The Flood = many coincidences

Not all plates subduct at the same angle and subducting plate dynamics are very complicated.Near the subduction zones, newly subducted slab angles tend to be fairly high -- forming volcanoes closer to the subduction zone. But the deeper the plate goes, the warmer it gets, so it's likely the slab will become somewhat buoyant and the angle will become shallower -- forming volcanoes further away from the subduction zone.Crust type and composition strongly affects how a subducted slab will behave.Some geos even think you can subduct a spreading center! How about that?

I don't know how you keep going wrong, but once again, no one was telling you there are ocean basins older than around a couple hundred million years. No one was telling you there are ocean basins billions of years old.If you can't even properly interpret simple statements like these, then you can never hope to understand anything, as is apparent in this thread. I can't reply to much of the rest of what you wrote because you apparently wrote it under the misapprehension that I believe the ocean crust is older than a couple hundred million years, but I can address a couple things. While it is theoretically possible for oceanic crust produced in opposite directions at the same oceanic ridge to eventually collide, I don't think there is anywhere in the world today where this is happening, and the possibility isn't germane to the basic principles of plate tectonics. There's nothing wrong with this picture. Your passages of glib nonsense reveal that although you're able to use terms like plate tectonics and subduction and oceanic ridges, you don't understand the associated geologic processes.--Percy

1. Unless the earth was relatively smooth before the flood and the tectonic activity from the flood due to irregularities in the earth crust, (abe: volcanic activity) etc created the mountains.2. Unless there was enough vapor in a vapor canopy over the earth to supply enough water to cover the relatively small mountains which were on the relatively smooth surface of the pre-flood earth.There were likely pre flood mountains but obviously not nearly as high as they became post flood. The sea fossils in modern hight mountains attest to that.I believe the observed tectonic activity can be interpreted to support the above possibility as an alternative to the mainline science model. Edited by Buzsaw, : as noted

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Buz, you're doing "what ifs" like Peg.All of your suggestions are nonsense. Proposing "what ifs" may keep your belief in a global flood alive in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, but they are just another method of self-deception. Please don't try to pass them off as science.If you have evidence, present it, but why don't you knock off the "what ifs" presented with no evidence whatever.Your "what ifs" do not constitute evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Please note Message 49 and do not post in this thread again without actual evidence and tightly linked reasoning. I'll suspend for a time if you do.

Uncontested Science Fact #1: The mountains were at some period, formed by some means which requires that at some period the surface of planet earth was smoother than is observed today.Uncontested Science Fact #2: There was a time of significant flooding on the planet.Logical Conclusion: If the planet's surface was smoother/less mountainous, the volume of water observed in the deep oceans would be such that far more, if not all of the smoother planet would have been flooded unless a significantly greater volume of water was in the form of atmospheric vapor than is observed today.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

quote:

---

Uncontested Science Fact #1: The mountains were at some period, formed by some means which requires that at some period the surface of planet earth was smoother than is observed today.

---

Assuming that this is correct it refers to a VERY early period in the Earth's history, and it has no relevance to the Bilical Flood, which is supposedly a relatively recent event.

quote:

---

Uncontested Science Fact #2: There was a time of significant flooding on the planet.

---

What are you talking about here ? How significant ? When ?

quote:

---

Logical Conclusion: If the planet's surface was smoother/less mountainous, the volume of water observed in the deep oceans would be such that far more, if not all of the smoother planet would have been flooded unless a significantly greater volume of water was in the form of atmospheric vapor than is observed today.

---

Making that conclusion would require calculations which you have not done. However since the evidence is that the Earth was NOT significantly smoother at the alleged time of the Biblical Flood or any time when it might plausibly have occurred it hardly seems relevant.

One problem, by the time the earth cooled sufficiently to allow the atmospheric water to condense forming the oceans, there would have been orogeny going on. The plates would have neen moving, building mountains at the boundaries. when the water condensed forming the oceans, alternating heat & cold due to the desolving of greenhouse gases such as CO₂ causing icing alternating with global warming, changing the level of the oceans causing floods in lowlying areas. This would have continued right to the present. Mountain building, erosion, cooling, warming etc. There have been many times that large areas of the earth were flooded. The point is, was there a global flood within the last 10000 years. Given that plate tectonics is an ongoing affair, it would be unlikely that at any time within the last 10000 years was the level of the mountains was low enough for the amount of water on the earths surface to cover the entire earth. No evidence has been found to show that this has occurred.
Edited by bluescat48, : subscript

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Nonsense. There is no reason to think that at any time the earth was smooth enough to allow uniform worldwide flooding. This is just another "what if" and it means nothing. Various parts of the planet have been underwater at various times. Big deal.To support a global flood such as claimed in the bible you have to have a global flood about 4,350 years ago -- that's the consensus of biblical scholars. The Egyptians who noted the flooding of the Nile with great precision did not mention such a flood. Archaeologists who deal with that time period all the time have not found such a flood. Rather, we have found continuity of everything -- human cultures, fauna and flora, mtDNA, as well as tree rings and all the other annular evidence. The proponents of a global flood have found squat. All they have are "what ifs." Not.You can't derive a logical conclusion from false statements. Well, using logic I guess you can, but its junk.Face it, the global flood is a religious belief that has been soundly falsified by science.Now you can believe what you want, but when you try to distort science to conform to your beliefs you are trying to build a lie. That doesn't do anyone any good.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

As has been pointed out to you:
You are not supporting your statements. Your "facts" are no such thing. Simply asserting things doesn't make them a fact.You have had a lot of time to learn this Buz. Since you learn slowly you can have more time. But do NOT continue as you are here.Support what you say. Give evidence for what you claim are facts.

Hi Buz,I have resisted replying to your previous message due to Adminosy's cautionary note upthread. I have no desire to goad you into getting a suspension.What I will say is this; it seems to be central to your argument that Earth's oceans pre-date its mountains. That would be a good place to start providing evidence.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

You can reply. You might help Buz by seeing if you can get him to understand what evidence might look like. I'm going to give him a few trys to get it right but only so many.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

Thanks, Granny, for weighing in here.No, that is not my position. My position is that the first oceans were less in volume and not as deep. Before the flood there was likely more like 70% of the earth surface continent and 30% ocean. The total surface was smoother having mountains and valleys, but lower mountains. Where was all of the water? It was both sub terrain and in a greenhouse canopy consisting of the atmosphere, etc above the earth.(AdminNosy and others: I've said the above to clarify my position and not to add further to my arguments for that position.)Before I proceed I need to put forward questions regarding the age of the oceans which arose in my reading on this topic at a .
USGS site by Annenberg/CPB Resources.Can someone here address these questions raised by Annenberg Resources? I see there has been some discussion about the age of the oceans up thread but nothing said about previous to 200 million years ago, unless I missed that.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Buz, you have been here long enough to know that this has been shown to be utter nonsense. The atmosphere can not hold more than a tiny amount of the needed water without cooking everything. DO NOT bring up junk that has already been thoroughly dealt with. You must bring the particular questions here in your own words. Please do that.

Buz! The age of the ocean floors question has already been answered. More than once.DO NOT waste people's time if you aren't going to read! Patience is wearing thin.