WHY?????? does the earth quake

[psychoceramic]

i am looking to see if anyone can show me in the bible why are there earthquakes and volcanos.

Does it stem from adams original sin?

where there earthquakes and volcanos before the sin or are they in response to man sin?

Or are they part of Gods plan for this earth?

will they help in the changed earth when Christ returns for the 1000 year reign.

in him,
psycho.

the hardest working heel at christianforums.com

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Or (more likely) are they nothing whatsoever to do with God, prophecy, sin.

Maybe they have something to do with plate tectonics driven by mantle convection.

Mmmm.

 

[lucaspa]

I haven't seen anything in the Bible that would relate volcanoes and earthquakes to sin. There is no comment in Genesis 1-11 as to whether there were earthquakes and volcanoes or not. Any comment made about this would be a man-made theory that only pretended to be based on the Bible.

Instead, Jack's answer is correct -- volcanoes and earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics driven by mantle convection. In that case, they are a product of the processes God used to create the earth. They are not directly part of "God's plan" altho God can use any physical process to further His plan. For instance, some people have hypothesized that the plagues of Egypt were a result of the catastrophic volcanic eruption of Thera in the Mediterranean.

 

[psychoceramic]

I haven't seen anything in the Bible that would relate volcanoes and earthquakes to sin. There is no comment in Genesis 1-11 as to whether there were earthquakes and volcanoes or not. Any comment made about this would be a man-made theory that only pretended to be based on the Bible.

Instead, Jack's answer is correct -- volcanoes and earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics driven by mantle convection. In that case, they are a product of the processes God used to create the earth. They are not directly part of "God's plan" altho God can use any physical process to further His plan. For instance, some people have hypothesized that the plagues of Egypt were a result of the catastrophic volcanic eruption of Thera in the Mediterranean.

Thanks for your response.....

 

[bdfoster]

I'm not sure about the biblical origin of earthquakes and volcanos, but the fact that they exist, and have existed throughout geologic history, is a HUGE problem for young earthism. We all know the effects of earthquakes and volcanic activity in recorded history. A significant fraction of the geologic column is composed of volcanic material. In addition to the normal plate-boundry volcanism we have today, the geologic record documents several periods of intense volcanism where flood basalts have covered immense areas with incredible volumes volcanic rock. The Columbia Plateau flood basalts have a stratigraphic thickness of over 6000 ft and cover an area of over 50,000 square miles! But this is tiny compared to other flood basalt provinces around the world. The Siberian Traps and Deccan Traps of India both produced on the order of 2 million cubic kilometers of basalt. Basalt averages about 1000 degrees Celsius, or 1800 Fahrenheit. So much heat and gas is poured into the atmosphere during these events that they have in the past been suggested as the cause of mass extinctions at the beginning and end of the Mesozoic. In a young earth scenario all of this activity has to occur in a very short time. Even spreading it out over the 6 to 10,000 years available to young earthers would make the planet unlivable. The laws of physics don’t allow for such a large volume of rock to lose that much heat in a short period of time.

But the amount of seismicity that can be inferred from all the faults in the geologic record is truly beyond comprehension. There are over a five hundred active and potentially active faults in California. But by far most faults are not active; cutting only older, stratigraphically lower rocks. Active faults occur mostly at plate boundaries. But older inactive faults are ubiquitous in the geologic record. Ancient faults can be seen almost anywhere terrestrial rocks are exposed. The total number of faults must be in the millions, and the total number of seismic events that have occurred on these faults is incalculable. Much of the movement that has lifted mountain ranges, and shifted continents has been accommodated by movement along these faults. The evidence documenting the movement of continents is so overwhelming that many creationists now accept some form of plate tectonics. Walt Brown had his “hydroplate theory” and now there is the “catastrophic plate tectonics” of Kurt Wise and others. Once again any young earth scenario has to account for all of this movement in 6 to 10,000 years, but realistically less than that since we know of no catastrophic movement of continents in historic times. And once again the laws of physics don’t allow for the dissipation of the immense frictional heat generated by all this movement through rock in such a short time. And yet frictional melting is rarely observed along ancient faults.

Brent

 

[TrueCreation]

And once again the laws of physics don’t allow for the dissipation of the immense frictional heat generated by all this movement through rock in such a short time.

--Elaborate?

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[Larry]

i am looking to see if anyone can show me in the bible why are there earthquakes and volcanos.

Does it stem from adams original sin?

where there earthquakes and volcanos before the sin or are they in response to man sin?

Or are they part of Gods plan for this earth?

will they help in the changed earth when Christ returns for the 1000 year reign.

in him,
psycho.

the hardest working heel at christianforums.com

I think Jack and lucaspa covered it pretty good. I would only add that there are many references to earthquakes in the Bible. There is scripture which say the earth shook and trembled.

 

[bdfoster]

And once again the laws of physics don’t allow for the dissipation of the immense frictional heat generated by all this movement through rock in such a short time.

--Elaborate?

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Earthquakes generate energy in the form of seismic waves and heat. Very large earthquakes produce very large amounts of heat and because of the low thermal conductivity of rock, the heat cannot be quickly conducted away from the fault plane, and melting occurs. I’ve heard estimates that the 1994 Bolivian quake, which was very large at about magnitude 8.3, produced an amount of thermal energy on par with the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens, and was believed to have caused melting. Pseudotachylite is the rock produced by frictional melting, and is observed along some ancient fault planes. It is not common and is believed to be associated with very large earthquakes. But most of the movement along faults occurs in smaller events that do not cause melting. Current slip-rates along known faults and plate boundaries can be measured. The current slip-rate along the Pacific/North American plate boundry is roughly 5 cm/yr, but the slip rate along any segment of the San Andreas fault is no more than about 4 cm/yr. The recurrence interval for the largest earthquakes is roughly 100 to 200 years. The minimum slip estimates for the San Andreas are about 260 km, and to account for this slip in 10,000 yrs would require a slip rate of 2600 cm/yr, or 650 times the observed present rate. I’m not sure if there is a linear relationship between slip-rate and recurrence interval, but if there is then this would mean 650 earthquakes of magnitude 8.5 in 200 years (roughly one every 4 months) instead of one. If this were the case I would expect frictional melting to be the rule rather than the exception.

But back to the question of earthquakes in the Bible. They are mentioned although not often. There is mention of a great earthquake in the time of King Uzziah. The sparse mention of earthquakes in the Bible is perfectly consistent with the long recurrence interval for great earthquakes. But the catastrophic plate tectonic theories of YEC require all of the tectonism in the geologic record to have occurred during or shortly after the flood. Matthew reported earthquakes that occurred at the death and resurrection of Jesus. And yet not a single mention of an earthquake appears in the flood account. This is very difficult to reconcile with catastrophic plate tectonic theories.

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

i am looking to see if anyone can show me in the bible why are there earthquakes and volcanos.
Does it stem from adams original sin?
where there earthquakes and volcanos before the sin or are they in response to man sin?
Or are they part of Gods plan for this earth?
will they help in the changed earth when Christ returns for the 1000 year reign.
in him,
psycho.
the hardest working heel at christianforums.com

In short: It is part of God's plan for the Earth. It is not a matter of sin at this point, it is just that this earth is kept in a careful balance of seismic activity and other geological events. In the end, it can be explained as a simple working of the Earth.

If you would like to view it that way, that is...

 

[TrueCreation]

Earthquakes generate energy in the form of seismic waves and heat. Very large earthquakes produce very large amounts of heat and because of the low thermal conductivity of rock, the heat cannot be quickly conducted away from the fault plane, and melting occurs. I’ve heard estimates that the 1994 Bolivian quake, which was very large at about magnitude 8.3, produced an amount of thermal energy on par with the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens, and was believed to have caused melting.

--Reference?

Pseudotachylite is the rock produced by frictional melting, and is observed along some ancient fault planes. It is not common and is believed to be associated with very large earthquakes. But most of the movement along faults occurs in smaller events that do not cause melting. Current slip-rates along known faults and plate boundaries can be measured. The current slip-rate along the Pacific/North American plate boundry is roughly 5 cm/yr, but the slip rate along any segment of the San Andreas fault is no more than about 4 cm/yr. The forecurrence interval r the largest earthquakes is roughly 100 to 200 years. The minimum slip estimates for the San Andreas are about 260 km, and to account for this slip in 10,000 yrs would require a slip rate of 2600 cm/yr, or 650 times the observed present rate. I’m not sure if there is a linear relationship between slip-rate and recurrence interval, but if there is then this would mean 650 earthquakes of magnitude 8.5 in 200 years (roughly one every 4 months) instead of one. If this were the case I would expect frictional melting to be the rule rather than the exception.

--I addressed this a few months ago with Baumgardner as it applies to frictional heating of subducting oceanic lithosphere at convergent margins. I argued that the heating associated with the rapid plate motion (and hence subduction) implied by runaway subduction velocities may be very beneficial to a CPT model. In a previous e-mail to Baumgardner, I stated [paraphrased]:

...The frictional heating at the slip zone would be exceptionally large if they slip non-plastically. If they slip plastically, the friction component would be reduced drematically and instead of a rough delve into the mantle with recurrence intervals, it would slide smoothly and at an essentially constant rate. Basically the relatively high temperatures at the slip fault would act as a kind of lubricant, implying a boundary limit for the high temperatures initially produced by stick-slip action. This also would have implications for island-arc volcanism near subduction zones as well as earthquake intensity/frequency during runaway subduction at the slip boundary...

--While Baumgardner agrees with my conclusion that earthquake intensity and frequency during runaway subduction at slip boundaries will be greatly effected, he believes that it is unlikely that significant melting would have occurred, citing results from his 2D calculations which include deformational heating. He seems confident that all significant melting would be due to decompression and corner flow rather than have direct relation to deformation--even at slip boundaries. The dramatic weakening occuring at the slip zone at an originally cold top of the subducting lithosphere is adequate to allow the oceanic lithosphere to slide into the mantle without a stick-slip regime and hence without recurrence intervals.

--Nevertheless, I am still not completely convinced that some melting would not occur as a direct result of frictional heating at slip boundaries.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[bdfoster]

Sorry I haven’t responded before now. I actually had to do some work yesterday and today, which is unusual since I work for the state .

--Reference?

This was in a Science article a few years ago. I don’t have the article but this abstract is available on the web: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.279.5352.839

--I addressed this a few months ago with Baumgardner as it applies to frictional heating of subducting oceanic lithosphere at convergent margins. I argued that the heating associated with the rapid plate motion (and hence subduction) implied by runaway subduction velocities may be very beneficial to a CPT model. In a previous e-mail to Baumgardner, I stated [paraphrased]:

--While Baumgardner agrees with my conclusion that earthquake intensity and frequency during runaway subduction at slip boundaries will be greatly effected, he believes that it is unlikely that significant melting would have occurred, citing results from his 2D calculations which include deformational heating. He seems confident that all significant melting would be due to decompression and corner flow rather than have direct relation to deformation--even at slip boundaries. The dramatic weakening occuring at the slip zone at an originally cold top of the subducting lithosphere is adequate to allow the oceanic lithosphere to slide into the mantle without a stick-slip regime and hence without recurrence intervals.

--Nevertheless, I am still not completely convinced that some melting would not occur as a direct result of frictional heating at slip boundaries.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

That’s interesting. I was initially addressing faulting in general and not just subduction. But onto the subject of runaway subduction. In your comments to Baumgardner you indicate that “If they slip plastically, the friction component would be reduced drematically and instead of a rough delve into the mantle with recurrence intervals, it would slide smoothly and at an essentially constant rate.” I’m not sure how this applies. If a shear stress is applied to a homogenous material to failure, the deformation can be either brittle, if it fractures, or plastic if it flows. But in subduction we’re not talking about applying stress to a material until it fails. In subduction a physical discontinuity already exists. Two different pieces of crust are sliding past each other. Also there is a limit to how fast a material can deform plastically, and strain rate is often the deciding factor in whether a material exhibits either brittle or plastic deformation. If the strain rate is too high plastic deformation cannot occur. I’m not sure what you mean by the high temperature acting as a lubricant, unless you mean an increased tendancy for ductile flow. CPT is in desperate need of a lubricant to make it work but I don’t see plastic deformation as a solution. It’s just too slow a process. It is true that frictional melting, once it starts will be an excellent lubricant. But if frictional melting had provided the lubrication necessary for CPT, once again I would expect evidence of frictional melting to be the rule rather than the exception. I would expect to see pseudotachylite in all exposures of exhumed ancient subduction zones, like the Franciscan Complex in California. But instead we find rocks like blueschist and eclogite that can only form at high pressure and low temperature. Subduction zone rocks are known for metamorphic mineral parageneses that indicate a very low geothermal gradient.

Baumgardner’s response to your comments seems a little unclear to me. When he says he thinks “it is unlikely that significant [frictional] melting would have occurred”, do you think he means unlikely that a significant quantity in comparison with other sources would have occurred, or unlikely that frictional melting would be recognizable in a significant number of exhumed faults? I realize it is a personal communication but is there a reference for the “2D calculations” or is that in the original paper on the ICR site?

Brent

 

[lucaspa]

I’m not sure what you mean by the high temperature acting as a lubricant, unless you mean an increased tendancy for ductile flow. CPT is in desperate need of a lubricant to make it work but I don’t see plastic deformation as a solution. It’s just too slow a process. It is true that frictional melting, once it starts will be an excellent lubricant. But if frictional melting had provided the lubrication necessary for CPT, once again I would expect evidence of frictional melting to be the rule rather than the exception. I would expect to see pseudotachylite in all exposures of exhumed ancient subduction zones, like the Franciscan Complex in California. But instead we find rocks like blueschist and eclogite that can only form at high pressure and low temperature. Subduction zone rocks are known for metamorphic mineral parageneses that indicate a very low geothermal gradient.

For anyone following this and getting lost in the technical jargon, what Brent is saying is that when a material is pushed or pulled (stressed) slowly, it will get stretch beyond its boundaries without breaking. This is plastic deformation. Think of taking a piece of thin plastic and bending it slowly. The plastic will resist and the bend. It won't go back to its original shape -- that would be elastic (like a rubber band). Instead, it stays in the new shape.

OTOH, if you hit the plastic piece with a hammer, you will probably break it, not bend it.

What CPT needs is some way to reduce friction. Having a liquid between the rock layers would do this -- like putting oil between millstones -- they will slide past each other better. But to get that you need the rock to melt and, as Brent said, those types of rock are easy to indentify after they have cooled. A logical deduction from CPT would be that between all these layers we would see this type of rock. However, in the layers exposed where we can see them, or where we have cores going thru these layers, we find instead rocks that show they were formed at low temperatures far below what would be necessary to melt the rocks.

So, since true statements can't have false consequences, and CPT if true would have molten rock between the layers and these are not found, CPT has false consequences. Therefore it is a false statement. Too bad. It was a nice try to marry plate tectonics to a young earth, but it simply doesn't work.

 

[TrueCreation]

Sorry I haven’t responded before now. I actually had to do some work yesterday and today, which is unusual since I work for the state .

--No problem, I should be the one appoligizing for my forgetfulness! But I'm glad I found this thread again.

This was in a Science article a few years ago. I don’t have the article but this abstract is available on the web: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.279.5352.839

--Thanks. If you would like a copy of the article, I could send it via e-mail since I have student membership to AAAS. It is interesting and I agree that this could possibly be pertinent to what would be expected in a phase of CPT. I might have to look into it further.

That’s interesting. I was initially addressing faulting in general and not just subduction. But onto the subject of runaway subduction. In your comments to Baumgardner you indicate that “If they slip plastically, the friction component would be reduced drematically and instead of a rough delve into the mantle with recurrence intervals, it would slide smoothly and at an essentially constant rate.” I’m not sure how this applies. If a shear stress is applied to a homogenous material to failure, the deformation can be either brittle, if it fractures, or plastic if it flows. But in subduction we’re not talking about applying stress to a material until it fails. In subduction a physical discontinuity already exists. Two different pieces of crust are sliding past each other.

--Right, but it is still applicable because even though the initial faulting episode is not recurring, the slip behaviour of the subducting crust is still relevant. Subducting lithosphere doesn't slip constantly into the mantle on all time scales but slides through stick-slip behaviour. Continent-continent fault planes also often exhibit a similar stick-slip behaviour. In stick-slip behaviour the strain builds up until failure, and this is also how it works in the shallow portion of the continent-oceanic lithosphere interface at subduction zones where the plates slip. However, I am arguing that in a phase of runaway subduction, where the rate of subduction is drematically increased the plates would not slip with stick-slip behaviour because of plastic deformation at the slip boundary and the slap pull force pulling the plate without interuption. Hence, a virtual non-existence of recurrence intervals and the implication of a significant decrease in the intensity and frequency of subduction zone seismicity.

Also there is a limit to how fast a material can deform plastically, and strain rate is often the deciding factor in whether a material exhibits either brittle or plastic deformation. If the strain rate is too high plastic deformation cannot occur. I’m not sure what you mean by the high temperature acting as a lubricant, unless you mean an increased tendancy for ductile flow. CPT is in desperate need of a lubricant to make it work but I don’t see plastic deformation as a solution. It’s just too slow a process.

--Baumgardner's simulations appear to argue differently. Clearly there is a limit to the strain rate, but it hasent been well substantiated that this, as an inconsistency, can be conclusively derived from runaway subduction. So, are the deformation rates seen in Baumgardner's runaway simulations in disagreement with strain rate limitations? Surely this is applicable in a case such as what lucaspa mentioned in his last post, but can you apply this directly to CPT?

It is true that frictional melting, once it starts will be an excellent lubricant. But if frictional melting had provided the lubrication necessary for CPT, once again I would expect evidence of frictional melting to be the rule rather than the exception. I would expect to see pseudotachylite in all exposures of exhumed ancient subduction zones, like the Franciscan Complex in California. But instead we find rocks like blueschist and eclogite that can only form at high pressure and low temperature. Subduction zone rocks are known for metamorphic mineral parageneses that indicate a very low geothermal gradient.

--Possibly. I have several resources which discuss in some detail subduction in this context, I might have to have a look.

Baumgardner’s response to your comments seems a little unclear to me. When he says he thinks “it is unlikely that significant [frictional] melting would have occurred”, do you think he means unlikely that a significant quantity in comparison with other sources would have occurred, or unlikely that frictional melting would be recognizable in a significant number of exhumed faults?

--I would assume that his assertion that it is unlikely that significant frictional melting would occur, is in relation to that which would be expected by uniformitarian rates of subduction. I'm afraid I can't be very confident that this is the correct context. Baumgardner and I did not discuss or mention what would be expected from current geological observations of exhumed subduction slip boundaries, so I'm not sure that that would be an accurate relation as well.

I realize it is a personal communication but is there a reference for the “2D calculations” or is that in the original paper on the ICR site?

--One paper that he sent me several months before publication last year for me to study is:

Baumgardner, John R., Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: The physics behind the Genesis Flood, Fifth ICC, 2003

--There was also a TJ forum article in which Baumgardner lightly touched on some of these issues:

Baumgardner, John R., Oard, Michael J., Forum on Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, TJ 16(1), 2002

--I hope these help.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[TrueCreation]

Here is a another good reference for the details of Baumgardner's 2D calculations:

http://www.icr.org/research/jb/runawaysubduction.htm

Cheers,
-Chris Grose