Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8773 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-26-2017 8:40 PM
363 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,695 Year: 19,301/21,208 Month: 2,060/3,111 Week: 281/574 Day: 77/46 Hour: 3/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
20Next
Author Topic:   Where did the water come from and where did it go?
edge
Member
Posts: 3904
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 211 of 300 (646008)
01-01-2012 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by NoNukes
01-01-2012 11:59 AM


Re: The point of the thread
Is there any real difference between magic and made up science?

Yes, magic is more realistic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by NoNukes, posted 01-01-2012 11:59 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 212 of 300 (646040)
01-02-2012 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Percy
12-30-2011 1:05 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

If you're really interested in the scientific explanation you can read about it in the Geology section of the Wikipedia article on the Gulf of Mexico.

So the scientific explanation is that at one time the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico was dry land in time past. For some reason the contintental crust that is under water now sunk and formed the basin of the gulf.

If you remember reading up thread I said that at one time there was no oceans on the Earth as recorded in the 2nd chapter of Genesis. Then later it was all covered with water as recorded in Genesis 1:2.

I have proposed that much water was covered and trapped in the Earth during the time of build up of the Earth as it was smaller at one time than it is now.

Since I live in Florida and am a native of Florida I have seen many small gulfs created in my life time. Every time the water table in the floridian aquifer is reduced by rainfall and pumping we have what we call sink holes pop up all over the state. This happens because the water that is stored in the ground is removed leaving a cavity where there is nothing to support the upper crust and it caves in.

That is the same thing that would have happened to any area that had a massive amount of water that was extracted or released into the surrounding area.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 12-30-2011 1:05 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 01-02-2012 11:46 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 213 of 300 (646041)
01-02-2012 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by JonF
12-29-2011 9:56 AM


Re: Miles of rock
Hi Jon,

JonF writes:

Oh there's lots of it.

So a picture created on a computer from seismic waves passing through the Earth which is interpeted by man is evidence.

If so, why isn't evidence presented from the Bible equal evidence?

So you don't mind if I don't pay much attention to what some man thinks, do you?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by JonF, posted 12-29-2011 9:56 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 01-02-2012 11:40 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 216 by JonF, posted 01-02-2012 12:31 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 220 by edge, posted 01-02-2012 6:56 PM ICANT has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 214 of 300 (646044)
01-02-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by ICANT
01-02-2012 10:57 AM


Re: Miles of rock
Hi ICANT,

No one thinks we should ignore any scientific evidence. Jon presented his seismic evidence of subduction in Message 164. If you would like to present other scientific evidence from whatever source then please go ahead.

What you actually appear to be doing is inventing reasons for ignoring scientific evidence. That's why it's pointless to try to discuss this with you. When you're through presenting your flood waters explanation then the rest of us can proceed to analyze it for consistency with known scientific principles.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 10:57 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 5:22 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 215 of 300 (646045)
01-02-2012 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by ICANT
01-02-2012 10:44 AM


Re: Miles of rock
Hi ICANT,

Are you saying that the continental crust at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico was formed from the same process that creates sinkholes? I'm not disputing this, I'm just trying to make sure I understand what you're saying. I think you're saying that continental crust at the bottom of oceans was once above sea level, but because it was underlain by massive amounts of water that later provided the source of water for the fountains of the deep that this crust sank during the global flood. Is that right?

If so, where did this water go after the flood?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 10:44 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3802
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 216 of 300 (646046)
01-02-2012 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by ICANT
01-02-2012 10:57 AM


Re: Miles of rock
So a picture created on a computer from seismic waves passing through the Earth which is interpeted by man is evidence.

If so, why isn't evidence presented from the Bible equal evidence?

A man's interpretation of the Bible is perfectly good evidence for what it's writers believed. It doesn't contain much that is useful in trying to determine the structure of the Earth or how the alleged flood happened.

So you don't mind if I don't pay much attention to what some man thinks, do you?

Pay attention to whatever you want for whatever reasons make sense to you. However, if you want to discuss the alleged flood or convince someone to adopt your beliefs, you will have to accept existing observations. Those pictures are presentations of observations, and demand explanation.

If you ignore them, as I expect you will, your participation in this thread is pointless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 10:57 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 5:45 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 217 of 300 (646062)
01-02-2012 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Percy
01-02-2012 11:40 AM


Re: Miles of rock
Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

No one thinks we should ignore any scientific evidence.

Isn't it required by tectonicists that the volume of crust generated at ocean ridges be equal to the volume subducted?

There are 80,000 km of ridges that is supposed to be producing new crust.

Yet there are only 30,500 km of trenches in existence. Adding the 9,000 km of collision zones don't help much.

If subduction was taking place in the Lesser Antilles arc the Barbados Ridge would be under the Lesser Antilles, according to Meyerhoff.

Accordint to evidence presented by Kiskyras in 1990 the African plate is not being subducted under the Aegean Sea.

Why was Scholl and Marlow preplexed that evidence of a huge amount of offscraping was not found in the deep Pacific trench if 13,000 kilometers of lithosphere was subducted.

If the Pacific plate is diving under the North American plate why didn't the deep Cajon Pass drillhole find the stress buildup along the San Andreas Fault that was expected?

That should do for starters as to why I questioned the images presented by JonF.

Now to whether I present what I believe or what science says lets review a little.

I have presented that the Bible infers a single land mass in Genesis 1:10.

I have presented that scientific theory claims a single land mass.

I have presented that the Earth was smaller in the past than it is today.

I have presented that accreation theory states the Earth was smaller in the past than it is today. It also says it grew due to being bombarded by asteroids over a long period of time.

Most seem to thing the water was provided to Earth by comets.

I have posit that much water along with much vegetation and life forms was covered during the accreation of the Earth

I have presented that there is much contintenal crust under the oceans. It is not only under the gulf but the Atlantic, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, (Arthur C. Tarr) Pacific submerged continental crust under the northwestern and southeastern, (Choi, Smoot, and Tuezov), and the eastern part of the Indian Ocean was dry land at one time (called by some scientists ‘Lemuria’).

So there is lots of continental crust under water that was at one time above water or in shallow water. If this land mass sunk into the ocean after the flood started to receed due to the pressure of the water above it there was no need for the water to go anywhere.

So far I have a Earth with a single land mass that was smaller in the past than it is now.

That smaller Earth grew due to the fact of being bombarded by asteroids, and comets. The asteroids introduced new material and the comets provided water. As this was taking place over millions of years there was much water and life forms that was trapped under the surface of the Earth. The life forms trapped provided our oil, natural gas and coal. The coal coming in the latter stages.

The water trapped under the surface was released to provide the water for the flood. The caverns after a period of time began to collapse due to the penetration of the water and the pressure of the weight of the water. This allowed for the water too receed from off the land and the ark to land on dry land.

I know there are those who will disagree with me. So present your argumentation that shows that what I have presented is an impossibility.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 01-02-2012 11:40 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Percy, posted 01-02-2012 6:34 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 221 by edge, posted 01-02-2012 7:21 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 223 by JonF, posted 01-02-2012 7:50 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 224 by JonF, posted 01-02-2012 7:52 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 242 by JonF, posted 01-04-2012 11:03 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 218 of 300 (646066)
01-02-2012 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by JonF
01-02-2012 12:31 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Hi JonF,

JonF writes:

A man's interpretation of the Bible is perfectly good evidence for what it's writers believed. It doesn't contain much that is useful in trying to determine the structure of the Earth or how the alleged flood happened.

A mans interpertation of any evidence is usually affected by his biases, which goes for the scientist also.

Now as far as what the Bible contains and what is compatable with science is still under discussion in this thread.

JonF writes:

you will have to accept existing observations.

I have no problem with existing observations.

I do have problems with scientific ideas and hypothesis that have been refuted by other scientist especially where there is no physical evidence of what is said to happen, when there are other explanations that are just as good.

JonF writes:

If you ignore them,

I don't ignore anything but I question everything.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by JonF, posted 01-02-2012 12:31 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by edge, posted 01-02-2012 7:25 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 219 of 300 (646068)
01-02-2012 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
01-02-2012 5:22 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Hi ICANT,

From what you say, my earlier summary of your model still seems correct, but I can add a few details now:

The Earth used to be much smaller. It was bombarded over long periods of time by asteroids and comets, and much water, vegetation and living creatures became deeply buried, providing the source for deeply buried oil and water and fossils. The water emerged during the flood, and perhaps was augmented by more comets. After the flood, some of the water became superheated steam that turned into hydrous minerals and disappeared into the mantle, and some of the water remained on the surface and depressed regions downward into the subterranean caverns previously occupied by the fountains of the deep.

Do I have this right?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 5:22 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by ICANT, posted 01-03-2012 4:16 PM Percy has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3904
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


(3)
Message 220 of 300 (646069)
01-02-2012 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by ICANT
01-02-2012 10:57 AM


Re: Miles of rock
So a picture created on a computer from seismic waves passing through the Earth which is interpeted by man is evidence.

Ummm, actually, yes. You are looking at raw data.

Do you have an explanation?

If so, why isn't evidence presented from the Bible equal evidence?

I didn't know that they had seismic tomography in those days.

Sounds fascinating. Do you have some data we could look at?

So you don't mind if I don't pay much attention to what some man thinks, do you?

I suppose then that you are not going to use the old same-data-different-interpretation argument on this thread...

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 10:57 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by ICANT, posted 01-03-2012 4:56 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3904
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


(3)
Message 221 of 300 (646070)
01-02-2012 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
01-02-2012 5:22 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Isn't it required by tectonicists that the volume of crust generated at ocean ridges be equal to the volume subducted?

There are 80,000 km of ridges that is supposed to be producing new crust.

Yet there are only 30,500 km of trenches in existence. Adding the 9,000 km of collision zones don't help much.


Can you document this. I'm not sure how this was calculated. You understand that they are completely different from a kinematic standpoint.

If subduction was taking place in the Lesser Antilles arc the Barbados Ridge would be under the Lesser Antilles, according to Meyerhoff.

Why is that? Please explain.

Accordint to evidence presented by Kiskyras in 1990 the African plate is not being subducted under the Aegean Sea.

Documentation, please. Sorry, but I do not take your post a face value.

Why was Scholl and Marlow preplexed that evidence of a huge amount of offscraping was not found in the deep Pacific trench if 13,000 kilometers of lithosphere was subducted.

In what year did they say this? I can think of a few reasons.

If the Pacific plate is diving under the North American plate why didn't the deep Cajon Pass drillhole find the stress buildup along the San Andreas Fault that was expected?

Well, for one, the Pacific Plate is not diving beneath the NA Plate where the San Andreas Fault exists. If you could give us some more info, I might be able to sleuth this out for you.

That should do for starters as to why I questioned the images presented by JonF.

Probably taken from where? I doubt you have this information tucked away inside your own brain.

Now to whether I present what I believe or what science says lets review a little.

I have presented that the Bible infers a single land mass in Genesis 1:10.


The bible does not infer. You do.

And it would be irrelevant anyway.

I have presented that scientific theory claims a single land mass.

Yes some millions of years ago.

I have presented that the Earth was smaller in the past than it is today.

You have asserted so. There is no evidence that it was smaller at any time in the past hundreds of million years.

I have presented that accreation theory states the Earth was smaller in the past than it is today. It also says it grew due to being bombarded by asteroids over a long period of time.

Yes, millions of years ago. Or billions...

Most seem to thing the water was provided to Earth by comets.

Irrelevant.

I have posit that much water along with much vegetation and life forms was covered during the accreation of the Earth

During such a bombardment?

Millions of years ago?

I have presented that there is much contintenal crust under the oceans. It is not only under the gulf but the Atlantic, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, (Arthur C. Tarr) Pacific submerged continental crust under the northwestern and southeastern, (Choi, Smoot, and Tuezov), and the eastern part of the Indian Ocean was dry land at one time (called by some scientists ‘Lemuria’).

Yes, these are continental shelves.

So there is lots of continental crust under water that was at one time above water or in shallow water. If this land mass sunk into the ocean after the flood started to receed due to the pressure of the water above it there was no need for the water to go anywhere.

Please rephrase. This is word salad.

So far I have a Earth with a single land mass that was smaller in the past than it is now.

Yes, insignificantly smaller and a very large land mass.

Millions of years ago.

And at multiple points in the history of the earth.

That smaller Earth grew due to the fact of being bombarded by asteroids, and comets. The asteroids introduced new material and the comets provided water. As this was taking place over millions of years there was much water and life forms that was trapped under the surface of the Earth.

Nonsense. Why would water stay under the surface? Even today we see clastic deposits dewatering, so why would that not happen with bombardment by water-bearing comets?

The life forms trapped provided our oil, natural gas and coal. The coal coming in the latter stages.

The life forms were trapped by sedimentary processes not cosmic bombardment. Please provide evidence to the contrary.

The water trapped under the surface was released to provide the water for the flood.

Not possible. Having the quantities of water you require stored for just the right moment is unrealistic.

The caverns after a period of time began to collapse due to the penetration of the water and the pressure of the weight of the water. This allowed for the water too receed from off the land and the ark to land on dry land.

Again this does not make sense. Why would water flow into a collapsed cavern? Where are these collapse caverns? There should be a robust geologic record of this event.

I know there are those who will disagree with me.

A few.

So present your argumentation that shows that what I have presented is an impossibility.

See above.

Maybe it would be good for you to think this through a little bit, maybe draw some diagrams.

In any case, it appears to everyone here that you are simply making stuff up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 5:22 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by ICANT, posted 01-03-2012 7:54 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3904
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


(3)
Message 222 of 300 (646071)
01-02-2012 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by ICANT
01-02-2012 5:45 PM


Re: Miles of rock
A mans interpertation of any evidence is usually affected by his biases, which goes for the scientist also.

All that has been done to this data is contouring by standard techniques.

There is a pattern.

Explain it.

Now as far as what the Bible contains and what is compatable with science is still under discussion in this thread.

As far as I know, the bible does not explain seismic velocity profiles.

I do have problems with scientific ideas and hypothesis that have been refuted by other scientist especially where there is no physical evidence of what is said to happen, when there are other explanations that are just as good.

Please provide a 'just as good' explanation of the seismci profiles JonF has posted.

I don't ignore anything but I question everything.

I'm glad to hear that you question the bible.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 5:45 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3802
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 223 of 300 (646074)
01-02-2012 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
01-02-2012 5:22 PM


Re: Miles of rock
I echo edge's call for references for your assertions about plate tectonics.

I have no problem with existing observations.

You appear to have a problem with the observations I posted. What is your explanation for this data?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 5:22 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by edge, posted 01-03-2012 12:18 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3802
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 224 of 300 (646076)
01-02-2012 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
01-02-2012 5:22 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Isn't it required by tectonicists that the volume of crust generated at ocean ridges be equal to the volume subducted?

There are 80,000 km of ridges that is supposed to be producing new crust.

Yet there are only 30,500 km of trenches in existence. Adding the 9,000 km of collision zones don't help much.

Oh, and you forgot to factor in the rates of motion and the raising of mountains. Probably a few other things, too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2012 5:22 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3904
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 225 of 300 (646094)
01-03-2012 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by JonF
01-02-2012 7:50 PM


Re: Miles of rock
I echo edge's call for references for your assertions about plate tectonics.

Just to clarify here, I am not necessarily saying that everything IC says is wrong (though that is the most likely case). It's just that there are different ways of measuring mid-ocean ridges and there are other complications like multiple subduction zones and indirect convergence.

And frankly, I don't think there are any YECs that have a clue how plate tectonics work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by JonF, posted 01-02-2012 7:50 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
20Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017