|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6246 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where did the flood waters come from and where did they go? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 988 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote: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: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:What would you expect to find? quote: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:Are you sure? You must have experience with this poster outside of the forum to understand his level of understanding here? quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Was there more water during the flood or did the volume of water remain as a constant?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Was there more water during the flood or did the volume of water remain as a constant?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 988 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
TC writes:
In mainstream plate tectonics, convection moves the plates and radioactivity (and residual heat) provides the heat required to drive convection. 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024