Message 91 of 137 (369605) 12-13-2006 6:42 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Archer Opterix 11-20-2006 5:08 AM

Edited by shytot, : No reason given.

Message 92 of 137 (370938) 12-19-2006 3:33 PM

Reply to: Message 83 by anglagard 12-08-2006 7:46 PM

I read your post.
Unless you specify a example you think is appropriate to refute the possibility of ther ever having been a global flood we're not getting anywhere.

Joman.

Message 94 of 137 (371014) 12-19-2006 9:05 PM

Reply to: Message 92 by Joman 12-19-2006 3:33 PM

The geologic record contains layer after layer of sediments exhibiting mud or dessication cracks and paleosols (ancient soil horizons). How do you form those under water?

Message 95 of 137 (371023) 12-19-2006 9:22 PM

Reply to: Message 92 by Joman 12-19-2006 3:33 PM

But it is OK if you do not want to discuss such matters with my 24+ year-old memory of the geosciences (in a 49 year-old body) now that roxrkool is here.

Enjoy :)

Edited by anglagard, : clarity

Edited by anglagard, : Haymond not evaporite

Message 96 of 137 (371026) 12-19-2006 9:49 PM

Reply to: Message 46 by Archer Opterix 11-22-2006 12:38 AM

This YECer believes that the earth was relatively (I say 'relatively') smooth at the crust and surface with much lower mountains/hills and shallow smaller oceans, having a canopy atmosphere. My understanding is that the ocean bottom crusts are an average of 3 miles thick while the continents average around 20 miles thick. Logically the amount of water required to cover the hills would be far less than what would be required today. The weight of the water sank down the thin crusts into the molten core, pushing up the mountain ranges like the Himalayas as the tetonic plates gave way to cause extreme geographic upheavel in some areas and extreme depression in the weaker protions of the crust, et al.

The above is not falsifiable but a logical hypothesis to answer the question as to how a global flood might make the earth appear from a YEC perspective.

Message 97 of 137 (371027) 12-19-2006 9:54 PM

Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw 12-19-2006 9:49 PM

Which is more dense, Buzsaw - water or rock? Will a mile of water balance a mile of rock?

Oh yeah? It's already falsified.

Message 98 of 137 (371028) 12-19-2006 9:56 PM

Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw 12-19-2006 9:49 PM

Have you ever heard of the principle of isostasy? Put simply it means that light things float and heavy things sink.

Show me the math that says 15 cubits worth of water (density=1) would sink continental crust (density=2.7) into the mantle (density=3.5+).

Logical :laugh:

Message 99 of 137 (371029) 12-19-2006 9:57 PM

Reply to: Message 92 by Joman 12-19-2006 3:33 PM

Rainfall and expulsion of "waters of the deep" {something never specifically explained BTW}of the intensity required to produce a flood covering the entire earth is not possible due to the heat energy produced in the process which would effectively kill all life on earth excepting perhaps extremophiles. It is thus impossible to avoid the horrible consequence of such a flood which would steam alive any creatures in the environment.

The 100% humidity would also kill animals that do not sweat {like dogs} since they depend upon evaporation of moisture from their tongues in order to cool their core temperature.It would be impossible for them to survive a prolonged exposure to such conditions.

Ice worms

{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_worms} and {http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/iceworm.htm}

are incapable of surviving off glaciers in temperatures above a few degrees of the freezing point of water. In the absence of a refrigeration system{ not to mention their food source snow algae} it would be impossible to have them aboard an ark much less survive immersion in liquid water.

Need more examples? Just ask.

Best wishes, Richard Feynman.

Message 100 of 137 (371030) 12-19-2006 9:57 PM

Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw 12-19-2006 9:49 PM

then its not a logical hypothesis. if it's not falsifiable, its not a hypothesis. it would be a statement of faith, if anything.

fortunately for you, it is falsifiable, because we know how the hymalans were formed--not by your screwed up geoscience.

the geological upheavel/trauma is not cause by a massive depression of the tectonic plates, but by lateral, aka horizontal, movement of the plate. i'll let the other, more geologically inclined handle the rest of the misunderstandings.

Message 101 of 137 (371032) 12-19-2006 9:59 PM

Reply to: Message 91 by shytot 12-13-2006 6:42 PM

Hi Shytot. We welcome you to EvC. As per my message 96, imo it would have broken up the tetonic plates sinking deep depressions in the thinner areas of earth's crust to create our deep oceans. Whereas about 70 percent of the earth's surface is ocean, likely before the flood it was maybe 20 or 30 percent with the water both subsurface and in the atmosphere to effect the flood. Of course a large amount of it would have evaporated to create the post flood atmosphere.

Message 102 of 137 (371033) 12-19-2006 10:10 PM

Reply to: Message 101 by Buzsaw 12-19-2006 9:59 PM

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Message 103 of 137 (371035) 12-19-2006 10:12 PM

Reply to: Message 101 by Buzsaw 12-19-2006 9:59 PM

Under what conditions would the water have evaporated to space? The boiling oceans caused by that absurd runaway tectonic, volcanic, and meteoric, activity?

Once again, light things float and heavy things sink. The only molecules that float away are H2 and He. H2O is too heavy to just decide on its own to achieve escape velocity.

Message 105 of 137 (371039) 12-19-2006 10:25 PM

Reply to: Message 104 by Buzsaw 12-19-2006 10:19 PM

No because - Light Things Float and Heavy Things Sink

No because - Light Things Float and Heavy Things Sink

Isostasy, it's simple physics.