[1-1] The Former Supercontinent
© Lloyd

Charles Chandler finds at Remelted Crusts that the Earth's supercontinent and oceans likely came from a large asteroid soft impact.

Mike Fischer also finds at http://newgeology.us/presentation44.html that asteroid impacts formed the supercontinent and the Moon.

[1-1] The Former Supercontinent
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Postby webolife» Sun Dec 13, 2015 6:02 pm
- Is this confusing Earth with Paradise in the Sky?
- Didn't continental drift occur centuries after the Flood to cause the Ice Age?
... Old Earth creationism ... accepts the big bang, radiometric dating, the flood as a local [mid east] event; and among other things regarding Adam, argues that all hominids [incl. Neanderthals] except Homo sapiens sapiens were not human.
... Genesis chaps. 1 - 4 to indicate several key things about the early [pre-flood] earth:
- 1. Low topography — the main rivers proceeded from a single stream and separated, like a delta, as a opposed to merging tributaries in a watershed; Psalm 104 [lit: "the mountains they go up, the valleys they go down"] also adds that the boundary mountain ranges went up after the flood, making a barrier against a future catastrophic flood.
- 2. Single land mass is implied by the reference to a single ocean.
- 3. Warm climate worldwide — no seasonal weather until after the flood, primordial seasons based on astronomy
- 4. No matar, and no rain — the initiating factors of the flood were not in effect, suggesting a greenhouse climate.
- 5. Humans and all animals were contemporary.
- 6. Several factors [eg. atmospheric] contributed to longevity of lifespans for all organisms, incl people.
- The sending of the matar initiated the flood event. - For the mountains to have risen, as they were witnessed to have done at the end of the flood [second half of the flood year], what we understand as continental drift must have occurred during the first half. Running the tape backwards, so to speak, the "fountains of the deep" [now mid-ocean rifts] would have been faults originally through the middle of the one-land mass. So the fountains indicate the beginning of the crustal displacement and seafloor spreading which cascaded into all of the other factors of the flood, ending in the boundary mountains and subsequent formation of volcanic chains and island arcs.
- Therefore, in catastrophic flood geology the sedimentary strata belong to the flood era, not before [except the variously metamorphosed Pre-Cambrian groupings], and only some following. These later deposits would have been in conjunction with the melt-back of the glaciers and rising sea levels in the few centuries following the flood. There is no macro-evolution in this picture, and all the fossils are a result of the flooding, as their sedimentary resting places affirm.
- So the SD events [if accepted] must have been in conjunction with the early flood era, not an event of centuries later.
- I don't really care if the matar resulted from the earth's passage through the asteroid belt, or if the asteroid belt resulted from some interplanetary event that coincided with the bombardment of earth, or if it was Venus, Mars or some other large planetoid that interacted with the Earth. The least exotic view seems to be a single body passing by and interacting for a time [a la Velikovsky] with the earth. I think the evidence is sparse for most versions of what caused the bombardment, so I base my timelines on the evidence left behind. There are major astroblemes associated with every major sedimentary stratum [what the standard modelers think of as epochs], so I take it also as a plain reading of the biblical record that the start and stop of the matar bookend the first 150 days of the flood event, and this further supports that the "geologic column" resides in that time frame.
- Post-flood results:
1. Mountainous topography, resulting from the drift event of the flood
2. Separated continents
3. Seasonal weather, from the "new" tilt of the earth, multiple climates world- wide, and a global wind system that was not in effect during the early greenhouse — also a gradual global warming trend following the glaciation
4. Rain as a regular event
5. Humans and animals preserved and speciated from the few survivors of the flood event (another thread topic)
6. Decreasing longevity over the centuries

====================postby Lloyd » Thu May 05, 2016 7:09 am
- Grey Cloud at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php? f=10&t=16207&p=113289#p113289 denied catastrophism and said "Many, if not most, of the myths relating to stars etc are conveying information about navigation rather than catastrophe". I'm not familiar with star myths, but most myths were about the planets, Saturn, Venus and Mars, I believe, and they were often about catastrophes. Here's some background.
- Catastrophism and Anthropology
[SIS C&C Review] 5 Mar 2003
[url]http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/search.cgi?zoom_query=%22Both+historians +and+anthropologists+were%22&zoom_per_page=25&zoom_and=1&zoom_cat[]=-1[/url]
From: SIS Chronology& Catastrophism Review (1994) "Proceedings of the 1993 Cambridge Conference" Issue Contents Catastrophism and Anthropology - The Influence of Neo-Catastrophism on the Interpretation of Flood Rituals and Ceremonies Benny Josef Peiser School of Human Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University
- Introduction
- Only 150 years ago, most of Europe's leading scholars were convinced that the ancient flood traditions and festivals originated from natural catastrophes that had occurred during man's early history. Both historians and anthropologists were able to point to a rich variety of catastrophe legends found throughout the world. For more than 2500 years these ancient traditions were generally viewed as historical. Not only did all the famous scholars of antiquity write about these natural disasters but, moreover, during the 18th and 19th century the newly established science of geology gave rise to findings and strata which clearly seemed to testify to major natural upheavals. As a consequence, scientists of Europe's enlightenment (among others Vico, Boulanger, Whiston, Cuvier) related the origins of ancient customs and rituals to these past cataclysms. Vico and Boulanger accepted the ancient belief that the Earth had undergone many natural disasters and that from these global upheavals all institutions and religious ceremonies were derived.
- Yet, with the emergence of 19th century evolutionary gradualism, all fields of science banned catastrophe theories completely from universities, research and scientific journals. Over and over again, historians and anthropologists rejected any historical reading of the ancient catastrophe legends and rituals by reference to the works of Darwin and Lyell [1. When Frazer published his comprehensive study on the worldwide story of the great flood, he stressed the paradigmatic importance of Darwin's theory of evolution, consequently rejecting every possibility that the tradition originated from historical events [2. According to Frazer's biographer, the implicit purpose of this rejection was 'to undermine the Bible and religion by insisting on its folkloric stratum, thereby associating it with savagery' [3. Since then, 20th century anthropology has tended to view the ancient flood traditions as mere reflections of 'mythical' thinking, whereas catastrophe rituals and festivals are almost totally ignored [4. As a result, anthropological studies which have focused on the relationship between religious ceremonies and catastrophe rituals and traditions of natural disasters are very rare. Despite the fact that research in the field of rituals has quickened its pace over the course of this century, ceremonies which re-enacted or commemorated natural catastrophes have been paid relatively little attention [5. In the light of new astronomical discoveries and the emergence of scientific neo-catastrophism, it is necessary to re-evaluate the historicity and the possible effects of the ancient flood catastrophes. Since astronomy, geology and biology have finally accepted the catastrophic history of planet Earth and its inhabitants, it is time for anthropologists to recognise the findings of natural science and to adopt them in their research.
- Collective reactions to natural catastrophes
- Natural catastrophes do not necessarily lead to collective responses in form of catastrophe games or rituals. In many cases, the scope of the disaster is limited and the disaster agent is clearly identified. However, if a natural catastrophe results in extreme devastation and destruction, or if the agent of destruction is unknown, the disaster can prove to be a traumatic experience which triggers post- disaster collective reactions. These activities stem from the desire of communities struck by catastrophe to influence and pacify the agents of destruction. Furthermore, expressive (and in most cases violent) responses are triggered by collective anger and tension following traumatic catastrophes. To avoid internal violence and civil strife, the growing aggression within a community of survivors has to be acted out in a structured, organised and generally accepted (i.e. ritualised) form. It was particularly conspicuous in antiquity that many catastrophe games and festivals took place either to commemorate foregone catastrophes or to avoid future disasters. Although there is considerable overlap, these games and festivals can be classified into three different categories: i) festivals, which were held in commemoration of a foregone disaster; ii) playful rituals, with an apotropaic function of hindering future natural catastrophes; iii) games, which dramatised and re-enacted a natural catastrophe. Most of these ceremonies were held in the form of combats, blood sacrifices and religious rituals or, alternatively, through mimetic dramatisation of the catastrophe. Right from the very start they had the supposed function of pacifying natural forces and of hindering an apocalyptic end of the world.

=========================Postby Lloyd » Mon Nov 23, 2015 12:13 pm
- Catastrophism Topics
At the end of my previous post I listed Catastrophism topics, which are meant to be chronologically sequential, like this:
1. Pre-Flood Supercontinent > 2. Saturn Flare > 3. Civilization > 4. Asteroid Bombardment > 5. Continental Drift > 6. Flood > 7. Fossils > 8. Mountain Uplift > 9. Erosion > 10. Glaciation
#1-#3 apparently occurred at least 1,000 years before the main cataclysm. #4-#9 occurred during the main cataclysm about 4,350 years ago. #10 started soon after the cataclysm and lasted a few hundred years. Here is a comparison between GW's and CC's models for the origin of the Supercontinent.
__Topic #1: The Supercontinent
-ANISOTROPY: On a primordial mostly molten earth, anisotropy predisposes one side of the earth to melt or erupt more basaltic lava
-this becomes the early Pacific basin.
-PLANETARY ENCOUNTER: An early close tidal encounter with the Moon [or other astronomical body] facilitated this eruptive phase.
-major bombardment would have not yet occurred
-REBOUND: The accompanying release of pressure initiates an opposite side upheaval,
-evidenced by basement continental rocks having a composition similar to the mantle materials, eg. granites,
-which have undergone pressure-induced metamorphism during the uplift process.
-EARTH ROTATION: Stabilization of the earth's ~24 hr rotation would have occurred at this time.
-PRECAMBRIAN: Washing over of this basement continental mass by the seas during uplift covers the basement material with sedimentary Pre-Cambrian strata,
-as well as some primordial continental slope canyons/coastal valleys
-which would predispose additional deposition events around the edges of the supercontinent.
-UPLIFT: The accumulation of overburden keeps in motion the [isostatic] uplift of the supercontinent to its pre-cataclysm level
-3 km above the average surface level,
-with a continental root extending down a few dozen kilometers.
-Natural uplifted "cells" [cratons] at this point joined together [the "ur" supercontinent]
-acquire potential energy under the pressure of isostasy,
-and will later become the drifting plates catalyzed into motion by bombardment of the "matar".
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-56 ... 6199-15407
[LK Summary?: ProtoMoon was tidally extended; part of it soft-landed on Earth as the supercontinent. The remainder went into orbit as the Moon.]
-PROTOMOON GRANITE: Somewhat more telling of an impact is the fact that the Moon is made of granite, and so is the Earth's continental crust,
-but the rest of the Earth (i.e., the oceanic crust, and everything below) is fundamentally different stuff
— most notably of greater density, which is what allows the continents to float on the mantle and extend above sea level.
-The granite could not have been indigenous to the Earth,
-because if it was, it would have bubbled up to the surface when the Earth was entirely molten,
-and it would have leveled quickly under the force of gravity — as fast as irregularities in the surface of a lava lake disappear
— producing a very thin, very flat layer completely covering the heavier basalt.
-So the continental granite had to arrive later, after the Earth had cooled.
-And the impact had to be gentle enough not to completely re-melt the Earth.
-FLATTENED SUPERCONTINENT: Thereafter, the granite slowly pancaked into the original super-continent of Pangaea,
-which then rifted into the modern continents, under the force of gravity.
-(This disregards hypotheses concerning earlier supercontinents, such as Rodinia andColumbia, for lack of a force that could recombine the fragments.)
-The arc-like shape of Pangaea is atypical of collisional deposits
— perhaps the collider was spinning, and matter was scraped off of the collider where the rotation caused submersion.
-SIZE COMPARISON: The volume of the Moon is 2.20 × 10^10 km3, while the volume of the continents is 7.58 × 10^9 km3.1
-So Theia would have had a volume of 2.95 × 10^10 km3, and it would have lost 26% of its volume to the Earth, while retaining 74% for itself [the Moon].

← PREV Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite
© 2010~2021 SCS-INC.US