Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood = many coincidences
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 445 (491473)
12-16-2008 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Architect-426
12-16-2008 2:28 PM


Re: The ocean crust - it's a great big bust!
Maybe no one here in this forum is telling me that the ocean crust is ”only’ 200ma, I did not say that. What I am saying is that major scientific/geological publications are telling me (and the general public) this ”fact’. I counted 6 science/geology books that I have that state this (along with several web sites).
So where are these claims that the ocean crust is more than a couple hundred million years old?
Rather than list those I thought it would be best to include this link to a map made by none other than NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center Marine Geology and Geophysics Division that shows these relative ”ages’ of the oceanic lithosphere or crust. You will note that the majority of the ocean crust is very ”youthful’.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/...ld/2008_age_of_oceans_plates.pdf
Even your own link here agrees that the crust is less than 300 million years old. So where is this claim that it is more than that?
1. You will note on the map that ocean crust is ”bumping’ into quite a bit of continental mass, especially along the Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Arctic, etc., and.. get off the phone because there’s no subduction zone! What’s up doc?
Here is a Map of Major Global Subduction Zones.
There are subduction zones where you claim they aren't.
2. You will also notice that S. America and Africa are getting ”squeezed’ by MOM’s on both sides.
There's clearly a subduction zone on the west coast of S. America.
3. The Mediterranean has some ”old’ crust (280ma), but MOM is nowhere to be found
I don't see a problem here. There is no subduction nor creation going on here. Its just old sea floor sitting there.
4. The crust from the west coast of the US of A is getting older as it goes away. So, the crust is ”moving’ west . ..Ah dang it!! That’s supposed to be a susbduction zone! It HAS to go the other way! Hurry up and change it . .
In the link above, there is a lack of a subduction zone on the middle section of the west coast of the US.
5. The ”age’ of the crust increases from the MOM’s in a linear fashion, due to their time of ”travel’ of course. Pay attention because something broke their steering suspension . .in order to get to a recycling bin they have to turn or spin!
Meh. Not so much.
I will repeat, with 100% confidence; the ocean crust, or 70% of the face of Gods green, watery planet, is 3.2 billion years younger than the continents. (give or take a few mil). Case closed.
Whoopty do. Nobody is saying otherwise
Your original claim was this:
quote:
According to mainstream geology, the oceanic crust is ”only’ 200 million years old or so while the continents are a whopping 3.5 billion years. So, I’m curious what might have been ”holding up’ the oceans for approx. 3.3 billion years before the ocean crust, or 70% of our planet, was ”born’? Anybody got any ideas???
The oceans weren't "held up". Its just that the ocean crust gets sucked down by suduction and then reborn in the faults. It should be younger than the continents.
You have not exposed any problem with current theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Architect-426, posted 12-16-2008 2:28 PM Architect-426 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Architect-426, posted 01-03-2009 11:40 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 445 (491520)
12-17-2008 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Rrhain
12-17-2008 12:08 AM


quote:
I think this model is incorrect. At least part of the "land" is deformable.
But the description of the flood is not that the mountains crumbled. Indeed, if we're going to allow that the geography of the entire planet flattened out, then of course there is enough water to flood the surface.
I think Ned is right, and you're misunderstanding the scenario.
But instead, the description is that the water rose to cover the mountains, not that the mountains sank into the water.
Right.
In fact, the claim of Buzsaw is that the mountains actually ROSE due to the flood. His claim is that the water came out of the air and flooded the planet and that the deluge exerted pressure upon the mountains, making them rise.
Exactly.
So take your 6x9 backing pan and put an even layer of sand in the bottom. Then take a bucket of water and pour it out into the pan from a ladder 6 ft off the ground. That impact is going to "make mountains" in your pan.
The underlying point of the model is to show that if you have any amount of dry land, no matter how small, then it is geometrically impossible to use the water that currently exists to flood it for any length of time. That's why you have the dry land to begin with: It sticks out above the water and any water put on it will immediately flow back down to the lowest state, revealing the dry land.
But in this model, we are invoking that "the water came out of the air". We are not requiring "the water that currently exists" to flood the dry land.
The only way to flood it completely is to add water to the system. But there isn't enough water on earth to do it. Even if the highest elevation above sea level was one inch, there isn't enough water in the air to cover it.
"the water came out of the air" = "to add water to the system"
The reason I disallow the ability to break the cup is because the description of the flood does not say the mountains crumbled. In fact, it specifically states that the mountains survived (the ark lands on Mt. Ararat.) But, I do let the cup be as small as desired so long as there is some "dry land" at the start.
The mountains don't need to sink, and they can rise, if there's water added to the system like the scenario that Buz described (that you fumbled).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Rrhain, posted 12-17-2008 12:08 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Rrhain, posted 12-17-2008 2:16 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 84 by bluescat48, posted 12-17-2008 7:23 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 445 (491550)
12-17-2008 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Rrhain
12-17-2008 2:16 AM


I was just pointing out that your experiment from Message 69:
quote:
Here is an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own kitchen:
Get yourself a baking dish and fill it with water. Next, take a coffee cup and fill it with something so that it will not float in the water of the dish. Seal it off and then place it in the dish. Make sure that the cup is tall enough so that some of it juts above the level of the water.
You now have a model of the earth. The part of the cup jutting above the water line is "dry land."
Now, using only the water in the baking dish and keeping all of the water in its liquid state and without breaking or reorienting the cup, try to submerge the cup such that it remains underwater after you have finished doing whatever it is that you are doing for one hour.
You will find it cannot be done. Any water placed on top of the cup will at first expose more of the sides of the cup to air (making more dry land) and then run off the cup back into the baking dish, exposing the top of the cup again.
It doesn't matter how short you make the cup or how big the baking dish is. So long as there is part of the cup sticking up above the surface of the water when you start, you won't be able to submerge the cup.
doesn't jive with Buz's model in Message 48
quote:
1. Unless the earth was relatively smooth before the flood and the tectonic activity from the flood due to irregularities in the earth crust, (abe: volcanic activity) etc created the mountains.
2. Unless there was enough vapor in a vapor canopy over the earth to supply enough water to cover the relatively small mountains which were on the relatively smooth surface of the pre-flood earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Rrhain, posted 12-17-2008 2:16 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Rrhain, posted 12-18-2008 5:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 445 (491552)
12-17-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by JonF
12-17-2008 7:39 AM


Dollars to donuts our friend is one of those like buz, who thinks that you can stuff arbitrarily large amounts of water into the atmosphere with no inconvenient side effects such as destroying all life.
You better round up a dozen dollars....
I know of no plausible FludTM scenario. I was just pointing out that Rrhain's experiment was flawed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by JonF, posted 12-17-2008 7:39 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by JonF, posted 12-17-2008 8:34 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 445 (491923)
12-24-2008 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Rrhain
12-24-2008 1:32 AM


So unless we're going to say that there wasn't a single place on the entire earth higher than the Matterhorn at DisneyWorld, there isn't enough water to flood the earth.
Is that what you're arguing?
That's what Buz was saying, in Message 48, when he wrote:
quote:
1. Unless the earth was relatively smooth before the flood...
If you flatten, or smooth, out the earth so it has almost no elevation and then add a little water to the system, you could flood the whole plantet.
That's the model you've refused to address.
That's why for quite some time, the tallest point in all of Florida was the Matterhorn at Disneyworld.
Isn't the Matterhorn in California?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Rrhain, posted 12-24-2008 1:32 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Rrhain, posted 12-25-2008 1:53 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 123 by deerbreh, posted 01-09-2009 2:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 445 (493575)
01-09-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by deerbreh
01-09-2009 2:00 PM


Re: "If wishes were horses......."
No offense, but I don't really give a shit.
I wasn't advocating any particular FludTM model, I was trying to explain someone else's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by deerbreh, posted 01-09-2009 2:00 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by deerbreh, posted 01-09-2009 3:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 445 (493589)
01-09-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by deerbreh
01-09-2009 3:06 PM


Re: "If wishes were horses......."
No offense taken, though "I really don't give a sh**" doesn't exactly square with "That's the model you refuse to address", does it?
Had you kept me in context, you would have seen that I was talking specifically to Rrhain and his addressing of a model that he thought represented Buzz's, but that I thought did not.
You ought not make a statement like that if you don't want to defend it.
You ought to keep quotes in context.

ABE:
See Message 81 and Message 89 for further explanation.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by deerbreh, posted 01-09-2009 3:06 PM deerbreh 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