Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 91 (8839 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2018 12:48 AM
245 online now:
edge, GDR, kbertsche, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (6 members, 239 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Calvin
Post Volume:
Total: 832,640 Year: 7,463/29,783 Month: 1,687/1,708 Week: 90/488 Day: 1/89 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Author Topic:   Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?
Phat
Member
Posts: 10775
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 301 of 305 (832885)
05-13-2018 2:13 PM


Addressing The Issue Of Where The Great Flood Got Its Water
Good question. I enjoy reading what other members think, even if most of them are no longer active here. Since these threads are no longer limited to 300 posts, I brought this one out of summation.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3638
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 302 of 305 (832904)
05-13-2018 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Dr Adequate
05-28-2012 12:58 AM


ex nihilo / de-ex nihilo
Dr. A writes:

Right, but in that case why make reference to real things at all? The water appeared out of nowhere because God wanted it to, and then poofed away into nothing because God told it to. What's wrong with saying that? But if instead creationists want to produce a naturalistic explanation for their flood, then they are obliged to give us a bit more detail.

An "ex nihilo" water creation and "de-ex nihilo" disposal seems to be the only remotely rational answer to me.

And the Biblical narrative seems to indicate the flood didn't have much effect on anything other than land based animal life. What about the poor submerged plants? Apparently they were still in place and doing fine when the flood receded.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2012 12:58 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2018 7:03 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 304 by ringo, posted 05-19-2018 12:43 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10620
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 303 of 305 (833148)
05-17-2018 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Minnemooseus
05-13-2018 11:39 PM


Re: ex nihilo / de-ex nihilo
An "ex nihilo" water creation and "de-ex nihilo" disposal seems to be the only remotely rational answer to me.

Creation scientists don't seem to what want these kinds of explanations. It is okay if the Red Sea to parts and then swallows up Pharoah's army, but the Flood has to be something else entirely.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-13-2018 11:39 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14595
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 304 of 305 (833313)
05-19-2018 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Minnemooseus
05-13-2018 11:39 PM


Re: ex nihilo / de-ex nihilo
Moose writes:

"de-ex nihilo"


Ad nihilo?

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-13-2018 11:39 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10775
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 305 of 305 (833317)
05-19-2018 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ICANT
12-03-2011 12:56 PM


Topic Synopsis
Trixie,Topic Originator writes:

Arguments have been made that the flood was not catastrophic or violent, that water flows uphill, that the opening of the fountains of the deep doesn't mean water reaching high in the atmosphere, that water wasn't in the mantle pre-flood, but got there afterwards when the "single land mass" divided in the days of Peleg.

So many different arguments have been made, some inconsistent with others, that it's difficult to visualize the floodist's model and the various statements are scattered over numerous posts and threads.

In the distant past we've discussed this topic, touching on Walt Brown's hydroplate theory and vapour canopies etc, but it would be worthwhile to discuss this subject (...)many claims are made regarding the source of the flood water. A rough calculation puts the amount of water required to flood the entire earth at 2046 million cubic km. To help get an idea of what that means, the Earth's crust is estimated to be 1332 million cubic km (I googled that). The temperature of the mantle ranges from 1400C to 3000C with densities ranging from 3.4 - 4.3 g/cm2.

What effect would 2000 million cubic km of superheated pressurised water have on the atmosphere, crust and life if it was released to the surface over a period of 40 days? What sort of atmospheric temperatures are we talking about here?

When water becomes steam it increases in volume by 1600 times, giving us a total of 3.2 trillion cubic km. In contrast, the earth's atmosphere is estimated to be 51,000 million cubic km so the volume of steam is 62.7 times the volume of the earth's atmosphere. .

Dr.Walt Browns Hydroplate Theory

pandion,inactive member writes:

Isn't it interesting that the entire video is nothing more than assertion from faith in a book of mythology without a single bit of actual evidence?
Creationist arguments in the creation/evolution debates all seem to fall into two categories:

1) The mythology of bronze age, nomadic herdsmen is scientific in nature. That is the argument offered in the video. But it is presented without any evidence. The arguments show a gross lack of understanding of what science is and how it works. In science, an assertion must be supported by evidence as the basis of an hypothesis which supports a prediction that can be tested. Creationism is assertion based on mythology that is untestable and therefore, not scientific.

2) Evolution is a religion. But, of course, not even christian evolutionary biologists attend evolutionary worship services. In fact, in science, the point is to challenge everything and to accept nothing on faith. But any challenge must be based on evidence supported by hypothesis, prediction, and testing. Empty assertion just doesn't do the job.

Rrhain writes:

The problem, of course, is that it doesn't matter how flat the earth is. You cannot flood the earth using the water that already exists. If there is dry land anywhere, then that means you have to have additional water come from somewhere else. The entire reason that there is dry land is precisely that there isn't enough water to cover it up.

The amazing thing about sea level is that it is the lowest you can go and still be on the "surface". Water necessarily rushes downhill to the lowest level it can get: Sea level. Thus, dry land is necessarily above and beyond what the water can cover.

The reason we can have a local flood with the water we have is that we take it away from somewhere else: To flood point A with water, you have to take it away from point B. Therefore, it is physically impossible to flood the earth with the water we already have.(...)Trying to get the flood to happen with the water we currently have on the planet in the way it is described in the book is mathematically and physically impossible.

Modulous writes:

Where did that water go? There are two possible answers. The first is the simple reading: The water dried up. The people that wrote this story probably did not realize that when water dries up, it goes somewhere.

A second answer, which does not assume its a plot hole resulting from scientific ignorance, would be that the water presumably returned to the deep. It evaporated back up through the firmament. Presumably, the stoppers Yahweh used were semi-permeable membranes or something. Or maybe it drained into the large cavernous underworld?


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ICANT, posted 12-03-2011 12:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018