Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Where did the flood waters come from and where did they go?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 151 of 160 (220772)
06-29-2005 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by jar
06-29-2005 4:19 PM


Re: TB Tell me again when did Noah's Flood occur
jar writes:
For a universal flood scenario they must explain how areas became flooded without an equal amount of land being exposed.
I think they've provided an explanation for this. They believe that tectonic forces, particularly around oceanic ridges, caused the sea floors to rise up, causing much of the sea to become far shallower than before, and forcing the water up onto the land. Tectonic forces could also have caused subsidence of continental land, but I don't believe they've mentioned this possibility. TC *has* said that mountains formed during the flood period, so I assume he believes that there were no high mountain ranges pre-flood.
Of course, there's no evidence for any of this. No evidence of a global flood, no evidence of recent rising up of the sea flood, no evidence of repeated recent inundations, no evidence of recent formation of mountain ranges, no evidence of accelerated decay, no evidence of accelerated magnetic reversals, no evidence of recent motion of the continents.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by jar, posted 06-29-2005 4:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 06-29-2005 5:11 PM Percy has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 160 (220773)
06-29-2005 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Percy
06-29-2005 4:13 PM


Re: TB Tell me again when did Noah's Flood occur
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 06-29-2005 4:13 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by deerbreh, posted 06-29-2005 5:10 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 06-29-2005 5:18 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 153 of 160 (220775)
06-29-2005 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by TrueCreation
06-29-2005 5:02 PM


I have started a new topic on CPT so you can respond there.
TC,
Discussion of CPT will be on topic so you can now provide us with your "extraordinary proof." And make no mistake - the burden of proof is on you, not me or anyone else. You cannot make a claim that is outside mainstream science and then say that anyone questioning you is the one making the claim with their question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by TrueCreation, posted 06-29-2005 5:02 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 154 of 160 (220776)
06-29-2005 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
06-29-2005 5:01 PM


Re: TB Tell me again when did Noah's Flood occur
They believe that tectonic forces, particularly around oceanic ridges, caused the sea floors to rise up, causing much of the sea to become far shallower than before, and forcing the water up onto the land.
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.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 06-29-2005 5:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 06-29-2005 5:33 PM jar has not replied
 Message 158 by TrueCreation, posted 07-01-2005 2:34 AM jar has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 155 of 160 (220777)
06-29-2005 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by TrueCreation
06-29-2005 5:02 PM


Re: TB Tell me again when did Noah's Flood occur
There's a thread proposal on CPT, stay tuned.
TrueCreation writes:
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.
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. Is there any scientific evidence that leads you to believe there was rain during CPT?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by TrueCreation, posted 06-29-2005 5:02 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by TrueCreation, posted 07-01-2005 2:32 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 156 of 160 (220779)
06-29-2005 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by jar
06-29-2005 5:11 PM


Re: TB Tell me again when did Noah's Flood occur
jar writes:
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?
Why don't we hold off discussing this aspect until the CPT thread proposal is approved.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 06-29-2005 5:11 PM jar has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 160 (221068)
07-01-2005 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Percy
06-29-2005 5:18 PM


Re: TB Tell me again when did Noah's Flood occur
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 Grose
This 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 06-29-2005 5:18 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Percy, posted 07-01-2005 8:13 AM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 160 by edge, posted 07-02-2005 11:24 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 160 (221069)
07-01-2005 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by jar
06-29-2005 5:11 PM


Re: TB Tell me again when did Noah's Flood occur
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 06-29-2005 5:11 PM jar has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 159 of 160 (221105)
07-01-2005 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by TrueCreation
07-01-2005 2:32 AM


Re: TB Tell me again when did Noah's Flood occur
TrueCreation writes:
--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.
I didn't say that the Bible assigned rain and fountains from the deep as the cause of the flood. I said it was the source of the idea.
This brings to mind a point not mentioned thus far, primarily because it's off-topic, but it's at least worth noting because it contains a heavy dose of irony. The idea that the earth is young and that there was rain during the flood stems from a literal reading of the Bible, but while you CPT guys have used the Bible story as a launching point, you've gone so far outside what's in the Bible that true literalists wouldn't recognize it anymore. You've now turned one of the most prominent features of the Biblical flood, namely the 40 days and 40 nights of rain, into a mere incidental feature. For you guys, what the Bible actually talks about had little to no effect, while continents steaming through the water like ocean liners and mountain ranges rising up and all the earthquakes and tidal waves that would have occurred, not to mention boiling off the oceans, melting the earth's surface and turning Noah to a cinder, these all go unmentioned in the Bible.
I am sure you are aware of the copious instances of rain drop impressions in sediments throughout the geologic record.
So, what are you saying? That there was rain during CPT just like there is rain during any other time? That there was nothing unusual about the rain? If there was nothing unusual about it, why even mention it? The source of your idea for the rain seems to think it was pretty unusual, 40 days and 40 nights worth of rain. Is this yet another deviation from the source of your inspiration?
Like I said, it will be very ironic if you CPT guys eventually come up with a viable theory only to have it rejected by the Biblical literalists.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by TrueCreation, posted 07-01-2005 2:32 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 160 of 160 (221328)
07-02-2005 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by TrueCreation
07-01-2005 2:32 AM


Re: TB Tell me again when did Noah's Flood occur
I am sure you are aware of the copious instances of rain drop impressions in sediments throughout the geologic record.
I'm sure that most of us are aware. The problem is: how do you get "copious" raindrop impressions during a global flood? Once again, it is getting difficult to see where you stand. Do you believe there was a global (biblical literalist) flood, or not? If not, why adhere to CPT?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by TrueCreation, posted 07-01-2005 2:32 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024