Pre-Flood Waters?

Hey, I'm new to the site, so may not be up to speed on all of the protocol with regard to posting. Please see the post I am replying to in order to put the following in perspective. I apologize in advance for the long post, but there was a lot presented.First, I've found that most evolutionary arguments involve a very large number of assumptions...the biggest of which is that the earth is the same today as it was 5000 years ago. For example, the atmosphere. The original post states that "There must have been some sort of pressurization to the planet's atmosphere."which gets the following response:" Yes, living things survive really well inside a pressure cooker.
Big creatures need high pressure atmospheres about as much as they need a bullet to the head. Increase the pressure, things don't get bigger - they die.*To this I pose the following question: Is it not well documented that hyperbolic chambers providing increased pressure and oxygen actually improve healing time? How about experiments including compressed carbon dioxide and plants? How do you explain dinosaurs that had nostrils too small to supply enough oxygen for their mass??? Seems to me this theory is more plausible than dinosaurs who grow to massive sizes without adequate oxygen (based obviously on the assumption that the atmosphere had the same pressure and oxygen levels at a time when the dinosaurs were alive).I admit it, I know jack about bugs...so I'll skip that one.There was mention of an ice shield/canopy, I'm not sure why this is so ridiculous... This shield would have reduced ultraviolet light, x-rays, and a number of other things that contribute to aging. This would indeed then support a long life, larger plants, dinosaurs with small nostrils, etc. I would be interested in hearing how it is so impossible for this shield to have existed or why it could not have been dispersed in such a fashion as to not cause this massive heat transfer...besides, every time I've been in the rain, the temp hasn't gone up from the heat transfer...meisner(magnetic)effect
Indeed a reference in superconductors, floating trains, etc. Also a hypothesis of Dr. Kent Hoving with regard to one possibility (combined with atmospheric pressure) for how the ice shield may have been held up.skeletons of people 10-12' tall--call the Smithsonian, do a little research, they do exist...is this so ridiculous with people exceeding 8' tall even today?Original text: "Trees don't just get taller the more CO2 you give them. Try it out. They're different species, and they're structurally completely different - just like dinosaur fossils are completely structurally different from anything alive today."*Following this reasoning an experiment referenced by Dr. Hovind showing a tomato plant with hundreds of large tomatos could not have happened...yet it did when the scientist involved fed the plant compressed CO2.I hadn't heard about 300' trees in the gulf, but I have heard of palm trees under the ice at the poles. Seems to me a greenhouse type of effect such as is proposed at the beginning of this post might explain that.Original post reply: "Clams live in burrows. If they die in their burrows, the shells become preserved in their closed position. If they are dragged out and killed by predators, they die in their open position."*First, clams do not die in the open position, they die then open. The original post responded to mentions clams on mountains in the closed position, it should be noted that piles of clams have been found the the closed position...now how many clams do fit in a burrow?Original reply to bending layers: "Only if that POV is tectonic activity. Which, might I add, is *still* bending the Himilayas upward. If it were to bend it rapidly, not only would the rock completely shatter, the amount of heat it gave off would mostly liquify it. There would be no fossils."*Rock doesn't bend, it breaks. Thus tectonic movement under sediment had to have occurred to form "bends" in the layers. Also note that fossils only form when buried within a short period of time (to avoid exposure to the elements, predators etc.) Thus massive changes in sediment brought about by a flood of a global scale explains both the fossils and the bends in the layers...not to mention converging coal layers...*Haven't heard of Krakatoa's collapse, what is it?*Underwater mudslide does not explain diatomatios earth fossilizing a whale in the upright position as found in CA. Hot water escaping through the ocean floor would however explain the death of the diatoms which then "snowed" to the ocean floor fossilizing the whale from nose up to tail.Original retort: "Evidence? BTW, it's pterodactyl."
*Feel free to point out my spelling errors as well...always looking to improve myself.*Please note that if the ocean floor was originally the height of the continnental shelf, then the water trapped beneath it was released, what was land would then sink and become the ocean floor. And yes there would be massive energy exchanges resulting in water covering the earth, new sediment forming, new mountains forming, erosion occurring rapidly as the water rushed off after the flood...*Again with the mountains and plate tectonics...rock doesn't bend... Broken layers are from tectonics involving rock, bent layers are from tectonics involving sediment. Logic.*Who ever said a flood would leave a universal, equally distributed number of perfect layers? Just look at the divergent layers of coal... I would like to know who these formed from the point of view that the flood did not exist...would seem to me that if the layer splits at some point with rock between...this really throws a wrench in the theory that the layers form slowly over time...Original response: "You do realize that if the speed of light (C) changes, relative time changes as well? For example, if C were made twice as fast, the Earth would rotate twice as fact, it would orbit the sun twice as fast, etc - because spatial distances are relative to it. Thus, to an observer, it's still 4.5 billion years."*What? Changing the speed of light changes the number of revolutions the earth makes....???With regard to the wobble of the earth, I believe the original post was referring the the fact that the earth is tilted on it's axis, which has resulted in the many religious sites of sun worshipers now being incorrect in their alignment with the stars. This lends to the theory that there was a catastrophic event in the history of the planet resulting in a shift in the earth's rotation (ie. wobble) and tilt. This catastrophic event obviously occurred during recent history as proven by the sun worship sites. Could it be that this event was an impact to the earth causing the surface to break up and release water...maybe the earth wobbled when it travelled through the tail of a commet and picked up a huge amount of ice particles which then were magnetically drawn to the poles throwing the earth into a wobble. If this did happen, might the massive influx of super cold ice at the poles explain wooly mammoths frozen standing up with undigested or rotted food in their stomachs...might it explain the glaciers that suddenly carved pathes down into North America?Original response: "Oh, there are lots of flood myths. Unfortunately for you, they're all completely different."*Except for the fact that most of them talk about a world-wide flood. Coincidence that that many cultures have retained some sort of history about the flood? What happens when you play the telephone game????*With regard to gaining and losing land, who cares? The world is constantly changing. The point is that pangea was a joke and is a joke. You have to shrink one continent to make it fit, then you have to rotate others in different directions and pretend that certain areas did not exist, but do now. This is about the only place in evolutionary theory/history of the earth theory where it is not automatically assumed that the earth has changed over time rather than remaining the same...Original text: "If you want more detail toward any point, please: Address It To The Proper Forum."*Sorry folks for the long post on my first one, but there was just too much info to let it slide without comment. I also apologize for any duplication as it is late and I am not going to proof read this monster.

Hey Yaro, thanks for the response.Granted, I'm not an expert in any field, save insurance, but many interesting points were raised, to which I have as of yet to hear an adequate response. Please note that my thoughts on the matter are not limited to one "quack" or another, but have been formed reading many web sites on both sides. Regardless of a person's educational background or their history (real or otherwise), I am more interested in the information discussed. As you suggest, I may review some more of the longer posts, but I haven't seen anything new on the one's I've already read...If you have some insite or would like to point me at the posts you mention, I'll be glad to give them a read.

First off, why is this such a far fetched assumption when there is nothing in the universe to indicate that things HAVENT worked allong the same rules?*Along the same lines there is nothing to indicate things have always been the way they are...And if indeed such an atmosphere existed 5000 years ago, wouldn't it have left evidence of it's presence? Better yet, wouldn't it have been subject to the same phisical laws?*The physical laws haven't changed...and yes there has been evidence, such as amber found with increased pressure and oxygen within it...how does this amber form with air bubbles like this if not for a different atmospheric pressure???If the atmosphere was full of water varpor as the YECs propose, that is enugh vapor to inundate the whole world, the atmosphere would create an incredible amount of pressure, not to mention an incredible amount of heat. That is what the above response means.So much watter in the atmosphere would have cooked the surface of the earth under it's intense presure.*I don't recall saying all the water was in the atmosphere...The question is, where is this ice canopy, and where is the evidence for it?*Evidence for an ice canopy or vapor shield in the upper atomsphere include: palm trees found beneath the ice at the poles...what better evidence for a different world at one point, that world being more like a green house? How about people growing larger, plants growing larger, etc? How did redwoods grow in Canada at one point in the past since they require such a specific climate to prosper? Wooly mammoths frozen standing up...with undigested or rotted food in their stomachs, would likely require a very fast freezing process which could not have occurred naturally on our earth today.The amount of water that it would take to flood the world is astronomical. That amount of watter in the atmosphere at any given time, would increase the pressure to an unheard of degree, and cook everything in the planet!*Just because there is a lot of water, does not mean the atmosphere would contain it all...if that is the case, why aren't the oceans filling the atmosphere today and frying us all? Again the assumption is that the flood occurred only from the rains, not from water beneath the surface of the planet. Also the assumption remains that it would take more water than is here to flood the world. This assumption requires that the mountains have always been as high as they are today, I've seen no proof of this.Kend Hovind is a fraud.*Just because you believe someone a fraud, does not necessarily invalidate everything they say. I am hopeful that our conversation will not deteriorate into namecalling as a means of discrediting someone's opinions*It has become obvious to me that I have jumped into my first discussion on too large a scale. I have neither the time nor the energy to continue a discussion on this large a scale. I would be interested in some direction on how to make my posts more readable, putting lines above and below quotes, etc. if you don't mind offering some help there.Thanks again for the interesting dialog.

OK, let's see if this quote thing works...Now that I've tested that, I've gotta get to bed, no time to research any responses, although I have learned from many responses to my posts that this ongoing evolution/creation debate is quite the hotbed of ideas and apparently only the sites favoring evolution have any valid scientific evidence. I plan to continue participating to some extent, however these large posts are too time consuming. As such, I'll likely move on to smaller, one topic threads where I can actually afford to put in some research time. Thanks to all who responded to these items.