Wow, You just don’t get it! You are still giving argument about different times and places that don’t correlate. The earth is dynamic. Events
that happen at one period of time do not necessarily mean that it happen that way every time. It is not possible for me to explain the hypothesis I
present to if you are going to associate completely different events as the same cause and effect. Your arguments are not applicable to the specific
points. The topic is the flood legend of Noah. I do not disagree with the information you are giving me, it is correct and accurate (accept
Hapgood‘s). I strongly disagree with how you interpret it. The workings of the earth and its geological activities are a very big subject. I can’t
foresee how you might misuse different events and conditions as rebuttals.
The earth and its historical activity can be considered an evolutionary change. It in and of itself has gone from a molten planet to one that has
become habitable to allow the evolution of life. Beneath its crustal surface the earth is still molten.
Yes, my points were to refute the possibility of the flood. But the reason the boat is called “the arc” is because of the flood legend. Is there
any other context in which you would use the term “arc” when referring to a boat that wasn’t from this legendary story?
Yes there were floods from the ending of the ice ages. There is no indication that “many” were large enough or significant enough 6000 years ago
to be confused with a global flood. If the story infers a global type flood with a life saving boat and other similarities then it is highly likely to
be from the same original story. The conditions for the Pacific Northwest floods were during the last ice age about 12,000 ago, as you pointed out.
The Missoula floods are the largest and fastest of this type of sudden glacier flow, white water rapids. This does not mean that all or even many
glacier flows are like this. Typical glacier flow is very slow, on the order of lees them 30 cm/day.
Now you are referencing a higher sea level that happened 120,000 years ago. The topographical surface of the earth would be very different in those
two time periods. The temperatures, the position of the earth, the atmospheric conditions, to the amount of and type of living creatures, the
information for these different events do not relate to what you were referring to “extent that sea level rose and rivers flooded to create many
local floods around the globe”. Notice you said, “to create many local floods” They are different events which yes I agree did happen, but at
different times. They have little to do with supporting/disproving the idea of a global flood 6000 years ago that occurred in 40 days and lasted for a
year, as in the context of this board and to what I have been referring. The rising sea level would not cause rivers to flood! Melting glaciers would
not cause the sea to rise noticeably in 40 days. The historic people may not have been geniuses but I firmly believe that they understood the
difference between rivers flooding and areas big enough to be a sea or an ocean. Certainly if they could build a boat with such primitive skills to be
able to handle the dangerous rapids of an overflowing river they would know the difference.
Additionally, are you suggesting that the numerous flood stories could be from floods 120,000 years ago? Have you ever studied the origins of
language? And the timeline of which language started? And the migration people to the different lands of the world? Of course not. Gilgamesh just
happens to be the first written story of a flood involving a life saving boat with animals; this does not make it the first story.
Just giving you a hard time about this one.
Yes I had to put in the part about sea being the same as ocean level. I can’t be sure how much you understand, (For it seams you don’t understand
much about these topics you need a reference to know that volcanoes are hot) so some points I must make clear. Sorry.
“Are you suggesting that the water from the mountains just jumped up and landed in the oceans? That it didn’t run down hill in rivers or create
new rivers? There’s so much evidence proving the rapid creations gorges and canyons from melting glaciers it would be an insult to me and you for me
to have to dig them up for you to look at.”
No, I am say that it is far slower than you imply, on the order of centuries.
I am suggesting that the water just fell in the oceans. (I never brought up the topic of new rivers as that that is your addition.) Water in the
frozen state. This is how the majority of glaciers/ice bergs that you see floating in the oceans got there. They broke away from a continental ice
shelf and fell into the oceans. It is called calving. They didn’t scurry across the land and across the beach. Not all of the ice is formed on top
of land such that it must cross land at high speed (frozen or liquid) to get to the oceans. Fact is that not all glaciers are on land some are above
water and are called ice shelves. Hear is a question what did the Titanic hit? Also, since you have provided reference to one rapid gorge creation I
can’t be certain as to whether or not you believe that all of the gorges were formed this way, because the majority of them were not. Yes, there
are rapid creation gorges. This does not discount the slowly created gorges, nor does it indicate that fast ones all were associated with large
outbursts or floods. (overflowing rivers yes, but I don’t see how they could be interpreted as part of the flood story) Where else in the world do
we see the scablands? There is no indication that any of these glacier floods were large enough that people would interpret them to “cover all the
land” they would still see land. They would still see where the glaciers broke away. Isn’t that obvious?
This is to point out that it would not be a sudden global rise in the water. The majority of glaciers move very slow 20-30 cm/day. While the leading
edges of these have a tendency to break off they do not repeatedly produce Missoula type flooding. That appears to be a common ice age event that has
little noticeable effects on the levels of the sea. Certainly wouldn’t be the source of the Noah fable. Perhaps an embellishment to it like the
Keep in mind that these flood stories are about huge flood events that took place during brief moments of people’s lifetimes. Events involving
living on a boat for a long period of time. The Missoula flood was fast and short. Considering the sudden erosion of the rocks it is doubtful that
these stories would have involved a boat that couldn’t see land. The events you are siting that could have caused the large rise and fall of the sea
levels are a much bigger time span (centuries, from your references) such that one person did not witness the whole cycle. The flood legends (that
relate to this story) are stories of floods that individuals have supposedly observed, in one lifetime! In fact the legendary story took place in less
than one year!
You are claiming “the flood” could have been many local floods. I am pointing out that many local floods at different time and different places
would not comprise the numerous similar flood stories involving a life (humans and animals) saving arc floating for long durations as the result of
instructions from god.
The levels of the seas as I was pointing out did not raise or fall suddenly. (certainly not in 40 days & nights) This is how I interpreted your
statement “that sea level rose and rivers flooded to create many local floods around the globe” In that context I don’t understand why you site
this as evidence of global floods. To me it is just a slow change in the sea levels. As you references show, in say 40,000 years as the cycles of the
ice ages or 120,000 years ago as you also referenced. (40,000 year change in sea level I see as slow) Certainly very different from the legendary
flood, where the level change was a few thousand feet in 40 days. You can pick on the details of the flood stories all you want. That doesn’t
invalidate my any of my points.
It is the amazing similarities of these stories in conjunction with the knowledge of the culture and migration of the people, which indicate that they
most likely originated from the same ancient tale. Some of the people of New Orleans feel that their whole world was flooded.
The Hopi Indians didn’t occupy this land until 6000 years after the legend started. They migrated from the third world, Mexico and the surrounding
areas. The language of the Hopi Indians is Uto-Aztecan, which indicates that it has an Olmec culture. The ecology of the Olmec culture is very similar
to that of the ecology of the other ancient centres of civilization: Mesopotamia and the Nile valley. So it is possible that it is from the same story
as they have other simlarities like pyrmids to as we know are also common in the mesopatameam region as well as Spain. Considering that the story
indicates that they floated around before finding the forth world land and that they used birds to find this land there is an amazing simalirty to the
noah story, the Missoula flood would not have left people floating around for a long time where they couldn’t see land. It appears that their legend
could have started from the same original story, it certainly had enough time to migrate and morph.
No, I don’t want more small flood examples as you don’t understand that as the ones you already gave have no coorelation to the flood story I am
talking about. I already pointed out that these floods would not raise the level of the sea to be misinterpreted as a global event 4000 to 6000 years
ago. You missed that. More than once. If you actually did some research you would have found the logical location of the flood legend to be The
Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins 7500 years ago.
The actual time of the global flood is insignificant (4000 , 4500, 6000, or 7000 years ago) as I as trying to show that it didn’t happen. I do not
study the bible much, so I do not have my own detailed explanation. For this as well as the details of the story I use the information from the
creationists web sites (Answersingenesis & IRC). They have the most intricate details about all of the biblical events.
You said that you have been studying this topic for over ten years, well have not been doing very good research!! In a ten-year study you should know
very well where these numbers come from. The creationists add up the ages of each person in the chronological lineage of the bible.
If you had actually been doing your research you would have read the answersingenesis site, which indicates that the fabled flood happened 4500 years
ago. “The Flood, according to biblical chronology, occurred approximately 4,500 years ago.”
If you had actually been capable of doing good research you would be telling me that the sudden flooding of the black sea is the hypothetical source
of the legendary story and you would not be suggesting local floods in North America.
This site talks about your idea of ice age floods, still not world wide flooding at the same time nor over period of less than one year (or 40 days as
the bulk of the stories go). Here they indicate that the flood happened 6000 years ago.
They also indicate the ending of the last ice age increased the level of the sea to its present, as I previously suggested. They also indicate the sea
levels jumped in just a few centuries. Not in just a few weeks as in the flood legend. They also mention the Missoula flood, which you brought up.
Another site indicating the source of the legendary flood happened 7500 years ago.
Yes, the sedimentary record. I am not suggesting that catastrophic local floods didn’t happen. I am suggesting that they happened as the result of
different events at different times under different conditions over many years, decades, centuries, eons, as the sedimentary records show. But
particular similarities are most likely from the same tale.
“No one ever said that all the ice melted at once.”
No but this is about discrediting your answer for where the sudden “global flood” waters came from. You were making a point to tell me where all
the water came from. Where all the waters of the flood legend came from. So logically I thought you were referring to the same event that I was
talking about. A deluge. One that covered the earth with a few thousand feet of water. Even if all of the glaciers of the world were to melt it would
only raise the sea levels 70 meters or so, this very far from the story I am talking about
I believe showing that the flood did not happen as in the story, also shows that the arc did not happen. Because the definition of “the arc” as I
see it is a large boat responsible for saving all of the (2 or 7 or whatever number of whatever animals, another big topic) current kinds of life from
the biblical flood. So no biblical flood, no biblical arc, no any arc.
But don’t take this to mean that there wasn’t a large boat. Just that it was not an arc until it became a legendary story. I believe that the boat
(from with this story manifested) was one of the larger shipping vessels of its time. Such a boat would carry grains, livestock, and possibly seafood.
The Laws of Hammerabi (another great topic) predate the bulk of the biblical stories. These laws show quite clearly that there was food and livestock
cultivation and trade. I believe that the boat of Noah was one of the largest of its type and that to be so large as to require investors for its
construction and operation. So yes there was a boat but no, it was not the legendary “arc”.
To go further with the story, Noah’s boat was at sea at the time of a significant sea born volcanic eruption (submarine volcano). This eruption
created a tsunami that carried the boat onto land. Whether it was on top of Mt. Aarart or not, I don’t know. But accompanying this tsunami was some
of the lava rocks from the volcano. Research the Black Sea and the lake below it.
Quote “I’ve been doing this for 10 years.”
Doing what? Poor research? Misinterpreting? Misquoting? Misunderstanding? “You’re in over you head”
The answersingenesis is a very misleading site. They present some very good information and misuse it to support the biblical stories, as your excerpt
shows. They do the best job at this then any other site. It is there version of the fabled flood event (and their details) that I am refuting. Your
reference from the USGS is good but does not correlate. It is presenting information about rain causing volcanic activity. Great, so what. That is
real science and I am not trying prove or disprove how rain can cause volcanic eruptions. I am showing how the answersingenesis is incorrect in their
interpretation of the facts they use. They omit some significant effects that would result from the things that they suggest happened. It is these
omitted details that I am using to show that they have an incorrect interpretation. If anything your reference is an attempt to support their
interpretation but it does not. Rain causing volcanic activity is not the same as a deluge of water erupting from beneath the ground to cover the
earth. Nor is it the same as rain covering the earth with cool water a few thousand feet deep.
This is the source of the information I am refuting. They provide the details of how the evidence supports their interpretation of the story, so dah,
it is an appropriate source as it is the source. :bash:
” I was really just tying to find the source for your conjecture. If it’s just “logical’ that volcanoes would erupt because the temperature of
the land decreased to the point of shrinking the earth’s crust, therefore causing volcanoes, why would my question of why there’s no coloration
between ice ages and volcanic activity seem so off? Ice is cold, in fact ice is colder then water. The whole earth wasn’t covered in ice but why
didn’t this “logical” phenomenon happened in areas that were?”
Ok, this can become a huge topic, which the book I keep referring to will explain. But the subject here is about a sudden global flood, a flood that
covered the earth in just 40 days. A sudden flood that caused a decrease in the global temperature of the warm land all at once. The ice ages are a
40,000 year cycle. Sometimes they correlate with the 100,000 cycle of the changing earth orbit. They constitute a slow temperature change. Yes it is a
fact that ice is colder than water but it is also a fact that flowing water conducts heat better then a chunk ice. It is also a fact that still water
is an excellent insulator. This is why the surface water of the seas is warmer then the bottom waters, the heat on top does not conduct to the bottom.
The flood story is talking about a few thousand feet of water around the earth. In a few thousand feet of water (if from rain) the bottom will be
significantly colder than the top, unless it is already hot steamy water (from volcanic activity below) to start with. It all depends on whether you
want to believe the floodwaters came from the sky above or from the hot earth below.
If someone pours a glass of water on you while you are out side in the cold weather you will get much colder then if they put the same amount of water
in the frozen state on you. The water will displace the insulating air and remove the heat quicker because as it evaporates. The heat is pulled away
as the water changes state from liquid to gas. It will cause a thermal shock, you will feel it. The chunk of ice would just hurt. If you put beer in a
cooler of just ice it will not cool down as fast as beer in a cooler of just very cold water because the water comes into contact with all of the
surfaces at once. Where with just ice only the points where the ice touches will get cool, as the other areas are insulated with air. Then once the
part of the ice that melts becomes water it can’t move away because there is ice behind it. (One additional fact is that ice insulates the ground.
It will prevent it from going below the freezing point. This is why the inside of Igloos are comparably warm to the much colder weather outside) With
water there is a circulation of the warmer and cooler waters. The warm water will rise and the cool water will fall. It is this water circulation,
which does the job of quick heat transfer. When you drop ice into a glass of water you quite often will hear the ice cracking as a result of a thermal
shock. This is because of the amount of heat transferred from the water into the solid ice is so fast, it cracks because the outer surface of the cube
is changing state (and density) from the heat and the inside of the ice is still frozen and not changing density. (this is also another very big topic
So suddenly covering the earth with cool water would cool the surface and create a thermal shock, unless that water was already hot. The thermal shock
will cause a similar effect as that of the ice I mentioned above, cracking crust of the earth open to expose the hot molten sublayer. But this is all
besides the point. I am indicating that this event did not happen. Why didn’t this happen in area that were/are covered with ice is because the ice
formed in areas that are already cold, in areas that have already contracted and because the ice formed slowly, and because these areas have a thick
crust. (Have you ever noticed the ground cracking open in the cold of winter? Or the gap created between the base of your building and the ground next
to it? It is this space that fills up with the winter rains and then causes a thawing of the ground which then expands and pushes water into the
basement of the buildings. It pushes with such pressure it commonly causes the basement walls to crack open and then later leak from normal rainfall)
The thickness of the land beneath the ice insulates the surface, from subterranean heat, to allow the ice to form. The reduced amount of sunlight
getting to these areas of the earth allows the ice to form. The amount of ozone created and destroyed by the sunlight in these areas allows the ice to
form. If you were to suddenly cover the earth with water you will dislodge the ice caps and cover the earth with circulating ice water (unless you are
using steamy hot water). Which will cool the surface of the earth and when things cool they contract and with thermal shock they quite often break.
If you are using hot water from below pushed up as a result of volcanic activity well, then the volcanic activity came first and then the surface of
the earth shrunk. Because something has to fill the space from where the water and lava came from, it would not be air. There is only the surface of
the earth left so it goes down as the water and lava comes up. They call this (type of falling land as the result of a volcano) a Caldera. So if there
were to be global emissions of water from global volcanic activity there would be global Calderas. Which means the land would have fallen or the earth
(land) shrunk as the result of volcanic displacement. Which came first or which caused which is not the point!
“Again, is this your theory or someone else’s’? I’ve asked for documentation of this theory so that I may read it and you’ve not provided
It is not theory it is physical science. You just don’t get it. :bash:
You want to read it, then try Physics 101, Geology 101, & Chemistry 101.
Why would there be documentation to something that didn’t happen because of the way things work. It is not possible to flood the world with water
without numerous immense catastrophic results. That is my point!! I am not going to explain all the possible scenarios as what the catastrophic
results of an impossible global flood might be. I am just pointing out one or two basic principles of the many physical sciences that would take
place. It is not theory; a theory is the result of many tested and proven right hypotheses.
“We get 100% humidity in the North East all the time. Everyone’s lungs would fill up with water because of 100% humidity. This is news to me and I
would love to see some references to this.”
Really? Where in the northeast do you have 100% humidity indoors? For a year? Combined with the heat of 16,000 animals and their waste?
seen some of the mold growing on the walls of the homes in New Orleans? This mold grew because of the high humidity and warmth in just a few days. You
must have mushrooms a mold growing everywhere in your living space.
Do you need an explanation about the bacterial growth? (gram negative) If you
were to live in that you would be in bad shape in a short period of time. This is defiantly over your head but, absolute humidity 100% and temperature
above 100 degrees, your body temperature at 98.6 degrees would be cooler thus, condensation forms inside and outside of you. You either drown or die
as a result of the heat index. Again, more physical science.
“You state that the eruptions of volcanos raise the temperautre of the earh, the atmosphere and the oceans but you’re mistaken.
Read this article:
Give me a break!! I did not state that!!!!! Stop omitting and twisting the information around!!!
This is what I stated “6) The ocean temperature would rise. Carbon dioxide (most of the earths CO2 is in the oceans) would be liberated out into the
atmosphere. The water would heat up (from the volcanoes and green house effect) and kill the phytoplankton. “
”The ocean temperature would rise!!!”
“The water would heat up!!!”
I never said it would raise the temperature of the earth
I never said it would raise the temperature of the atmosphere
But the fact is (if you could stay with the topic of a global flood) that if you put out enough steamy hot water to flood the globe with a few
thousand feet of this hot water in just 40 days that steamy hot water would raise the temperature of the lower atmosphere and the surface of the
earth. The center of the earth is already hot. This is a short term effect!!! The source of the heat in this scenario is the molten rock beneath the
crust, not the sun!!! You totally missed the point. The sun would not be blocked out if all the volcanic activity had to pass through water. The dust
and acid would not go very high. The hot water would be leaching huge amounts of CO2 among other toxic gases. Global cooling is a long-term effect of
cutting off a different source of heat. You want to test this, fill your bathtub with hot water and cover the window. Tell me how cold the bathroom is
right after the tub is full.
The flood story talks about lots of volcanic activity, a cataclysmic event. Enough activity to produce the floodwaters of the fable, around the globe,
from below the land in just 40 days. Volcanoes are hot!! Water coming out of the ground as a result of volcanic activity is hot. Old Faithful is
putting out hot water. Imagine that there was enough Old Faithful blowning out enough hot water to cover the earth with a few thousand feet of
volcanic sourced water. It would be hot. What are you missing here!!! A ten year old understands this.
“This new information may now explain ‘why massive volcanic outbursts suddenly flood[ed] hundreds of thousands of square kilometres [of land] with
lava’, as observed in a number of different parts of the geological record.”
Note they are indicating that thousands of square kilometers of land was covered with lava. Lava is hot. This does not include the hundreds of
thousands of square kilometers of ocean with erupting submarine volcanoes. “Massive volcanic outbursts” All part of one version of the fable
“According to Baumgardner,God stretched the tectonic plates, causing the magma underneath to rise out of the ground into the ocean. This magma then
ballooned out and evaporated, displacing a huge amount of water. Tidal waves and rain caused by these jets of magma were high enough and strong enough
to cause all the mountains to be covered and send a boat filled with one human family and two of every known animal off on their way.”
Note that magma is hot, when it hits the water the water gets hot. Not a theory, just a fact.
” Incidentally, if all the volcanic lava beds that we see interspersed between these sedimentary rocks were laid down during one year, the amount of
heat released from that lava would have heated the water of the ocean to several thousand degrees centigrade! And so Noah's ark would have had to
have been air-conditioned!”
“According to Robert A. Moore [previous citation, pp. 10-11], if all the known "fossil" lava flows had been produced during a single year, as
creationists aver, the 3.65 octillion calories of heat released would have raised the temperature of the oceans by more than 2700° C”
Flood water around the globe from volcanoes around the globe. MANY THOUSANDS OF VOLCANOES!!!! Lots of lava, lots of hot pyroclastic flows, lots of
steam. If these sources of heat are passed through water, well then the water gets hot!! If there was enough water to be pushed up by these volcanoes
to cover the earth then the volcanoes are around the earth in a sufficient quantity to cover the globe with hot water. The globe would first be hot
from all of the volcanic activity at the same time. That is called a short-term effect. Then yes it would cool down over time, no kidding. You’re a
Go stand over an active volcano and tell me how cold you get!!
These floods are the result of an ice dam forming and breaking and forming again at different times as a result of slowly leaving the ice ages(global
warming). The Ice Ages are cyclic and will happen again within the next 30,000 years.
“There was nothing slow about it “
Really, so you are saying the ice ages are fast, that 40,000 year cycle is fast!?!?!?!???
This is what I wrote “…slowly leaving the ice age…”
I can’t hold back, your comprehension sucks! I am not mistaken, you are an id….
“No one ever said that all the ice melted at once. “
quote: So again no world flood or global rise in the water levels. You have not provided any answer to refute the point I was making, that there is no
place for water to come from to flood the world. (Unless you are saying that the polar ice caps have completely melted which would kill everyone by
the heat doing the melting so that is a moot idea. Additionally the Ice Caps have been there for millions of years, not melted)
”You really missed the whole point.”
Yeah, I did, the point is that you are astronomically incapable of understanding what people write. This is about a sudden global flood, what part of
that don’t you comprehended? Perhaps it is the word “sudden”
Sudden- A happening without warning; unforeseen: a sudden storm.
No, no one ever said that all the ice melted at once. But you are giving me an answer to “where did all the water come from?” Which means; where
did all the water to cover the earth in 40 days come from? (The topic of my points is the flood legend) So naturally I though you were answering the
question. But no, you were giving out completely unrelated information. For no reason. Telling me about a glacial flood that would not raise the level
of the oceans more than a millimeter.
I have repeatedly shown your misinterpretations, your misquote, your misunderstanding, and your failure to address the topic, The Legendary global
You’re in over you head
You have not shown a single one of points to be even the slightest bit incorrect.
You have overwhelmingly proven you can’t understand physics
The NASA reference is great. But they are talking about a seasonal length of time combined with reduced solar energy to cause a global reduction in
temperature. Yes, of course I agree with this. This is a long-term effect of blocking the sun and a reduced solar output. They mention the fact that
this is a long-term reaction. You missed that. As your reference indicates the temperature change is only ½ a degree. This is because so very little
of this volcanic emissions make it into the stratosphere. The Toba (super-volcano) volcanic eruption caused a 3 to 3.5 degree global drop in
temperature because it put so very much into the stratosphere for several months! Yes, global cooling effect. Do you want me to believe that the area
around the Toba volcano was cold at the time of the eruption? Or even a day or a week after the eruption? Once again you have not done your research
and you don’t seam to understand that volcanoes occurring underwater do not have this effect!! They do not put dust and acids into the stratosphere
because the water intercepts a large amount of the emissions and reduces the height to which the rest of it (dust and gases) will go. Geology 101. The
rest of the dust would settle quite quickly and locally but since it is from global volcanic activity the dust would be covering worlds watered
surface, and the arc.
I am talking about a sudden great deluge, ”The flood legend”. You keep missing this!!! Unless it was hot water as from the volcanic earth, It
would have been cool water from the sky. (Disregarding the physical impossibilities of this.) If the water in vapor form were to condense to liquid
form it would be a cooling effect. This can be observed every time it rains, the temperatures fall.
Because for water to condense it requires cooling, Physics 101.
Deep bodies of water are cool at the bottom as the sunlight only heats the surface of the water. The heat of the sun does not reach the bottom,
Geology 101 & physics 101.
When things get cold they contract, Physics 101 & chemistry 101
Thus, If you cover the earth with a deluge of water from the sky the water will have a cooling effect. The lower portion of this water as it collected
to cover the earth would be cooler then the top. Physics 101
The rain most likely would be coming from clouds that would block the sunlight from heating the earth during the rain. Meteorology 101
This cooler water will cause the surface of the earth to cool as it insulates it from the heat of the sun in addition to it own cooling effect, in
addition to the pressure it would place directly on the lands of the earth as the barometric pressures were reduced by condensing waters leaving the
skies, Meteorology 101.
Therefore, it would cause the earth to contract from a reduced temperature. Because things contract when the temperature falls. Physics 101
If the surface of the earth contracts all at once it cracks (actually it increases the tectonic movement of the plates) just like the ice cube
dropping into cold water. But unlike the ice cube when the earth cracks open (or apart just like many ice cubes do as a result of thermal shock) hot
gases and molten lava is allowed to escape to relieve the pressures created from the contraction.
One volcano putting enough dust in the stratosphere to block out the sun for several months will of course lower the AVERAGE temperature, over time.
The active word here is “average” (the word you omitted before with your Toba reference was “average”, you change the meaning of the quote
when you misquote and omit words :bash: ) temperature because the dust (and acids) despite being up high in the stratosphere blocking the sun from
reaching the lower atmosphere and the surface of the earth, would not block out the sun everywhere on the planet. Some areas would still get
relatively the same amount of sunlight and it would happen over time (like a 2 to 3 year period), not all at once. It would be a slowly decreasing
average global temperature.
But numerous volcanoes producing a few thousand feet of hot water is heating things up, immediately. You do understand that lava is hot and that lava
is molten rock +750° Celsius. coming out of volcanic eruptions. Thousands of volcanoes blowing out through the floodwaters will not put immense
quantities of dust into the stratosphere! The dust would be lower, the CO2 would be rising up from the heat. The sulfur would be comining with the
water to produce sulfuric acid. Global volcanic eruptions putting 750° Celsius rock into the water. You should well understand that this will heat up
Even if the suns light is blocked out, that is irrelevant as in this scenario as all of the heat in the first 40 days is coming from the cataclysmic
amount of volcanic activity.
You should be inclined to believe NASA and USGS as they support exactly what I am saying. Volcanoes are hot. And the cooling you keep harping on is
long-term!! They don’t even study the short term as it is so blatantly obvious that volcanic eruptions are hot, but you need to study in order to
understand this fact!
Quote from NASA’s site
“When Kavachi’s lava reached the sea surface in 2002, the MODVOLC thermal alert system detected the emitted heat.”
Also from NASA’s site
“On June 22, 1989, the Wahaula Visitor Center in Hawaii was engulfed by a lava flow and burst into flames” You want to tell the people of Hawaii
that this was the result of the cooling effect of the volcano?
“A large body of magma, capped by a hydrothermal system (a zone of pressurized steam and hot water), still exists beneath the caldera.”
“The active volcanic vents along the spreading mid-ocean ridges create ideal environments for the circulation of fluids rich in minerals and for ore
deposition. Water as hot as 380 °C gushes out of geothermal springs along the spreading centers. The water has been heated during circulation by
contact with the hot volcanic rocks forming the ridge. Deep-sea hot springs containing an abundance of dark-colored ore minerals (sulfides) of iron,
copper, zinc, nickel, and other metals are called "black smokers."
“Geothermal energy can be harnessed from the Earth's natural heat associated with active volcanoes or geologically young inactive volcanoes still
giving off heat at depth. Steam from high-temperature geothermal fluids can be used to drive turbines and generate electrical power, while lower
temperature fluids provide hot water for space-heating purposes, heat for greenhouses and industrial uses, and hot or warm springs at resort spas. For
example, geothermal heat warms more than 70 percent of the homes in Iceland, and The Geysers geothermal field in Northern California produces enough
electricity to meet the power demands of San Francisco.”
In 1977, scientists discovered hot springs at a depth of 2.5 km, on the Galapagos Rift (spreading ridge) off the coast of Ecuador. This exciting
discovery was not really a surprise. Since the early 1970s, scientists had predicted that hot springs (geothermal vents) should be found at the active
spreading centers along the mid-oceanic ridges, where magma, at temperatures over 1,000 °C, presumably was being erupted to form new oceanic
The waters around these deep-ocean hot springs, which can be as hot as 380 °C, are home to a unique ecosystem.”
Again in the context of this board “The Flood Legend” which according the answersingenesis the flood was associated with significant amounts of
volcanic activity because as they are suggesting the water came from below as the result of a volcanic event. The also indicate that this happened in
40 days. An average global drop in temperature of 3 degrees does not happen in 40 days! Or a year. According to both NASA and USGS volcanoes are hot,
and underwater volcanoes can produce water that is hot, 380 °C. According the park rangers at Yellowstone Park the geysers are hot water as the
result of volcanic activity. If the globe was to be covered with a few thousand feet of hot steamy water for 40 straight days it would definitely be
“Analysis of over 200 volcanic rocks and pieces of debris, such as roof tiles, suggest that the ash cloud had a temperature of 850°C when emerging
from the mouth of Vesuvius. It had cooled to below 350°C by the time it reached the city. Most of the materials analyzed experienced temperatures
between 240°C and 340°C. A few areas showed lower temperatures of only 180°C. It is theorized that turbulence may have mixed cool air into the ash
cloud. (Cioni, et al., 2004)”
You might want to inform the Wikipedia the people of Pompeii actually died from the sudden 3 degree cooling effect of the volcano, not the pyroclastic
flow. You should let NASA and USGC know this as well.
“You’re in over you head”
Are you familiar with the term “the pot calling the kettle black”?
Have a misguided day
mod edit to tone down the rhetoric
[edit on 25-10-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]