Where did the flood waters come from and where did they go?

quote:

---

This bothered me, too, for more than just the reasons you cite. Not only is it an extraordinary claim, but TC is being much less than forthright because he knows precisely what the problems are with known physics because they've been pointed out to him here many times. Rather than jumping right in and saying, "Here's how the energy problem is addressed, here's how the acceleration/deceleration issues are addressed, here's how the heat problem is addressed," and so forth, he stonewalls.

---

I've been suspended from the forum twice now--I am trying not to get suspended again by contributing off-topic thoughts to the discussion or something related. Of course im not going to use that as some kind of all encompassing 'excuse'. I have addressed several of the issues in this thread and some of them have not received further consideration. Post 64 for instance briefly touches on why baumgardner's parameters are not outrageous--which is a criticism which has been made in this thread and in many others for as long as I can remember. I don't know what energy problem you are refering to. Someone made a criticism about some 'friction' component and 'acceleration and deceleration' of plate movement somehow being a problem. I asked for elaboration but did not receive it and so I don't know how to respond.I have addressed the 'heat problem' in several different contexts ([1]radiogenic heat, [2]the release of gravitational potential energy in the form of heat, and [3]heat from the cooling oceanic lithosphere). I believe I have explained that radiogenic heat continues to be a damning problem for young earth geology which I have nothing more than some wild speculations to offer. The heat produced as a direct result of the runaway process (gravitational potential energy) has been covered and I don't know why people continue to use it against CPT. The third source of heat being the oceanic lithosphere itself has been discussed to some extent--the hypothesis that have been offered I find fairly good, albeit merely theoretical.

quote:

---

But I have another reason for replying, and that's because there may be an aspect of TC's preferred scenario that's relevant to this thread. It depends upon his position about the 40 days and 40 nights of rain. TB believes there needs to be a source for the rain (once again the Bible invades TB's science, since there's no possible way any evidence could indicate the number of days of consecutive rain 4000 years ago). If TC also believes this 40 day rain occurred, then both he and TB need at least these two things:

​

Evidence of 40 days and nights of rain.

​

An explanation for where the water for 40 consecutive days and nights of rain world-wide could come from.

---

I have no conclusive thoughts about the 40 days of rain. It may have been merely that in the initial phase of CPT, rain was more intense than subsequent rain. I can't really pinpoint why, and don't really care that much as I don't consider it a source of water to have contributed to sealevel.-Chris Grose

quote:

---

But this does bring your scenario into the thread's topic. While revelatory evidence like the Bible isn't permitted in the science forums, we can at least acknowledge that it is the Bible that is the source of the idea that the flood was caused by rain and by waters from the deep. So even though you believe the contribution of rain to the flood wasn't significant, it still seems to have a degree of relevance to this thread.

---

--I don't think that genesis says that the 'flood' was caused by rain or anything else really--it never really makes any assertion about what is actually responsible for the event. It only points out observations such as "fountains of the deep" and rain.

quote:

---

Is there any scientific evidence that leads you to believe there was rain during CPT?

---

I am sure you are aware of the copious instances of rain drop impressions in sediments throughout the geologic record.-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-01-2005 03:25 AM

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

Okay, but I'm still confused. Not an unusual state for an old mind.

​

This rise around oceanic ridges still puzzles me. If the land at the mid oceanic ridge suddenly rises, is it necessary to create additional material to become the higher ridge?

​

If I have a sheet of paper and want to change it from a flat plane to a peaked plane, I find that the outer edges have moved closer together.

---

Would you like to reitterate your question in the new CPT thread? I would be happy to explain these processes to you further.-Chris Grose

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.