayer.
The ability of Earth's crust (technically, the lithosphere) to float on the asthenosphere is the basis for an important geologic concept known as isostasy. Isostasy explains variations in surface heights by assuming that since the rocks that make up continents and ocean basins have different densities, these areas of Earth's crust will float at different elevations. The average density of continental rock is less than that of the ocean basins and both float on the same plastic sublayer, so the continents must float higher because of their lower average density.
Differences in density account for the elevation variations between continental masses and ocean basins, but they do not explain why there are mountains and lowlands on the continents themselves. The key to understanding this difference is in the thickness of the continental crust. In regions where the continental crust is thin, it floats low on the asthenosphere. Plains or lowlands are found in such regions. If the crust is thicker, more of the continental mass will float below the average level of the molten sublayer, but because of the relative thickness more will also protrude above this level. Uplands and even towering mountains can thus exist in areas where the crust is exceptionally thick. Again the concept of isostasy comes into play, and the total surface structure of Earth is in equilibrium. In this case, we can say that the entire crustal system of Earth is in isostatic balance.
Plate boundaries are instrumental in producing changes in Earth's crust. Where plates pull apart, new crust is continually forming, as in the mid-oceanic ridges discussed earlier. If plates are pushed together, three types of activity can occur.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Erosion caused by differential rock properties is not perfictally flat or consistant and does not cause tunneling.larry lunchpail said:
The sides of the grand canyon which were caused by the river do not look like this.
But you pose an interesting question.
If The rock properties were inspected for hardness and didn't follow the erosion lines then additional proof could be given.
The tunnel marks are quite unexplainable regardless.
Duane
Upvote
0
Vastavus
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be
- Jan 12, 2005
- 1,170
- 88
- 36
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
In your picture, (Of Bryce Canyon) the formations are far to delicate to be formed by the destructive forces of a global ocean, the "hoodoos" as they are called, would have been destroyed. It was a mixture of water, ice, and a long period of time. It didn't happen instantly.
from http://www.desertusa.com/mag03/feb/hoodo.html
It appears impossible that the destructive forces of water carved these fragile landforms. Instead many believe the hoodoos of Bryce Canyon were formed by wind. This is a mistaken idea. Wind is an effective form of erosion for many locations. However, for Bryce Canyon wind has little effect on the creation and destruction of the various shapes.
Hoodoos formed over thousands of years by the same processes that form the features of surrounding parks. Water, ice (at varying intervals) and gravity are the forces that form Bryce Canyon.
from http://www.desertusa.com/mag03/feb/hoodo.html
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
