Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the flood waters come from and where did they go?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 121 of 160 (219989)
06-27-2005 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Tranquility Base
06-26-2005 11:19 PM


Re: YEC water problem
One significant risk moderators undertake when they seek a common understanding with members is becoming endlessly bogged down in discussions about moderating decisions and procedures. For this reason I now encourage EvC Forum moderators to merely issue dictums which they expect to be followed, and to invite discussion in the moderation thread set aside for that purpose (General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel). I also encourage them to exercise discretion in discussing things in that thread because, whatever the reasons, there are too many people on the Internet who'd apparently rather discuss and dispute moderating procedures and decisions than anything else.
So this is not the opening post of a discussion. This is a dictum. I thought this from your Message 60 was misleading:
Tranquility Base writes:
Deerbreh, it sounds like you are unaware that there exist creationist computer models built by *mainstream* tectonic simulators that demonstrate catastrophic plate tectonics involving 'runaway subduction'.
To me it attempts to give the false impression that runaway subduction models are moving into the mainstream. By itself I probably wouldn't have taken note, but you also did this regarding the fine structure constant having "dynamic control," and there was one other thing that doesn't come to mind at the moment. You're setting off my alarm bells. Please don't give them further cause to continue clanging. If you'd like to discuss this, please take it to the approapriate thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-26-2005 11:19 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 122 of 160 (219991)
06-27-2005 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Tranquility Base
06-26-2005 11:23 PM


Re: YEC water problem
Yes, I have no doubt Baumgardner wrote a wonderful simulation program, but that's about it as far as I can see.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 06-27-2005 10:54 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-26-2005 11:23 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 123 of 160 (219993)
06-27-2005 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Tranquility Base
06-26-2005 11:46 PM


Re: YEC water problem
Tranquility Base writes:
As I keep trying to point out, it's off-topic for this thread. TB only introduced it because he was trying to argue that mainstream geology has as much a problem with "where did the water come from?" as Creationism.
Not quite Percy. I mentioned it becaue it is critical to our answer of where the Flood waters went! AS a side point I pointed out that you guys have almost the same problem. And it's not a huge problem anyway.
You are once again misrepresenting the views of mainstream geology. The origin of the water is not a problem for mainstream geology because it does not postulate the addition of any water. Mainstream geology believes that the water already present on the earth is responsible for covering any land with water, regardless of whether the cause was rising sea floor or sinking continents or some combination. And mainstream geology believes that when land emerged from the sea that the water formerly covering the land returned to the ocean basins.
To the extent that you accept this view, you also have no problem with the source of water. But you also appear to believe that water was added, both from below and from above, which differs from what TC was arguing. TC did not believe any added water was necessary, that the cause of the flood was simply tectonically induced rising sea floor causing shallower oceans, so his view doesn't need to answer the question of this thread. But your view does.
So, where did the water from above and below come from, and what evidence do you have supporting your view?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-26-2005 11:46 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by TrueCreation, posted 06-27-2005 9:26 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 131 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-27-2005 9:30 PM Percy has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 160 (220225)
06-27-2005 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by deerbreh
06-24-2005 11:35 PM


Re: TB Tell me again when did Noah's Flood occur
I was suspended before I could edit my post 106. However since it remains in the open and has received replies, I wont be editing it. Instead I would like to apologize about my hasty, relatively prejudicial comment regarding 'having dealt with your type' before. Nevertheless, my invitation remains open for you to support your assertions in a new thread.
-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 101 by deerbreh, posted 06-24-2005 11:35 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 125 of 160 (220228)
06-27-2005 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Tranquility Base
06-26-2005 11:23 PM


Re: YEC water problem
See post above. It is a mainstream researcher (Hager) that acknowledged Baumgardner's 'leader in the field' tectonic simulation engine.
This is nonsense. A model is not reality and, in fact, Baumgardner's model has no resemblance to the real world. I'm not sure what you know about numerical models, but I assure you that with Baumgardner's program, I could get the tectonic plates to fly through the air, if you would like. Being able to write a simulation and knowing what to put into it are completely different things.
I also choke a bit on the statement that Terra is the most powerful geological tool availble to geoscientists. This is hyperbolic nonsense, also. There are many tools in geosciences and I seriously doubt that the author of the statement has surveyed many of them. To say that a simulation program has such eminence is over the top.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-26-2005 11:23 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by TrueCreation, posted 06-27-2005 9:07 PM edge has not replied
 Message 129 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-27-2005 9:16 PM edge has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 160 (220229)
06-27-2005 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by edge
06-26-2005 2:50 PM


Re: TB Tell me again when did Noah's Flood occur
quote:
So, you are saying that Baumgardner does not rely upon accelerated decay? What then is the mechanism for CPT? Why did it start, and why did it stop? I am assuming that you still adhere to CPT as you always did before. It appears that your education has not yet taken effect on your core belief system.
... and the rate of tectonic motion is not a physical law.
Accelerated decay is about as relevant to CPT as abiogenesis is to Evolutionary Theory. The mechanism for CPT is runaway subduction. I do not adhear to CPT and have not for quite a long time, however it deserves more credit than has been given.
quote:
Correct. There is no law regarding the rate of tectonic motion. However, there is also no evidence that it was ever significantly different in the past.
The problem is that rates of tectonic motion in the past are based on a method whose scale is desputed in the competing theory--that method being radioisotopic dating.
I am glad that Percy understands that CPT really does not need to answer this question (whatever its veracity in other contexts), and I hope that you do too--I am presuming that you do.
quote:
Correct, as far as you go. However, in order to have the rates of spreading that you are talking about, in such a short period of time, there should be abundant, diagnostic evidence in the geological record.
What would you expect to find?
quote:
In fact, I would guess that the amount of heat released and the toxic gases would render the earth quite sterile.
I have not looked into an answer to there being excess toxic gases so I cannot give a good response to that. However, radiogenic heat aside, the heat from CPT is potentially managable.
-Chris Grose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by edge, posted 06-26-2005 2:50 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by roxrkool, posted 06-27-2005 9:33 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 137 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-27-2005 9:41 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 160 (220230)
06-27-2005 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by edge
06-27-2005 9:03 PM


Re: YEC water problem
quote:
A model is not reality and, in fact, Baumgardner's model has no resemblance to the real world. I'm not sure what you know about numerical models, but I assure you that with Baumgardner's program, I could get the tectonic plates to fly through the air, if you would like.
You can do this with virtually any computer model with manually controlled parameters. The question is whether the parameters used are correct or not. Baumgardner did not use any outlandish parameters as far as I am aware. I explained some of this in the first paragraph of post 64.
-Chris Grose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by edge, posted 06-27-2005 9:03 PM edge has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 160 (220232)
06-27-2005 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Percy
06-26-2005 3:35 PM


Re: TB Tell me again when did Noah's Flood occur
quote:
There was no intention to claim it was.
Are you sure? You must have experience with this poster outside of the forum to understand his level of understanding here?
quote:
Certainly any object, including a tectonic plate, is permitted to attain speeds up to the speed of light without violating physical laws. What violates physical laws is requiring that the earth remain cool while the energies necessary to accelerate and decelerate continent sized objects are exerted, and then there's the associated friction.
Do you want to elaborate on what you mean by, 'and then there's the associated friction' and why you think it produces too much heat?
-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 109 by Percy, posted 06-26-2005 3:35 PM Percy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 160 (220236)
06-27-2005 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by edge
06-27-2005 9:03 PM


Re: YEC water problem
Edge
This is nonsense. A model is not reality and, in fact, Baumgardner's model has no resemblance to the real world. I'm not sure what you know about numerical models, but I assure you that with Baumgardner's program, I could get the tectonic plates to fly through the air, if you would like. Being able to write a simulation and knowing what to put into it are completely different things.
I agree with TC's comment and will add that his use of parameters is based on real-life measurements of the mechanical and thermodynamic properties of silicates in the lab. These properties turned out to surprise researchers and describe highly non-linear relationships which allow for runaway subduction.
I also choke a bit on the statement that Terra is the most powerful geological tool availble to geoscientists. This is hyperbolic nonsense, also. There are many tools in geosciences and I seriously doubt that the author of the statement has surveyed many of them. To say that a simulation program has such eminence is over the top.
You can argue that with mainstream Hager. No doubt he probably really meant to limit his comment to geophysics or even only tectonics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by edge, posted 06-27-2005 9:03 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by jar, posted 06-27-2005 9:31 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 160 (220238)
06-27-2005 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Percy
06-27-2005 11:02 AM


Re: YEC water problem
quote:
To the extent that you accept this view, you also have no problem with the source of water. But you also appear to believe that water was added, both from below and from above, which differs from what TC was arguing. TC did not believe any added water was necessary, that the cause of the flood was simply tectonically induced rising sea floor causing shallower oceans, so his view doesn't need to answer the question of this thread. But your view does.
Indeed. TB seems to basically agree with me except he also adds the possibility that there was water both originating from beneath the earth and from above/in the atmosphere (such as the vapor canopy, or some other undefined extraterrestrial origin).
When I referred to there being rain, I think that this rain was both a result of the normal atmospheric water cycle and from a small percentage of the water falling back to earth from the said 'steam jets'.
Furthermore geochemical fractionation of water (among other volatiles) out of mantle rock through surface vents (including seafloor spreading centers) is about the extent of what I believe could have been the source of 'extra water' from under the earth. This water, however, is an insignificant addition and is not going to effect sea level. However TB seems to allow for large "chambers" of water at least underneath or within the oceanic lithosphere similar to that proposed by Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory. I see little reason to believe this, and in fact I think that pre-cambrian tectonics would have caused this source to rupture far before cambrian tectonics (the onset of CPT).
What are your thoughts, TB?
-Chris Grose
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-27-2005 09:27 PM

"...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 123 by Percy, posted 06-27-2005 11:02 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-27-2005 9:39 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 160 (220240)
06-27-2005 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Percy
06-27-2005 11:02 AM


Re: YEC water problem
Percy
You are once again misrepresenting the views of mainstream geology. The origin of the water is not a problem for mainstream geology because it does not postulate the addition of any water.
I think I stated the coming/going is a problem (and not necessarily a big one). Sorry for the ambiguity there - I should have mephasied 'going'.
As far as I know there is no overall study tracking sea-level and ocean-basin sizes through time (I searched without success in 2003/2004 anyway).
So, in fact, we simply don't know the extent of the mainstream problem (or the creationist one by extension). Everyone *assumes* it is a creationist problem simply becasue they imagine, consciously or sub-consciously, the kindergarten Flood scenario (trying to Flood today's world to Mt Everest height).
Mainstream geology believes that the water already present on the earth is responsible for covering any land with water, regardless of whether the cause was rising sea floor or sinking continents or some combination. And mainstream geology believes that when land emerged from the sea that the water formerly covering the land returned to the ocean basins.
I agree tha tthis is what occurred. I simply allow for (but will not require until we have a qauntatitive study) for source above and below *as well*.
To the extent that you accept this view, you also have no problem with the source of water. But you also appear to believe that water was added, both from below and from above, which differs from what TC was arguing. TC did not believe any added water was necessary, that the cause of the flood was simply tectonically induced rising sea floor causing shallower oceans, so his view doesn't need to answer the question of this thread. But your view does.
So, where did the water from above and below come from, and what evidence do you have supporting your view?
TC is standing by a single interpretation of Genesis, I'll allow more than one at present. So yes if you want to characterize my stance on where the water came from as incomplete, or less-prescriptive at present - sure - but not on the issue of where the water *went*.
I'll await the quantitative data before I bother searching for the non-tectonic sources of water. I agree with TC that they *may* be unecessary.
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-27-2005 09:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Percy, posted 06-27-2005 11:02 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by jar, posted 06-27-2005 9:32 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 132 of 160 (220241)
06-27-2005 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Tranquility Base
06-27-2005 9:16 PM


Re: YEC water problem
Was there more water during the flood or did the volume of water remain as a constant?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-27-2005 9:16 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-27-2005 9:34 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 133 of 160 (220242)
06-27-2005 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Tranquility Base
06-27-2005 9:30 PM


Re: YEC water problem
Was there more water during the flood or did the volume of water remain as a constant?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-27-2005 9:30 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 134 of 160 (220243)
06-27-2005 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by TrueCreation
06-27-2005 9:03 PM


Re: TB Tell me again when did Noah's Flood occur
TC writes:
Accelerated decay is about as relevant to CPT as abiogenesis is to Evolutionary Theory. The mechanism for CPT is runaway subduction. I do not adhear to CPT and have not for quite a long time, however it deserves more credit than has been given.
In mainstream plate tectonics, convection moves the plates and radioactivity (and residual heat) provides the heat required to drive convection.
The mechanism that propels and maintains movement is subduction (or slab-pull), and seafloor spreading to a lesser degree.
What drives CPT?
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 06-27-2005 10:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by TrueCreation, posted 06-27-2005 9:03 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by TrueCreation, posted 06-27-2005 10:16 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 160 (220244)
06-27-2005 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by jar
06-27-2005 9:31 PM


Re: YEC water problem
Jar
At present I'll go along with TC and work with a constant amount of water for reasons described above (eg see the post above).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by jar, posted 06-27-2005 9:31 PM jar 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