quote: ... but there is another environment that provides the chemical nutrients to sustain a non-photosynthesis-based form of life. These are the cold seeps and related environments, where oil and methane gas are bubbling up from undersea sediment layers.
And there are also springs, but the problem you have with all of these sources of water is basic hydrodynamics. The same kind of thing can be seen in spring fed lakes. In no case is the source of the water higher than all the land, and it is therefor just not capable of covering it. Water does not flow uphill. Nor does water carry things uphill.
The water level rose above the mountain tops. The fountains of the deep - their purpose, was to provide a source of water so that the level could attain these heights since, like I said, 40 days and nights of rain could not have accomplished these heights without some other source of water, and I said nothing about temperature of said water from said source.
Yes, the water came from under the ocean floor, and the evidence we have of thermal vents shows that this does involve heating of the water for the water to rise within the existing water column.
The fact remains that you claimed this somehow deposits clam shells on tops of mountains. Filling a earth from the bottom of the ocean does not throw material onto peaks of mountains. You need force to do that, geothermal force means that the water would be superheated, but that still does not mean that you can get the water to rise higher than the land.
Apparently, you have chosen to adopt a debating tactic that automatically misquotes or misrepresents your opponent. Having endured this approach from you in the Mayr debate, logical persons must conclude that your distortions are caused by the inability to refute.
Ah, yes, the debate where you accused me of quote-mining while I actually demonstrated that you were quote-mining (Message 188). The one where I consistently substantiated my position with quotes from several parts of the book and you could only us a conflation of two different paragraphs from one section in the book? The one where I actually showed what Mayr meant (Message 192)?
The one where you stopped replying because you had no case ...
How did "plate tectonics" place seashells on mountain tops?
It moved the whole sedimentary layer from the ocean floor into hills of increasing height as one plate rides up and over another. The same way mountains continue to rise today, and which is actually measured.
It does not move just the shells ray, but the earth the shells are buried in and the layers above and below it, the whole continental plate.
The Flood is a better explanation, ...
Except that it doesn't explain (1) how the seashells get to the tops of the mountains and (2) why the seashells are found in a sedimentary layer with the evidence of a mature marine environment with organisms, some of which (clams) lived for 20 to 30 years ... unless the flood lasted a lot longer than advertised.
... but since evolution ***must*** deny the Flood your reply is of no consequence.
Actually the theory of evolution says nothing about whether there was a flood or not. It is the evidence that does not show there was a flood.
Look at the geologic strata of the world, causes: catastrophes of flooding. All layers represent a flood of some sort. This is why God gave the sign of the rainbow to signify that the Flood was the last flood.
False. There are multiple layers that show evidence of being a marine environment, fully developed mature marine environments that lasted for many years. These layers do not show catastrophic events as delicate structures are preserved. These are mixed with layers that show other effects totally unrelated to floods.
So ray, how do you explain the evidence of 20 year old clams on tops of mountains?
quote:Unless, of course, there was a Biblical flood to do the major uplifting relative suddenly, subsequently gradually slowing as time passes. There again though that's applying reason and logic to what we observe and that's not recognized by conventional science.
How does a flood put everest where it is now?
I notice that none of the creationists were are addressing the heat issue.
From what I have seen in this thread, it seems to me that those who feel that the flood covered the entire earth seem to to think that the inhabitants who wrote the biblical accounts knew as much about the earth as humans do today. What did the inhabitants of the Mesopotamian area (ie. Babylonia) think the earth was. To them the earth was a small island which the sun, stars and planets revolved each night. They had no concept of the size of the earth or that it was not fixed in the center of the universe. The idea of a flood covering the entire earth was plausible to them. For in such a flood all that could be seen was water in every direction. It would then be plausible for them to believe that the mountains were also covered. If one believes this and as the story is handed down through the generations amd fossils were found on top of mountains then it would be logical for people who belief the story as fact would believe that these were remains of creatures left by the flood. But since the advent of scientific method which counters this idea it should also a;ter the story and here is where logic must enter. Which is correct, the 4000 or so year old story or the much more recently discovered evidence based on the laws of physics?
Ask to see it. Since there is no corroborative evidence for the bits of the Bible I'm disputing, this conversation is usually quite short.
To go into the corroborative supportive stuff like fulfilled prophecy, archeological Exodus evidence, verifiable history etc to the Biblical record would be to lead off topic. Much of it has been discussed with no positive refutation whether or not you care to acknowledge it.
quote:1. I believe Mt Everest was formed by a collision of two plates, imo caused by flood induced tectonic activity.
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How can a flood move tectonic plates or cause tectonic activity?
quote:2. Some volcanoe peaks were heat induced. If you are referring to the canopy theory that would be a different topic.
Plates move around 1 inch a year. Increasing that rate increases the heat. To make Everest from sea level in 6,000 years requires plates moving at 5 or so feet a year. Where did all of this additional heat go and how did plates change suddenly from 5 feet a year to 1 inch?
1. I believe Mt Everest was formed by a collision of two plates, imo caused by flood induced tectonic activity.
The common theme I see from this discussion here is that the YECers are forced into the improbable and unsupported just-so-story explanation that the mountains were formed *during* the flood in order to explain seashells on the top of Everest, Kaibab Plateau and Rocky mountains.
The obvious and first difficulty with this dizzy tale is that these lofty formations are lithified rock ! In addition the foundations of these mountains would have to lithified rock in order to support the immense weight of the mountains above.
Lithification is the the process of converting soft unconsolidated sediments into hard rock which involves dewatering, void reduction (via pressure from overburden burial), chemical cementation, etc.
So the question is...
Just when during the flood year did these processes occur and these supposed flood sediments become lithified?
How do these sediments become dewatered during a flood?
How deeply was the top of Everest buried prior to uplift in order to experience the pressure required for quick lithification?
Using logic and reasoning all I can offer as a layman is that a greenhouse canopy type atmosphere would have had different properties than ours which would likely affect the whole ecosystem of the planet which in turn would likely render modern dating methodoly inaccurate. This would likely be the reason that humans lived multiple century lives as per the Biblical record.
I love this argument. Simply because it is so easily refuted. Water (and water vapor) tends to absorb useful light (red, yellow spectra). But water tends to be invisible to short wave radiation, like UV. This is why tourists get bad sunburns on cloudy days. So a planet with a water vapor canopy could not grow plants, and any organisms on the planet would have to adapt to daily doses of lethal UV exposure. But funnily enough, none of these would have an effect on radioactive decay, as these are constant under any planetary conditions and only become important at temperatures such as the heart of the sun.
"I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder
1. I believe Mt Everest was formed by a collision of two plates, imo caused by flood induced tectonic activity.
Then where is the model that shows how a food will induce tectonic acivity that will move a continental plate. Until you present the model that explains it, you are simply tossing manure.
Plates move around 1 inch a year. Increasing that rate increases the heat. To make Everest from sea level in 6,000 years requires plates moving at 5 or so feet a year. Where did all of this additional heat go and how did plates change suddenly from 5 feet a year to 1 inch?
What effect would trillions of tons of additional water have upon the surface of a planet having relatively smoother surface than is observed today with depression areas of thin earth crust and areas of thick earth crust? Imo, it would cause immense tectonic activity, moving large and small plates so as to create such mountains as Everest. Why do you think not?
Edited by Buzsaw, : rephrase for clarity
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
What effect would trillions of tons of additional water have upon the surface of a planet
Lets say that the flood was to the height of Everest (8.8 km).
Why do you believe that the weight of the water would be of any significance compared to the weight of the crust itself?
quote:Plate thickness also varies greatly, ranging from less than 15 km for young oceanic lithosphere to about 200 km or more for ancient continental lithosphere (for example, the interior parts of North and South America)
I just don't see why you come to the conclusion that the weight has anything to do with it. I am perfectly willing to accept that I am wrong, just from my view it would do next to nothing. From simple logic (and no geology education) I would be tempted to think that extra weight would only tend to slow the movement down.
What effect would trillions of tons of additional water have upon the surface of a planet having relatively smoother surface than is observed today with depression areas of thin earth crust and areas of thick earth crust? Imo, it would cause immense tectonic activity, moving large and small plates so as to create such mountains as Everest.
Just tossing out a WAG means nothing Buz.
First you need to show the model for what you are asserting.
Where is the evidence for those trillions of tons of water?
If the surface was relatively smoother, would the average thickness of the crust be greater or lessor than it is today? (Hint, take that part of the crust that today is above sea level and place in that part of the surface that is below sea level today.)
Please explain not only why tectonic activity would be the result but also the model that would explain the plate movements.
Why does trillions of tons of water today not do even more on the even thinner crust that resulted from your flight of fancy?
Re: When did Lithification Occur during Flood Year?
Iceage writes:
Lithification is the the process of converting soft unconsolidated sediments into hard rock which involves dewatering, void reduction (via pressure from overburden burial), chemical cementation, etc.
1. Until some qualified flood geologists come on board for you science educated folks to debate, about all I can offer is my own opinions based on logic and reason, applying some aspects of science research to my points of logic and reason, so I'm giving you my best shots from what I have to work with so far as I'm learning as I go.
2. You must take into account that the Buzsaw hypothesis of Genesis is not your odinary average Bible-creo version. As I've stated several times in other threads, I am not YEC. I do not take the genesis 1 opening introductory statement as being part of day one, nor do I accept the 24 hour concept of days one through four.
In days one and two we read that light was introduced and that enough water was evaporated from the earth to create the atmosphere/heavens. Imo this light came from the Holy Spirit of God moving upon the waters (as the text says) who was capable of producing the very intense amount of heat that it would take to do all of that evaporating in a relative short but undetermined period of time. Perhaps this is when some of the lithificated rock was formed. This of course would also be a dewatering/dehydration event regarding your argument for that requirement. It's just some reaoning from the top of my head.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
Jar, as I thought I made clear, you're not debating a scientist or geologist. You're debating logic and reason. If you demand more, I'm afraid you're not going to get what you want, as we have no resident Biblical geologists on board so far as I am aware.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
Jar, as I thought I made clear, you're not debating a scientist or geologist. You're debating logic and reason. If you demand more, I'm afraid you're not going to get what you want, as we have no resident Biblical geologists on board so far as I am aware.
Sorry, buz, but you are the one making the assertions and are being asked to back them up.
Please explain how if the surface of the earth were more uniform than it is today, the average thickness of the crust would be thinner than it is now? If that part that is today mountains and above sea level were actually below sea level, would the average crust be thicker or thinner?
If 5+ miles of water today does not push the continental plates around how did it once do so and within the period necessary for the Great Wetting that Never Happened, AKA "The Flood"?
AbE: 'nudder hint.
What happens when you shovel the dirt from a pile into a hole?
™ Version 4.2