|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Flood = many coincidences | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I was just pointing out that your experiment from Message 69:
quote: doesn't jive with Buz's model in Message 48 quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024