|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6273 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where did the flood waters come from and where did they go? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
jar writes: For a universal flood scenario they must explain how areas became flooded without an equal amount of land being exposed. I think they've provided an explanation for this. They believe that tectonic forces, particularly around oceanic ridges, caused the sea floors to rise up, causing much of the sea to become far shallower than before, and forcing the water up onto the land. Tectonic forces could also have caused subsidence of continental land, but I don't believe they've mentioned this possibility. TC *has* said that mountains formed during the flood period, so I assume he believes that there were no high mountain ranges pre-flood. Of course, there's no evidence for any of this. No evidence of a global flood, no evidence of recent rising up of the sea flood, no evidence of repeated recent inundations, no evidence of recent formation of mountain ranges, no evidence of accelerated decay, no evidence of accelerated magnetic reversals, no evidence of recent motion of the continents. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:I've been suspended from the forum twice now--I am trying not to get suspended again by contributing off-topic thoughts to the discussion or something related. Of course im not going to use that as some kind of all encompassing 'excuse'. I have addressed several of the issues in this thread and some of them have not received further consideration. Post 64 for instance briefly touches on why baumgardner's parameters are not outrageous--which is a criticism which has been made in this thread and in many others for as long as I can remember. I don't know what energy problem you are refering to. Someone made a criticism about some 'friction' component and 'acceleration and deceleration' of plate movement somehow being a problem. I asked for elaboration but did not receive it and so I don't know how to respond. I have addressed the 'heat problem' in several different contexts ([1]radiogenic heat, [2]the release of gravitational potential energy in the form of heat, and [3]heat from the cooling oceanic lithosphere). I believe I have explained that radiogenic heat continues to be a damning problem for young earth geology which I have nothing more than some wild speculations to offer. The heat produced as a direct result of the runaway process (gravitational potential energy) has been covered and I don't know why people continue to use it against CPT. The third source of heat being the oceanic lithosphere itself has been discussed to some extent--the hypothesis that have been offered I find fairly good, albeit merely theoretical.
quote:I have no conclusive thoughts about the 40 days of rain. It may have been merely that in the initial phase of CPT, rain was more intense than subsequent rain. I can't really pinpoint why, and don't really care that much as I don't consider it a source of water to have contributed to sealevel. -Chris Grose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2918 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
TC,
Discussion of CPT will be on topic so you can now provide us with your "extraordinary proof." And make no mistake - the burden of proof is on you, not me or anyone else. You cannot make a claim that is outside mainstream science and then say that anyone questioning you is the one making the claim with their question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
They believe that tectonic forces, particularly around oceanic ridges, caused the sea floors to rise up, causing much of the sea to become far shallower than before, and forcing the water up onto the land. Okay, but I'm still confused. Not an unusual state for an old mind. This rise around oceanic ridges still puzzles me. If the land at the mid oceanic ridge suddenly rises, is it necessary to create additional material to become the higher ridge? If I have a sheet of paper and want to change it from a flat plane to a peaked plane, I find that the outer edges have moved closer together. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
There's a thread proposal on CPT, stay tuned.
TrueCreation writes: I have no conclusive thoughts about the 40 days of rain. It may have been merely that in the initial phase of CPT, rain was more intense than subsequent rain. I can't really pinpoint why, and don't really care that much as I don't consider it a source of water to have contributed to sealevel. But this does bring your scenario into the thread's topic. While revelatory evidence like the Bible isn't permitted in the science forums, we can at least acknowledge that it is the Bible that is the source of the idea that the flood was caused by rain and by waters from the deep. So even though you believe the contribution of rain to the flood wasn't significant, it still seems to have a degree of relevance to this thread. Is there any scientific evidence that leads you to believe there was rain during CPT? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
jar writes: This rise around oceanic ridges still puzzles me. If the land at the mid oceanic ridge suddenly rises, is it necessary to create additional material to become the higher ridge? Why don't we hold off discussing this aspect until the CPT thread proposal is approved. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:--I don't think that genesis says that the 'flood' was caused by rain or anything else really--it never really makes any assertion about what is actually responsible for the event. It only points out observations such as "fountains of the deep" and rain. quote:I am sure you are aware of the copious instances of rain drop impressions in sediments throughout the geologic record. -Chris Grose This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-01-2005 03:25 AM "...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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:Would you like to reitterate your question in the new CPT thread? I would be happy to explain these processes to you further. -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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
TrueCreation writes: --I don't think that genesis says that the 'flood' was caused by rain or anything else really--it never really makes any assertion about what is actually responsible for the event. It only points out observations such as "fountains of the deep" and rain. I didn't say that the Bible assigned rain and fountains from the deep as the cause of the flood. I said it was the source of the idea. This brings to mind a point not mentioned thus far, primarily because it's off-topic, but it's at least worth noting because it contains a heavy dose of irony. The idea that the earth is young and that there was rain during the flood stems from a literal reading of the Bible, but while you CPT guys have used the Bible story as a launching point, you've gone so far outside what's in the Bible that true literalists wouldn't recognize it anymore. You've now turned one of the most prominent features of the Biblical flood, namely the 40 days and 40 nights of rain, into a mere incidental feature. For you guys, what the Bible actually talks about had little to no effect, while continents steaming through the water like ocean liners and mountain ranges rising up and all the earthquakes and tidal waves that would have occurred, not to mention boiling off the oceans, melting the earth's surface and turning Noah to a cinder, these all go unmentioned in the Bible.
I am sure you are aware of the copious instances of rain drop impressions in sediments throughout the geologic record. So, what are you saying? That there was rain during CPT just like there is rain during any other time? That there was nothing unusual about the rain? If there was nothing unusual about it, why even mention it? The source of your idea for the rain seems to think it was pretty unusual, 40 days and 40 nights worth of rain. Is this yet another deviation from the source of your inspiration? Like I said, it will be very ironic if you CPT guys eventually come up with a viable theory only to have it rejected by the Biblical literalists. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I am sure you are aware of the copious instances of rain drop impressions in sediments throughout the geologic record. I'm sure that most of us are aware. The problem is: how do you get "copious" raindrop impressions during a global flood? Once again, it is getting difficult to see where you stand. Do you believe there was a global (biblical literalist) flood, or not? If not, why adhere to CPT?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024