Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for and against Flood theories
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 61 of 112 (173874)
01-04-2005 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by TheLiteralist
01-04-2005 6:42 PM


Re: Another Bump
Cool. It is just hard to know when the conversation is over in a forum when the other person just stops posting. Thanks for the closure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-04-2005 6:42 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 112 (173876)
01-04-2005 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Coragyps
12-20-2004 8:42 PM


Carbon Dioxide from Limestone formation
Coragyps,
This is an interesting topic. I have only the most rudimentary knowledge of Chemistry, unfortunately.
It would be interesting to me to see chemists/geologists from the creationists' side attempt to propose not only sources of the massive amounts of limestone (Walt Brown proposes that it was under the original surface of the earth before the Flood--I am unfamiliar with other opinions) but also how the CO2 might have been dealt with.
However, one must remember, that from a Christian's point of view, the Flood is a supernatural event. Actually, personally, I see even everyday laws (like gravity) to be the result of God in action. But in the case of the Flood, He was doing something unusual.
Would the CO2 make the atmosphere permanently unbreatheable? If not, then, keep in mind God's stated purpose was to destroy the earth. In this case, He would need only to protect those on the Ark. If the CO2 would make the atmosphere unbreatheable permanently then it would seem reasonable that God simply "took care of it" (even if eventually it turns out there is a perfectly logical explanation for where all the CO2 went.) {Oops. Left the last parenthesis off. Fixed by edit.}
I would never think of overlooking the supernatural aspect of the Flood (or any other part of life). I am contending only that the Flood left geological evidence of its occurence--i.e., that the majority of the fossils/sedimentary layers are due to the event. I am not contending that the event was purely natural from start to finish. {Well, since I'm editing, I reworded this last paragraph a bit to make it sound a little better.}
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-04-2005 19:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Coragyps, posted 12-20-2004 8:42 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by TrueCreation, posted 01-04-2005 7:40 PM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 65 by NosyNed, posted 01-04-2005 8:08 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 112 (173881)
01-04-2005 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by TheLiteralist
01-04-2005 7:25 PM


Re: Carbon Dioxide from Limestone formation
Because of the reality of Coragyps mathematical analysis, the genesis flood requires redistribution, not dissolution of limestone during the event. I currently do not know of a sufficient mechanism of redistribution.
Also, TheLiteralist, I believe that you are right that to some extent the event must have been supernatural (if not, then given enough time, it may very well happen again--but it won't). However, I believe that if God did not disregard current scientific advancement, he would not have made it some 'Goddidit' scenario. Science requires theories to be potentially falsifiable. If God had triggered the supposed event via accelerated radioisotopic decay, for example, that triggering mechanism needs to be potentially falsifiable.
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-04-2005 19:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-04-2005 7:25 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 64 of 112 (173885)
01-04-2005 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by TheLiteralist
01-04-2005 6:56 PM


Re: Fossilization Mechanisms
Try here:
http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/Taphonomy.htm
The term you want is "taphonomy" if you google that you will get a lot m ore than you wanted to know about fossilization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-04-2005 6:56 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 65 of 112 (173889)
01-04-2005 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by TheLiteralist
01-04-2005 7:25 PM


Supernatural Ah..
However, one must remember, that from a Christian's point of view, the Flood is a supernatural event. Actually, personally, I see even everyday laws (like gravity) to be the result of God in action. But in the case of the Flood, He was doing something unusual.
And that is all we want. If something beyond science is brought in as an explanation then we have stripped the "science" off the term creation-science.
Most of us aren't arguing about religious beliefs (though you may not see that easily). We are arguing about trying to put them in the science classroom. If you admit that it isn't science then there is no reason to fight about it. Your right to believe what you want is something most of us support rather strongly.
What we do not support is the dishonest attempt that some make to pretend that there is any form of "science" that can support these beliefs and against those who wish to disrupt the classroom with their lies.
btw:
I find you attitude as refreshing as it is unusual. You actually understand that you don't know something.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-04-2005 20:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-04-2005 7:25 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 66 of 112 (173918)
01-04-2005 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Coragyps
12-20-2004 8:42 PM


Re: sorting & biomass
Back after a week almost away from a computer.....
I missed you folk almost as much as I missed my addiction to these boards.
I reconstructed my calculation on Noah's Limestone. These starting numbers came from either the 'net or from chemical handbooks like the CRC Handbook - I could Google up links again, but I'm too lazy tonight.
Mass of current atmosphere of Earth: 5.1 x 10^18 kg
Carbon dioxide content of same: 370 parts per million by volume, equivalent to 560 ppm by weight
Current mass of carbon dioxide in atmosphere: 2.9 x 10^15 kg
Mass of Earth's crust: 2.6 x 10^22 kg
Carbonate rock content of crust: 1.5% by weight = 3.9 x 10^20 kg if assumed to be all calcium carbonate (CaCO3)
The equation for calcium carbonate forming from water solution is
Ca(+2) + 2 HCO3(-) ---> CaCO3 + H2O + CO2
which tells us that for every 100 grams (one mole) of limestone produced, 44 grams of carbon dioxide is given off.
Now let us assume that a modest 10% of the limestone on Earth is from a one-year Flud event. That would be 3.9 x 10^19 kilograms of rock, with 44% of that - 1.7 x 10^19 kg - of carbon dioxide released. That's almost 6000 times the amount of CO2 that's in our (post-industrial!) atmosphere now, and 2.3 times as much as our entire atmosphere weighs now. So the Flud Year atmosphere would have an atmospheric pressure of about 50 psi, compared to 14.7 now. It would be about 70% carbon dioxide, and the oxygen content would be diluted from our 21% back to about 6.4%.
Today, plenty of carbon dioxide gets pumped into the atmosphere from lots of sources - animals breathing, SUVs driving, forests burning - but plants scrub lots of it back out through photosynthesis. The plant and cyanobacterium community, however, can't quite keep up with the modest 6 x 10^12 kilograms we humans contribute yearly. The one-year Flud contribution calculated above is about 3,000,000 times that much. It would be tough for olive trees below at least 15 cubits of muddy water to photosynthesize that much CO2 away. Particularly in a rainstorm.
I realize that this whole scenario ignores the huge amount of carbon dioxide dissolved (as bicarbonate ion, mostly) in the oceans. There's maybe 50 times as much in that form as in the gaseous state where we breathe it. But even that is insignificant compared to the 6000-fold increase shown above - and that, remember, is assuming that only 10% of our carbonate rocks were "Flood deposits."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Coragyps, posted 12-20-2004 8:42 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 67 of 112 (175581)
01-10-2005 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by coffee_addict
11-29-2004 12:46 PM


Bump
I don't believe I have ever heard any creo explain about the point I brought up in Message 10.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by coffee_addict, posted 11-29-2004 12:46 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by TrueCreation, posted 01-11-2005 1:14 AM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 71 by coffee_addict, posted 01-11-2005 4:03 AM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 74 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-11-2005 9:13 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 112 (175710)
01-11-2005 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by coffee_addict
01-10-2005 5:09 PM


Re: Bump
Seashells on mountain tops are not evidence for a young earth or catastrophe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by coffee_addict, posted 01-10-2005 5:09 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by NosyNed, posted 01-11-2005 1:20 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 69 of 112 (175711)
01-11-2005 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by TrueCreation
01-11-2005 1:14 AM


SeaShells on Mountain Tops
Seashells on mountain tops are not evidence for a young earth or catastrophe.
Oh, they could be. But not the seashells we actually see in the mountains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by TrueCreation, posted 01-11-2005 1:14 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by TrueCreation, posted 01-11-2005 1:25 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 73 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-11-2005 9:02 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 112 (175712)
01-11-2005 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by NosyNed
01-11-2005 1:20 AM


Re: SeaShells on Mountain Tops
quote:
Seashells on mountain tops are not evidence for a young earth or catastrophe.
Oh, they could be. But not the seashells we actually see in the mountains.
--Oh, I don't think even those seashells are evidence of a catastrophic global flood

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NosyNed, posted 01-11-2005 1:20 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 71 of 112 (175736)
01-11-2005 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by coffee_addict
01-10-2005 5:09 PM


Re: Bump
Lam, if there was a great global flood, it would have meant a great deal of storms on a global proportion accompanied by giant waves with tremendous energy sweeping through everything.
If water do truly stay evenly flat all the time everywhere, there would be no such thing as tsunami.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by coffee_addict, posted 01-10-2005 5:09 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 112 (176004)
01-11-2005 8:58 PM


Huh?
Who wrote the last post? It has Lam's pic, but it is also addressed to Lam and is contradictory to most of Lam's views?
Just curious.
I probably agree with the writer, to some degree, whoever it is, but this seems strange.
--TheLiteralist
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-11-2005 21:16 AM

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 112 (176005)
01-11-2005 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by NosyNed
01-11-2005 1:20 AM


Re: SeaShells on Mountain Tops
Ned (and TrueCreation),
Why are the seashells on mountain tops (the ones that we actually see) not evidence of a global flood?
--TheLiteralist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NosyNed, posted 01-11-2005 1:20 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Loudmouth, posted 01-11-2005 9:25 PM TheLiteralist has replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 112 (176010)
01-11-2005 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by coffee_addict
01-10-2005 5:09 PM


You Answer Your Own Questions???
Hi Lam,
Well, it looks like you've answered your own question. Apparently you have been really affected by my great posts on these subjects.
See Message 71
Good point about the tsunami, Lam, and the general feeling is that the Flood would have been similar but many times worse than any of the catastrophes we see happening today.
Another thing to consider is that the water is said to have covered everything...also, it is thought that the mountains were formed during the final stages of the Flood. In other words, the waters were never as high as Mt Everest, but Mt Everest didn't exist until sometime after the Flood started receding. {added by edit: but whether Mt Everest forms as a result of the Flood or the Flood simply covered Mt. Everest--either way, water once covered Mt. Everest.--I never really got your point in Message 10--Creationists do not propose that water stays hilly like that, so far as I know.}
But as has been demonstrated in other threads, I don't know enough about geology (okay, I know almost nothing about geology) to back up such claims to even a small degree.
But since you seem to have this new view...I thought you'd be interested in these thoughts.
--TheLiteralist
PS...my links aren't working correctly now...that's supposed to be Message 71 and Message 10 in THIS thread.
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-11-2005 21:22 AM
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-11-2005 21:37 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by coffee_addict, posted 01-10-2005 5:09 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 112 (176016)
01-11-2005 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by TheLiteralist
01-11-2005 9:02 PM


Re: SeaShells on Mountain Tops
quote:
Why are the seashells on mountain tops (the ones that we actually see) not evidence of a global flood?
Because of the fossils origin. The fossils found loose on mountaintops are actually caused by erosion. The fossils originate IN THE MOUNTAIN, in large deposits of limestone. As the limestone erodes the fossils are dropped onto the ground. Mt. Everest, for example, is made up of large sections of limestone. These limestone sections are full of fossils. So not only are there fossils ON Mt. Everest, but there are fossils in the MIDDLE of Mt. Everest. If there were loose sea shells above any layer containing marine fossils on any tall mountain you may have an argument.
Another interesting situation is found in the area I live in. The Snake River used to be a lot higher than it is now. Because of this you can find fish fossils on top of the bluffs surrounding the Snake River. A few buttes are actually called "Fossil Butte". Buttes with this name are kind of like Elm Street, you find one every twenty miles or so. However, the rise in water level needed to cover these Buttes is not adequate to cover the entire Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-11-2005 9:02 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-11-2005 9:29 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024