On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:59:50 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[..]
[continued]
GM>"The Strait of Gibraltar is a recent morphological feature that cuts
>across the structures of the Gibraltar arc, who's similarity on both
>shorelines has recently been established. The differential movements
>between Iberia and Africa since the Jurassic probably did not occur at the
>present location of the Gibraltar strait, but such evidence should be
>looked for farther north or south.
Stanley shows just where these "differential movements between Iberia and
Africa" ocurred on pages 207 and 210 of his "Earth and Life Through
Time". The gap as it existed at the Cretaceous (ie. 65 mya) is where the
Pyrenees are now. But Stanley's maps of "20 million years ago" map at
page 606 shows it closed. And his maps of 6.0 mya and 5.5 mya show the
gap still closed.
GM>Likewise, communication between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic
>in the Messinian could have existed only farther north (Gudalquivir) or
>south (external Rif)." ~ B. Biju-Duval et al, "Geology of the
>Mediterranean Sea Basins, in Creighton A. Burk and Charles L. Drake,
>editors, The Geology of Continental Margins, (New York: Springer-
>Verlag, 1974), p. 704.
The site of "The differential movements between Iberia and Africa since the
Jurassic" and that of "communication between the Mediterranean and the
Atlantic in the Messinian" are two entirely different things.
Biju-Duval's chapter has a present-day geological map on page 697 which
shows these two straits about 100 kms north and south of the Strait of
Gibraltar, respectively. They are are also mentioned on page 717 as "a
North Betic Strait and/or a South Rif Strait":
"In these hypotheses, there is always a reference to communication with
the Atlantic (constant or partial inflow from a hypothetical strait of
Gibraltar). But it is noticed that communications could have existed more
or less with the Red Sea during the middle Miocene, easily with the
Euphrate Basin and Iran by the North Levantine area (Antakya Basin,
Maras Basin, etc.) all during Miocene time, and briefly with the Para-
Tethys by the Aegean Sea. On the other hand, it appears that the
communication with the Atlantic was not the present Strait of Gibraltar but
a North Betic Strait and/or a South Rif Strait." (Biju-Duval B., 1974,
p717)
Hsu mentions these as well as "two narrow straits, the Betic in southern
Spain and the Riphian in North Africa"
"We envisioned the Mediterranean 20 million years ago as a broad seaway
linking the Indian and the Atlantic oceans. With the collision of the African
and the Asiatic continents and the advent of mountain building in the
Middle East about 15 million years ago, the connection to the Indian Ocean
was severed. Meanwhile, the communication to the Atlantic was
maintained only by way of TWO NARROW STRAITS, the Betic in
southern Spain and the Riphian in North Africa." (Hsu K.J., "The
Mediterranean Was a Desert:," 1983, p170)
GM>What this means is that the channel through which the Atlantic waters
>re-filled the Mediterranean were not in the present site of the Strait of
>Gibraltar.
See above. It does *not* mean this at all. Glenn is confusing two different
things: 1. the site of "The differential movements between Iberia and Africa
since the Jurassic" ; and 2.. the "communication between the Mediterranean
and the Atlantic in the Messinian" by two narrow straits, the North Betic
Strait in southern Spain and the South Rif Strait in north Africa.
Calder explains that these two narrow straits were feeding the
Mediterranean with Atlantic water but eventually dried up due to the sea
level falling. Then when the sea level rose, the sea water broke through at
the current site of the Strait of Gibraltar:
"By about 6.6 million years ago, glaciations spread to southern America,
and a new ice sheet buried the islands of western Antarctica The amount of
ice in the world was increasing rapidly, and the ocean surface dropped
farther, by about forty meters. That fall contributed to unusual events in the
Mediterranean. A current flows continually from the Atlantic into the
Mediterranean, to replace the water lost by evaporation from that warm,
land-locked sea. The convergence of northern Africa and Spain threatened
to choke the passage from the Atlantic, and 6.3 million years ago, aided by
the falling sea level, A DAM CONSISTING OF THE SOUTHERNMOST
HILLS OF SPAIN cut off the water supply. Within a thousand years the
Mediterranean dried out, leaving deep holes in the Earth, spattered with
salt lakes that occupied the abyssal plains and trenches of the ocean floor,
two kilometers or more below sea level....As the sea evaporated, the
French Rhone, the Egyptian Nile, and other rivers feeding the chasm
became waterfalls that cut deep canyons. The greatest waterfalls were
salty, and occurred at the western end when the Atlantic spilled over the
dam, replenishing the Mediterranean That happened not once but many
times. Every twenty thousand years or so the basin filled and dried again,
until the deposits of salt became kilometers thick. Similar mishaps occurred
in other episodes during the abolition or creation of oceans elsewhere, but
this was unusually repetitive, and the world's oceans were losing significant
amounts of salt. THE ATLANTIC WATERFALL AT GIBRALTAR
finally excavated a channel deep enough to refill the Mediterranean
permanently 5.3 million years ago, and ring down the curtain on an oceanic
scandal." (Calder N., "Timescale An Atlas of the Fourth Dimension,"
Chatto & Windus: London, 1984, pp135-136)
GM>Now before you complain that I use the term Gibraltar, so do all
>geologists who study the Messinian desiccation of the Mediterranean.
Why should I "complain"? When they "use the term Gibraltar"they mean
*Gibraltar*!
GM>Secondly, if you had bothered to get the book, and study the
>original material rather than condensations from it
I have "bothered to get the book" from the State Library as well as the
"condensations from it" in Scientific American, and they both say the same
thing. Indeed, it would be strange if they did not, because Hsu wrote them
both!
GM>you would find that I QUOTE Hsu's value for the time he believes it
>took for the Mediterranean to fill 100 years.
Glenn appears to forget that when *I* quoted Hsu's estimate of "100
years" he *rejected* it:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 05 Aug 97 20:23:46 +0800, Stephen Jones wrote:
>SJ>Assuming the infilling took 100 years, this would be an average rise
>>of only 100 feet a year, or about 3 1/4 inches a day. If it took 1,000
>>years, it would be an average rise of only 10 feet a year, or about
>>1/3rd an inch per day. Either way, it wouldn't drown anyone.
>
>GM>No body really knows how long it took to fill. It could have
>>filled in a year if the break in the Gibraltar Dam was big enough.
>>Hsu says it was less than a 1000 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM>It is on p. 137.
I don't have a photocopy of page 137. But Hsu's estimate of 100 years is
also on page 170:
"When the dam broke, at the beginning of the Pliocene 5 million years ago,
seawater roared through the breach in a gigantic waterfall. Cascading at the
rate of about 40,000 cubic kilometers per year, the Gibraltar Falls were one
hundred times bigger than Victoria Falls and a thousand times grander than
Niagara. Even with such an impressive influx, it took more than ONE
HUNDRED YEARS to fill the empty Mediterranean. What a spectacle it
must have been!" (Hsu K.J., "The Mediterranean Was a Desert," 1983,
pp170-171. My emphasis.)
And its also in his Scientific American article:
"Even with such an impressive influx, MORE THAN 100 YEARS would
have been required to fill the empty bathtub." (Hsu K.J., "When the
Mediterranean Dried Up," Scientific American, Vol. 227, December 1972,
p33. My emphasis.)
Hsu says it took "more than 100 years" for the Mediterranean to fill from
the Gibraltar Falls, but for it to be the Biblical Flood it would have to fill in
150 days!
GM> But Hsu doesn't specify the size of the break he uses.
He doesn't have to. He repeatedly says it was a "dam" at "Gibraltar":
"I began to imagine GIBRALTAR's once being an isthmus that prevented
water from flowing between the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean
Sea. The landlocked sea would have begun to shrink as its waters
evaporated under the strong Mediterranean sun. With the increasing
salinity of its waters, all marine lives would have died out, except for some
dwarf species of clams and snails tolerant of very saline conditions. The
inland sea would have eventually changed into a big salt lake, like a Dead
Sea a hundred times magnified. The brine would have become dense
enough to precipitate gypsum, but the evaporation would have continued.
Finally, the Mediterranean bottom would have been laid bare...Finally,
seawater would have broken THE DAM AT GIBRALTAR and flooded
the Mediterranean basin. Where there had been a salt desert there would
have been again a deep blue sea. (Hsu K.J., "The Mediterranean Was a
Desert: A Voyage of the Glomar Challenger," Princeton University Press:
Princeton NJ, 1983, pp6-7. My emphasis.)
and
"The salinity of this rising sea must have been higher than normal, for
unlike the present situation, where heavy brines produced in the
Mediterranean by excess evaporation can find their way back to the
Atlantic through the Strait of Gibraltar, the latest Miocene GIBRALTAR
WAS THE SITE OF A HUGE WATERFALL, a one- way street. There
was no way for the heavy brines to flow back into the Atlantic. The salt
water grew more and more salty under the hot and sunny Mediterranean
sky so that only some dwarf microfaunas could survive. Those were the
last of the Miocene Mediterranean creatures. Suddenly, at the end of the
Miocene, the dam broke and the basin was quickly filled to the brim." (Hsu
K.J., "The Mediterranean Was a Desert," 1983, p116. My emphasis.)
and
"The isthmus of GIBRALTAR was the lone barrier between the desiccated
Mediterranean and the invading waters from the Atlantic. When THE
DAM broke, at the beginning of the Pliocene 5 million years ago, seawater
roared through the breach in a gigantic waterfall. Cascading at the rate of
about 40,000 cubic kilometers per year, THE GIBRALTAR FALLS were
one hundred times bigger than Victoria Falls and a thousand times grander
than Niagara. Even with such an impressive influx, it took more than one
hundred years to fill the empty Mediterranean. What a spectacle it must
have been!" (Hsu K.J., "The Mediterranean Was a Desert," 1983, p170.
My emphasis.)
Stanley also confirm that it was at Gibraltar:
"All of this happened between about 6 million years ago, when the eastern
passage to the Atlantic closed, and 5 million years ago, when the
Mediterranean basin refilled with deep water...Apparently, the
Mediterranean-Atlantic connection was reestablished when THE
NATURAL DAM AT GIBRALTAR was suddenly breached." (Stanley
S.M., 1989, p608. My emphasis.).
And Hsu indirectly specifies "the size of the break" by giving flow rates of
"40,000 cubic kilometers per year" or "10,000 cubic miles per year" and
comparing the Gibraltar Falls with Victoria Falls and Niagara Falls.
"Cascading at the rate of about 40,000 cubic kilometers per year, the
Gibraltar Falls were one hundred times bigger than Victoria Falls and a
thousand times grander than Niagara." (Hsu K.J., "The Mediterranean Was
a Desert," 1983, pp170-171)
"Cascading at a rate of 10,000 cubic miles per year, the Gibraltar falls
would have been 100 times bigger than Victoria Falls and 1,000 times more
so than Niagara. Even with such an impressive influx, more than 100 years
would have been required to fill the empty bathtub." (Hsu K.J., "When the
Mediterranean Dried Up," Scientific American, Vol. 227, December 1972,
p33. My emphasis.)
Using Hsu's comparisons, if it takes 100 times Victoria Falls and 1,000
times Niagara Falls to fill the Mediterranean in 100 years, then according to
my calculations, to fill the Mediterranean in only 150 days (in order to
comply with Gn 7:24- 8:3) would require 100 x 100 x 365/150 = 24,333
times Victoria Falls and 1000 x 100 x 365/150 = 243,333 times Niagara
Falls!
That is, it would have to flow at a rate of 10,000 x 100 x 365/150 =
2,433,333 cubic miles per year! That is 26,666.7 cubic miles per day, and
1,111.1 cubic miles per hour. Since, according to Glenn, water has never
been observed flowing faster than 20 miles per hour, there would have to
be a gap with a cross-section of 1,111.1/20 = 55.55 square miles flowing at
20 miles per hour. Since the Mediterranean is only about a mile deep, the
minimum width would have to be 55.55 miles wide. But there is no
evidence that either Gibraltar or the other two straits were anything like
that. Both Hsu and Stanley's maps show Gibraltar as roughly the same size
as it is now. And Hsu refers to the other two straits as "narrow":
"Meanwhile, the communication to the Atlantic was maintained only by
way of TWO NARROW STRAITS, the Betic in southern Spain and the
Riphian in North Africa." (Hsu K.J., "The Mediterranean Was a Desert:,"
1983, p170)
>SJ>I can't remember seeing Glenn's reply before I unsubscribed and
>>AFAIK he has not raised his 5.5 mya Mediterranean Flood theory since
>>then, so I assumed he had either admitted it was false after I
>unsubscribed, or had quietly abandondoned.
GM>Stephen, you have presented bad mathematics and bad geology and
>you expect me to abandon my view to that?
I agree that I used "bad mathematics" (although the correct figure of 114.1
cubic miles an hour" was there in my original post).
But Glenn has not shown I used "bad geology". I have referred to the
Scientific American article and book by Hsu cited by Glenn in his web
page. Also I have used a major 1989 geology text by Steven Stanley, one
of the world's leading geologists, as well as a book by Nigel Calder, a
former Editor of New Scientist.
GM>Sorry. You will have to do much better than flawed mathematics and
>geology to get me to abandon my views.
Actually I neither require (nor even expect) Glenn to abandon his views.
Laudan's quote above has helped me to see that I should "not care whether
the scientist who invented the theory is prepared to change his mind" or
"because he refuses to accept the results of the test." (Laudan L., in Ruse
M., ed., 1996, p365).
GM>>Anyone could do it if they can prove that the Mediterranean wasn't
>dry. Here is the calculation of the re-fill time.
I don't understand Glenn's point here. Hsu, in the very references Glenn
cites on his web page proved that "the Mediterranean" *was* "dry".
GM>The present Mediterranean has a volume of 3.7 million cubic
>(kilometers. See K. Hsu et al, "The Origin of the Mediterranean
>Evaporites, in W. B. F. Ryan K. J. Hsu et al, Initial Reports of the Deep
>Sea Drilling Project, Vol. 13, U. S. Govt. Printing Office 1973pp 1203-
>1231, p. 1214; and A. Debenedetti, "the Problem of the Origin of the Salt
>Deposits in the Mediterranean and of Their Relations to the Other Salt
>Occurrences in the Neogene Formations of the Contiguous Regions,"
>Marine Geology 49(1982):91-114, p. 95.)
>
>As a waterfall cuts through a channel, it undermines itself (this is seen
>at the present Niagara falls.
>
>water->
>----- |
>....| V
>...|
>..|
>.| <---weak point
>._____________
>
>If the left edge of the screen represents the Atlantic ocean, when the
>weak point breaks, a deep hole is created. How deep was the channel?
>We know from Sicily, that the evaporites are overlain by deep water
>shales containing Atlantic animals that could only live in waters deeper
>than 3000 feet or 1 km.
>
>In order to calculate how long it took the Mediterranean to fill one must
>determine a reasonable depth and width for the channel. The only real
>information concerns the depth of the channel.
>
>"These earliest Pliocene strata contain a benthic ostracod fauna, which
>could only live in ocean bottom below 1,000 m. The associated benthonic
>Foraminifera are likewise indicative of a deep marine environment of
>deposition. The fact that of the deep-swimming planktonic genus
>Spheroidinellopsis is the dominant (up to 90%) microfauna lends further
>credence to the concept of a deep Mediterranean in the earliest Pliocene."
>~ K. J. Hsu, W. B. F. Ryan and M. B. Cita, "Late Miocene Desiccation of
the >Mediterranean," Nature, 242, March 23, 1973, p. 240
>
>Is this reasonable? I believe it is.
Hsu is talking about the "ocean bottom", not the "channel" through which
the water re-entered the Mediterranean. He says quite clearly that the
"Strait of Gibraltar" was the "channel":
"One can picture the desiccated Mediterranean as a giant bathtub, with
THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR as the faucet. Seawater roared in from
the Atlantic through the strait in a gigantic waterfall. If the falls had
delivered 1,000 cubic miles of seawater per year (equivalent to 30 million
gallons per second, 10 times the discharge of Victoria Falls), the volume
would not have been sufficient to replace the evaporative loss. In order to
keep the infilling sea from getting too salty for even such a hardy
microfauna as the one found in the dark gray marl the influx would have
had to exceed evaporation by a factor of 10. Cascading at a rate of 10,000
cubic miles per year, THE GIBRALTAR FALLS would have been 100
times bigger than Victoria Falls and 1,000 times more so than Niagara.
Even with such an impressive influx, more than 100 years would have been
required to fill the empty bathtub." (Hsu K.J., "When the Mediterranean
Dried Up," Scientific American, Vol. 227, December 1972, p33. My
emphasis.)
GM> So, given a channel in the region of the break with the dimensions:
>1 km deep x 25 km wide(15 miles)
According to Hsu and Stanley's maps there was *no* "channel in the
region of the break with the dimensions: 1 km deep x 25 km wide" 5.5
mya. The *only* "channel in the region" that Hsu and Stanley show on
their maps is the present-day Strait of Gibraltar, which they show as about
its present size.
See above. Using Hsu's estimates, the channel would have to be more than
*twice* this size.
But I challenge Glenn to produce *hard geological evidence* of a gap a
channel in the region of the break with the dimensions "1 km deep x 25 km
wide."
GM> moving at 24 km/hr (15 mph-the speed of the Johnstown flood) we
>have:
>
>24 km/hr x 24 hours/day x 25 km^2= 14400 cubic kilometers per day.
>
>Thus,
>
>3.7 x 10^6 cubic km/ 14400 cubic km/day = 257 days or 8.5 months.
Even this is not good enough. The Biblical Flood lasted only 150 days! (Gn
7:24-8:3).
GM>Now, the question comes up, did the old Mediterranean have a
>volume of 3.7 cubic km of water? There is some evidence that when the
>water was removed, that the isostatic rebound actually made the
>seabottom shallower which would mean that the basin would fill more
>quickly than I calculated above or that it could fill in a year with a smaller
>channel. Here is that information,
>
>"During the Messinian Stage (5.5 Myr, Miocene/Pliiocene boundary) the
>4.2 x 10^23 m^3 of water that now fills the Mediterranean evaporated.
>Evidence for this includes palaeogorges 1 km below the present Nile and
>Rhone valleys and evaporite depostis, sampled by cores and deep-sea
>drilling, that are thicker than 1 km over much of the Mediterranean. Two-
>dimensional flexure models, presented here, indicate that the regionally
>compensated crustal upwarping from removal of the seawater load would
>lead to a Messinian geomorphology with an uplifted Mediterranean basin
>and shoreline buldges along its northwestern and southeastern coasts.
>These shoreline bulges would cause a reversal of downhil gradient
>direction in areas with low original seaward slopes.Such a profile would
>lead to a landward reversal of drainage in rivers with low discharge."
>Sonya E. Norman and Clement G. Chase, "Uplift of the Shores of the
>Western Mediterranean Due to Messinian Desiccation and Flexural
>Isostacy," Nature 322(1986), p. 450
>
>The weight of the new water would slowly deepen the Mediterranean sea
>over a few centuries. The immediate and noticeable refill could easily take
>a short time.
The above quote just says that when the Mediterranean dried up the basin
uplifted. It does not say that when the basin refilled that it did not resume
its original capacity.
>SJ>it. The Archive wasbroken until recently and when I last checked it
>>had August 1997 missing. However, it now appears that Glenn still
>>believes in his 5.5 mya Mediterranean Flood.
GM>Yes I do. Your arguments have not been convincing.
See Laudan's point above about "distinguishing beliefs from believers." I
now "do not care whether the scientist who invented the theory is prepared
to change his mind." (Laudan L., in Ruse M., ed., "But is it Science?"
1996, p366).
Indeed wonder what "arguments" against his theory Glenn *would*
find "convincing"?
GM>Not only can the Mediterranean fill in the time suggested by the
>Bible, it could fill even more rapidly if certain assumptions were made.
Yes. One can always make "certain assumptions" that would save *any*
theory!
The whole point of Glenn's 5.5 mya Mediterranean Flood theory was it was
supposed to be superior to the global and local Flood theories which had
trouble finding geological evidence to support their claims. But now after
all the Biblical and anthropological disadvantages of making Noah an
Australopithecine (or Homo habilis) and moving the Flood thousands of
miles away from where the Bible indicates it was, Glenn's theory turns out
to have as many geological problems as those theories he criticised!
Glenn's 5.5 mya Mediterranean Flood theory already suffered from serious
(if not fatal) Biblical and anthropological difficulties. Now it is evident it
also suffers from major geological difficulties as well. Unless Glenn can
come up with hard, positiive evidence of a huge "channel" that existed 5.5
mya between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, then his 5.5 mya
Mediterranean Flood theory must be rejected.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------